why did god let adam and eve get decieved by the serpent

[SnakeLord]

(m) By death he means the separation of man from God, who is our life and chief happiness: and also that our disobedience is the cause of it.

According to who? What is there to suggest this is the case, or is it mere assumption that in this instance death means anything other than physical death? The very aspect of the tree of life being there, and gods refusal for man to take from it and 'live forever' shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the death he speaks of is actually physical death.

A positive command like this was not only the simplest and easiest, but the only trial to which their fidelity could be exposed.

A trial is irrelevant to an omniscient being. He wouldn't have to test anything - because he'd already know the outcome.

The Matthew Henry commentary is quite simply daft but I wont bore you by going through a step by step analysis of it, unless you specifically ask. However for now I will point out the very last words:

but soon became as the beasts that perish.

I fail to see why he attempts to liken man to the "beasts". If you look at the differences between the animal kingdom and the world of man you'll notice a few things. From what we can gather, animals do not understand their own mortality nor do animals have an understanding of good and evil. The thing is, before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - neither would Adam, and if he would have spent eternity as an immortal, he wouldn't have known about death either. This would make him as close to the animals as any human could possibly get. It was only after the serpent helped him out that he became separated from the animals, (or to use typically degrading sentiment: beasts).

Without eating from the tree of life - which you could say is a show that he had no knowledge that it was a "good" thing to do, he would have died just like the "beasts" anyway.

The very reason Matthew, you or anyone else can even debate the issue is with thanks to the serpent. Without the serpents guidance, you'd be picking fleas out of your parents bum and eating twigs.

Katazia:

Yeah, it all comes down to translation, and very often I find disagreement due to differing texts. I had some guy tell me that the bible is the complete and exact word of god, to which I replied: "which version?"

They very often argue that although there are "minor" text differences, that it all ends up saying the same thing anyway. I find that very misleading and inaccurate. We can see the difference one extra word makes.

 

[§outh§tar]

SouthStar,

And Adam understood this perfectly, right? And where in Genesis is this explained exactly?

And hyped-up imaginative alternative descriptions of what death means apart from not living seem excessively contrived and an obvious attempt to rationalize another bible blunder.

Kat

I see no reason why not.

Adam was created a man, not a boy. Secondly, if you wish to imply that he did not "understand", then you must now realize that he asked God for clarification.

And if he did not ask God, you obviously can't blame God for his blunder.

Either way.

 

[§outh§tar]

According to who? What is there to suggest this is the case, or is it mere assumption that in this instance death means anything other than physical death? The very aspect of the tree of life being there, and gods refusal for man to take from it and 'live forever' shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the death he speaks of is actually physical death.

See my above post.

A trial is irrelevant to an omniscient being. He wouldn't have to test anything - because he'd already know the outcome.

You are ignoring the key word "exposed". Obviously not exposed to God, but to man.

The Matthew Henry commentary is quite simply daft but I wont bore you by going through a step by step analysis of it, unless you specifically ask. However for now I will point out the very last words:



I fail to see why he attempts to liken man to the "beasts". If you look at the differences between the animal kingdom and the world of man you'll notice a few things. From what we can gather, animals do not understand their own mortality nor do animals have an understanding of good and evil. The thing is, before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - neither would Adam, and if he would have spent eternity as an immortal, he wouldn't have known about death either. This would make him as close to the animals as any human could possibly get. It was only after the serpent helped him out, that he became separated from the animals, (or to use typically degrading sentiment: beasts).

Again, it seems you are taking it out of context. He specifically says " understood not his own interest". By your very own description, this is the "fate" of animals.

Without eating from the tree of life - which you could say is a show that he had no knowledge that it was a "good" thing to do, he would have died just like the "beasts" anyway.

The very reason Matthew, you or anyone else can even debate the issue is with thanks to the serpent. Without the serpents guidance, you'd be picking fleas out of your parents bum and eating twigs.

You and I don't know that and it can never be determined.

The Garden of Eden may have turned out to be like 'The Lord of the Flies' for all we know... oh yeah, that is what it turned out to be..

 

[SnakeLord]

Adam was created a man, not a boy.

All with the mentality of an animal who doesn't realise it's naked, and has absolutely no idea of what good and evil mean. Further to which, my daughter is only 4 and yet she's well aware of what being naked is, whereas Adam didn't. Your "man, not a boy" speech is null and void.

Secondly, if you wish to imply that he did not "understand", then you must now realize that he asked God for clarification.

Where does he ask for clarification?

And if he did not ask God, you obviously can't blame God for his blunder.

No? So you're saying a guy with all the mental capacity of a constipated hedgehog should somehow be to blame for being told not to do bad things when he has no idea what bad means? And although it would have been good of him to ask god, he unfortunately had no idea of what good meant either.

 

[Roman]

Man's progress is measured not in how many people are happy or being fed, but how many people he can kill.

And supposedly eating of the forbidden tree let's us know what is and isn't good.

 

[§outh§tar]

All with the mentality of an animal who doesn't realise it's naked, and has absolutely no idea of what good and evil mean. Further to which, my daughter is only 4 and yet she's well aware of what being naked is, whereas Adam didn't. Your "man, not a boy" speech is null and void.

Your daughter did not suddenly "sprout" the idea of what being naked is one day. Your analogy remains crass. Whatever your point may be, it is "null and void".

Where does he ask for clarification?

The statements were to be taken in conjuction. Please read them again.

No? So you're saying a guy with all the mental capacity of a constipated hedgehog should somehow be to blame for being told not to do bad things when he has no idea what bad means? And although it would have been good of him to ask god, he unfortunately had no idea of what good meant either.

That has absolutely NO bearing on whether or not he should have God for clarification if he did not understand. Your point is baseless.

Genesis 2
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

This is what you call a man with the "mental capacity of a constipated hedgehog"? That is a very stupid thing to say.

 

[SnakeLord]

You are ignoring the key word "exposed". Obviously not exposed to God, but to man.

So are you saying god wanted them to eat the fruit? Without that being the case, he wouldn't be able to expose anything to them.

Again, it seems you are taking it out of context. He specifically says " understood not his own interest". By your very own description, this is the "fate" of animals.

Ummm lol yeah, but he would have only "understood not his own interest", before eating the fruit. After doing so he'd have knowledge of the whole thing, and thus now understand his fate - which ummmm separates him from the animals.

You and I don't know that and it can never be determined.

What you chatting about? I'll use a term you'll only normally see coming from your side of the fence: The bible says so, so it must be true.

Look at the literary evidence:

He didn't know he was naked
He had no knowledge of good and evil
He was too stupid to eat from the tree of life first etc etc

Ok, I will admit he named all the animals - but frankly I find some of them seriously daft.. like: kangaroo, hippopotamus, diplodocus, tyrannosaurus rex. I mean seriously :bugeye:

The Garden of Eden may have turned out to be like 'The Lord of the Flies' for all we know... oh yeah, that is what it turned out to be.

From a historical standpoint, most would state it turned out worse. Scholars agree that the would-be location of the g-of-e would have been in Basra, Iraq.

 

[whitewolf]

I once fetched out a devout orthodox christian for a conversation about the original sin and what followed. He said, the sin was that they disobeyed god. He also said, god allowed this to happen in order to teach a lesson.
As I see it, Adam and Eve did have the free will, so they made the choice. God only provided the circumstances.
We all are promised eternal life in heaven, so Adam and Eve are somewhere there, floating. But, heaven is not in the garden of Eden.

 

[SnakeLord]

Your daughter did not suddenly "sprout" the idea of what being naked is one day.

You asked her? Either way it is completely irrelevant to the point, which according to you, you didn't get anyway [ "Whatever your point may be" ]. It's strange that you'd then go on to say the point is crass/null and void when by your own admission, you didn't even understand it.

You said "he was born a man", but my counter argument is that whether he was born with the need to shave or poop his nappy is irrelevant when concerned with any level of intelligence he would or would not have had, and it is quite clear his level of intelligence was that of a newborn monkey.

The statements were to be taken in conjuction. Please read them again.

I did read them - perhaps instead you should just refine how you write things. You said: "... you must now realise that he asked god.." which is a statement of an action taken. Next time just write: "He should have asked god", and you'll save all the confusion.

That has absolutely NO bearing on whether or not he should have God for clarification if he did not understand. Your point is baseless.

How so? I'd prefer an explanation to words in capitals.

Genesis 2
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

This is what you call a man with the "mental capacity of a constipated hedgehog"? That is a very stupid thing to say.

How so? My daughter names things all the time, and all children will develop names for things. My daughter has a specific name for her teddy bear that she made up without any help whatsoever. I will agree that it's a daft name, but so is pterodactyl.

Actually, I'm still laughing that you think there was one dude back at the beginning of time who named all the animals... Ehehe.

 

[§outh§tar]

So are you saying god wanted them to eat the fruit? Without that being the case, he wouldn't be able to expose anything to them.

That is a difficult question to answer. Let me say, God willed them to eat the fruit.

Ummm lol yeah, but he would have only "understood not his own interest", before eating the fruit. After doing so he'd have knowledge of the whole thing, and thus now understand his fate - which ummmm separates him from the animals.

Well if he continued to "understood not his own interest", he would have died not knowing how to till the earth, fend for his family etc. and it would be up to his first son(s) to propagate the earth.. with their 700 year old mother..

What you chatting about? I'll use a term you'll only normally see coming from your side of the fence: The bible says so, so it must be true.

Look at the literary evidence:

He didn't know he was naked
He had no knowledge of good and evil
He was too stupid to eat from the tree of life first etc etc

Was he too stupid to invent sex?

Ok, I will admit he named all the animals - but frankly I find some of them seriously daft.. like: kangaroo, hippopotamus, diplodocus, tyrannosaurus rex. I mean seriously :bugeye:

Bible "scholars" claim he did all the naming the SAME day he was created... They even say he was expelled from Eden the same day he was created. I guess he created sex on the same day too, gee, what a guy huh?

From a historical standpoint, most would state it turned out worse. Scholars agree that the would-be location of the g-of-e would have been in Basra, Iraq.

Wonder what happened to the tree and the flaming sword and angel that were supposed to protect it then..

 

[§outh§tar]

You asked her? Either way it is completely irrelevant to the point, which according to you, you didn't get anyway [ "Whatever your point may be" ]. It's strange that you'd then go on to say the point is crass/null and void when by your own admission, you didn't even understand it.

You said "he was born a man", but my counter argument is that whether he was born with the need to shave or poop his nappy is irrelevant when concerned with any level of intelligence he would or would not have had, and it is quite clear his level of intelligence was that of a newborn monkey.

We'll see below.

I did read them - perhaps instead you should just refine how you write things. You said: "... you must now realise that he asked god.." which is a statement of an action taken. Next time just write: "He should have asked god", and you'll save all the confusion.

Next time I will try to cater more to your literary needs..

How so? I'd prefer an explanation to words in capitals.

And although it would have been good of him to ask god, he unfortunately had no idea of what good meant either.

This is what you said. What does it have to do with whether or not he should have asked God?

How so? My daughter names things all the time, and all children will develop names for things. My daughter has a specific name for her teddy bear that she made up without any help whatsoever. I will agree that it's a daft name, but so is pterodactyl.

That is why we have Pokemon these days.. ever heard of wallaby?

Actually, I'm still laughing that you think there was one dude back at the beginning of time who named all the animals... Ehehe.

That's in the above post.

 

[Neildo]

Where did you study Hebrew? "Yahweh" is spelled exactly as it looks, without the vowels: YHWH.

Change the vowels and it becomes "Yehowah," which was transliterated as "Jehovah" in the Roman alphabet.

I don't know Hebrew but I know that Yahweh is YHWH which is Yehowah and Jehovah (that's the only Hebrew I know, lol). I responded to MW's post where she said that HWWH is also a form of YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah in that they all mean the same thing along with serpent and Eve, unless I read it wrong (?). Here's what my post was in response to:

"Do you mean "god" created hell or the "serpent" created hell? In either case, it appears to be the serpent who saved A&E! Another tidbit of info, HWWH in Hebrew means Eve. HWWH in Hebrew also means Serpent. HWWH in Hebrew is also a form of YHWH or Yahweh or Jehovah. They ALL mean the same thing!" - MW

Your daughter did not suddenly "sprout" the idea of what being naked is one day. Your analogy remains crass. Whatever your point may be, it is "null and void".

His point is that just because Adam was born a man, it does not give him the knowledge that a normal man has today. A man gains knowledge through experience when they have the ability to learn. Adam did not possess that knowledge because he was created a man but didn't life the full life of a man which basically means he's a baby in a man's body due to the lack of experience to learn. And he didn't even possess the ability to learn either until he ate from the tree of knowledge.

- N

 

[SnakeLord]

That is a difficult question to answer. Let me say, God willed them to eat the fruit.

And man should always do gods will, no? So basically if they didn't eat the fruit, they'd be going against god's will - and thus actually disobeying him. So the key thing here is that god wanted them to eat the fruit so they'd understand the difference between good and evil and thus show him worship and hate the devil - which all worked out fine.. but then everyone sits here and tries to lay blame on Adam and Eve who were only doing that which god wanted them to do. Worse than that, god punishes them - curses a snake to "eat dust" - which has yet to happen, curses the woman with painful childbirth - which mankind has pretty much negated thanks to advances in medicine, and curses man with a life of hardship getting crops - which has been pretty much negated thanks to modern machinery and chemicals. Strange to think the sky-guy is flinging out curses left, right and center all because they did what he wanted them to do.

Well if he continued to "understood not his own interest", he would have died not knowing how to till the earth, fend for his family etc. and it would be up to his first son(s) to propagate the earth.. with their 700 year old mother..

Yes, which is why he should be thanking the serpent for changing all that.

Was he too stupid to invent sex?

Even spiders get laid, and they have like 0.00001 EQ.

Bible "scholars" claim he did all the naming the SAME day he was created..

That's quite a hard task, but god could have saved him a lot of time and said "don't name the big ones with big teeth because I'm going to extinctify them very soon".

Of course that's not to mention that there is no precedence for saying the whole story takes place in the space of one day.

I guess he created sex on the same day too, gee, what a guy huh?

I explained this above, but will add further to it by saying that there is no reference that there was any bonking going on in the g-of-e.

Either way, I suppose we should just thank god that he didn't make that particular human sterile.

Wonder what happened to the tree and the flaming sword and angel that were supposed to protect it then..

Well the region does have its share of natural disasters like earthquakes and so on. However, we really should view it in an historical sense. The bible places the garden of eden in Southern Mesopotamia, (Sumeria), and to date we know that the Sumerians were the first writing race of people. They stated that the gods put them to work in the gardens of their palace. In Sumerian, it was called e-din, (house of purity). As you can see, this would result in people working in the gardens of the house of purity - or garden of e-din. If that's the case, then we could assume that time took its toll - and houses do eventually vanish into the dust- aswell as gardens and statues. It's for that reason that archaeologists even have a job.

So to answer your question from the most logical and historically based position I can muster: It's under the ground somewhere.

Next time I will try to cater more to your literary needs..

That's very kind of you. I'd even go so far as to say I'm proud of you- but pride is a sin, so I can't.

This is what you said. What does it have to do with whether or not he should have asked God?

I do believe I asked you a question first. It would be corteous if you'd explain why he should have asked god. Further to which, even if he did he'd never understand what god was saying unless he ate the fruit.

 

[Katazia]

SVRP,

I don’t understand why you can’t speculate an answer since you know it is a speculative question.

There is no speculation in my assertion –

FACT 1 - Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate the fruit.

FACT 2 - Adam was being commanded not to do something.

FACT 3 - Adam was being threatened with death if he disobeyed.

FACT 4 - To obey God is good, to disobey God is bad.

FACT 5 - To live is good, to die is bad.

FACT 6 - It is not possible to understand FACTs 4 and 5 without an understanding of what is meant by good and evil.

FACT 7 - Both the command and the threat would be meaningless to Adam since he did not possess the necessary knowledge required for comprehension.

Although, if you want to say you don’t know what would happen then that would be okay, too.

Again this is irrelevant. The issue is whether God was just and fair to punish Adam for something he could not possibly have understood.

If it wasn’t fair as I think the facts reveal then we must conclude that Christianity is a farce since the rationale for a savior is based on man’s fall from grace caused by Adam.

But if they were given that knowledge & ability would they have obeyed or disobeyed?

That is quite a different matter which God didn’t wait to find out. There is a fundamental difference between making the wrong decision because of pure ignorance and deliberately disobeying when all the choices were clear and understood. For example imagine you are playing chess for the first time and did not understand the rules. The decisions you’d make would be based on guesswork and whether they were good or bad would be a matter of chance.

It is said that God gave man freewill and a sin (to disobey God) can only have meaning if the choice is deliberate, i.e. that we understand what is good and what is bad and positively choose bad.

I would tend to agree that obedience is not dependent on the knowledge of good & evil or right & wrong.

Of course it is. Examine almost every aspect of your life. Every decision you make is a value judgment based on good or bad. To eat or not to eat, to step in front of a speeding car or not, to love or to hate, to go to work or call in sick, etc. etc. We take for granted that everything we do involves making such choices. Without the knowledge and understanding or the ability to judge good from bad then everything we’d do would be chaos and meaningless.

To a large extent because of this lack of knowledge Adam and Eve could hardly be called human. Their outlook on everything would have been entirely alien to us. The bible myth-makers entirely missed this fundamental issue and wrote the gibberish we are now discussing.

It is whether you trusted the person who gave the rule.

And to trust God is good right, and to distrust him is bad, right? How would Adam be able to make that call?

Every statement you attempt you make here that involves a value judgment will be dependent on Adam and Eve understanding how to evaluate what is good and what is bad.

Same thing applies to a command given to a young child when you tell them not to play in the water without grownup supervision. They won’t understand why not since they have fun in the water. They have nothing to measure the dangers with playing in the water. Their decision to obey or disobey will depend on if they trust their parents (or how severe the punishment will be).

But only if they are capable of understanding that trusting the parent is good and that punishment is bad. Without that ability to judge your command can have no effect.

if you re-read your statement & apply it to raising a child you would know this happens all the time.

Exactly, because we have the ability to judge between good and bad, we take it for granted, Adam and Eve could not do that.

Obedience is not dependent on the knowledge of what is right & wrong, it is dependent on trust. .

That is a circular argument since a knowledge of Right and wrong is needed to be able to meaningfully choose whether to trust or not.

Kat

 

[Katazia]

Snakelord,

They very often argue that although there are "minor" text differences, that it all ends up saying the same thing anyway. I find that very misleading and inaccurate. We can see the difference one extra word makes.

I think that is one reason I enjoy teasing Christians so much, there are just so many ambiguities and inconsistencies to choose from. When facts are absent, creative fantasies become their only weapon.

Kat

 

[greywolf]

The issue is whether God was just and fair to punish Adam for something he could not possibly have understood.

What ist there not to understand His creatore told him not to eat from the tree and he did it anywayz. Him not understand the significance of his actions is irrelivant. He was told not to do it and he did. If u tell your 2 or 3 yr old not to do something and they do it anyways would u not punish them

 

[Katazia]

Greywolf,

What ist there not to understand His creatore told him not to eat from the tree and he did it anywayz.

So what’s your point? Why wouldn’t Adam do it if he wanted to?

Him not understand the significance of his actions is irrelivant.

If he didn’t understand that it was a bad thing to do then he shouldn’t have been punished for it. An understanding of the issues is essential if the action can be considered sinful.

He was told not to do it and he did. If u tell your 2 or 3 yr old not to do something and they do it anyways would u not punish them

Well no I don’t support the concept of punishment in any case, but assume I did then punishment would only be appropriate if the child disobeyed me deliberately. If they simply did not understand then that would indicate that further appropriate compassionate education is needed, not punishment.

Kat

 

[greywolf]

cause

-Kat-
Think of the situation for a moment. He was put in the middle of paradise, had free range of the whole thing and was told he can do what ever just dont eat from one tree in the whole garden. And despite being told this by his creator and if not creator than the sole person that was there before he was, he decided to do it anyways. How more deliberate can u get?

Well no I don’t support the concept of punishment in any case

Not in any case at all? Do u have kids?

 

[Tiassa]

Children at play

I do like the implications that come with this discussion; you'll notice that humanity is frequently compared to toddlers. Very apropos.

Just a question, and to borrow from Greywolf:

Think of the situation for a moment. He was put in the middle of paradise, had free range of the whole thing and was told he can do what ever just dont eat from one tree in the whole garden. And despite being told this by his creator and if not creator than the sole person that was there before he was, he decided to do it anyways. How more deliberate can u get?

What? That's what we get for lying to children. It's just as true today as it was then. Take a look at drugs--turns out, the more you lie to children about drugs, the more likely they are to start once they find out you lied.

Think about it:

• Marijuana: It's illegal, it gives you cancer, it wrecks your brain, it screws up your children

(1) Illegal - one day, the child will come to understand a simple concept: If on Friday you declare illegal what was permissible on Thursday, you will have a sizable number of criminals on your hands come Friday morning. When kids learn that marijuana became illegal for commerce and tax reasons, and not health or other more vital reasons, they lose respect for legal boundaries.
(2) Gives you cancer - one day, the child will come to learn that there is no conclusive info on what dope does. At this point, they're resorting to the claim that pot smoke contains "at least sixty potential carcinogens." In other words, they might be carcinogens, but we don't know quite how yet and can't prove it. And then they find out about the killer statistic: nobody dies from pot. Such a realization devastates a child's respect for the lies and the lying liars who told them.
(3) Wrecks your brain - one day, the child will learn a simple question: As compared to what? It's hard to imagine something you set on fire before adding to your bloodstream can be good for you, but once you grow up scared of f@cking hot dogs, realize how much soda that strips paint and shines chrome you've consumed, and watched the adults around you clamber about for coffee and booze, once you've heard about the secondhand smoke and the acid rain and the EMF's and the air pollution and the asbestos and the arsenic in the groundwater ... I mean, really .... oh, gee, dope messes with your brain. As compared to what?!
(4) Screws up your children - You know those warning labels on booze? They didn't really exist on liquor for a number of years in the US until the sister of one of my childhood neighbors sued the distilleries after her child was born with FAS. Apparently, she couldn't figure out that drinking over a fifth of whiskey a day (I kid you not) might possibly be harmful for the fetus; apparently, no doctor mentioned it to her, either. But hey ... distilleries have deeper pockets than doctors, even. But yes, the actual reason we have warning labels on booze at all is because a woman couldn't put down her bourbon. Or, rather, she could put it down all too well. And depending on when the kid knocks up a girl, he might find out early how ridiculous the dietary recommendations for a pregnant woman are. Compared to daily routine ... well, strangely it's the booze and caffeine most women I know have a problem with (and nicotine in some cases), but I know so few people who eat a whole lot of bacon or anything else like that. But the list of foods my partner was supposed to avoid was fairly impressive. The thing is that anything you do is going to f@ck up your children to a certain degree. It's why it's so easy to bag on women for botched pregnancies and why many women extend guilt and grief beyond the biochemical requisite into the realm of self-destruction. This is not to suggest that pregnant women should smoke excessive amounts of dope while pregnant. In fact, smoking dope at all isn't really a good idea. But on top of it all it might occur to the child, somewhere in there, that it's too expensive to eat the stuff, which is actually a good thing to do. And in all that head-scratching the child might come to reiterate a previously-considered question. It screws up your children? As compared to what?

The point being that Bob might look at it simply: I told him not to do drugs and he did them anyway. Therefore I'm kicking the ungrateful little criminal out of my house. Does it matter that the basis upon which the rule is instituted is incorrect, dishonest, or not reflective of reality?

There are many reasons to not "eat the fruit." As humans, "Because I say so" is recognized as the weakest and most frequently invoked reason for prohibition. Beyond that, however, given the more legitimate reasons to not eat the fruit, what is someone supposed to think when their entire arsenal of reasons against eating the fruit turn out to be incorrect?

And so it was in the beginning. God said, "Don't smoke it because it will kill you." The Serpent said, "It won't kill you." Having no basis upon which to openly mistrust the Serpent, for after all this is starry-eyed, innocent humanity at issue, the reason behind the rule was disarmed. That the Serpent was correct is a huge point. It demonstrates that the point of a relationship with God is to obey God regardless of what reality shows you. It is this unwillingness to go marching like the ants that separates us from God--an issue of design and the immediate will of God.

To make the points specifically: God did not "let" Adam and Eve be "deceived" by the Serpent.

• The Serpent did not deceive Adam and Eve
• The "fall" of humanity was God's will
• The offense against God is based originally in God's choice to lie to Adam and Eve about cause and effect
• All Adam and Eve ever did wrong was think
• Thinking is apparently not part of God's design for human beings, therefore--
• All Adam and Eve ever did wrong was exist according to God's design.

If you lie to children, all you will get in return is exactly what you ask for. And I don't see why God has such a problem with that in the Bible. After all, why should God be so pissed that He got what He wanted?

 

[SnakeLord]

I think that is one reason I enjoy teasing Christians so much, there are just so many ambiguities and inconsistencies to choose from. When facts are absent, creative fantasies become their only weapon.

Indeed.

Not in any case at all? Do u have kids?

I know you asked Katazia, but my response would be no, yes. No I don't punish my child in any way whatsoever, and yes I do have kids.

All I see are a bunch of people who think their children are something less than they are. Why people bother having children when they make the distinction that their child is clearly inferior to them, I'll never know.

From what I've seen, every parent assumes the child needs to show them respect, but do not realise that they must show the child respect first and foremost. It always ends up a one way thing. Kind of like... "I am your father and while you're in my house you will do what I say" etc. It's sickening that people are like this - and the very cause of why humanity is such a mess.

All I do is show my daughter complete unconditional love. As a result she never ever does anything wrong, not because I tell her what she can and can't do, but because I've shown her what complete unconditional love is.

Once people start treating their children like equals as opposed to inferior beings, then there wouldn't be half the problems there are now.

I do like the implications that come with this discussion; you'll notice that humanity is frequently compared to toddlers. Very apropos

Indeed.