From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Adam and Eve again, was Omnicient
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
Date: 12 Dec 1992 08:23:53 UTC

In article <5m5LVB3w165w@momad.li.ny.us> 
siphon@Momad.LI.NY.US (Stimpson J. Katz) writes:
>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>> >ldh@eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel) writes:
>> >:  My question would still be, why did God
>> >: make it possible for us to sin, and why, knowing that
>> >: A&E would fail, did he not intercede and prevent them.
>> Isn't it obvious by now that the particular interpretation of Genesis
>> that you are refering to is bogus?
>> Here are some clues:
>> 1. The serpent did not lie.
>> 2. Eve did not do the wrong thing, she did the Eve thing since she
>> lacked the knowledge of distinguishing good from bad.
>> 3. It was The Creators intent that the human being acquire the knowledge
>> of good and bad of our own initiative, as we still do today. We are not
>> born with ethics and morality, these things are learned through eating
>> the fruit.
>    I am sorry, but your analysis fails for two key reasons, First, as I
>recall god punsihed Eve for eating the apple by making chilbirth
>painful.

Was that a punishment or a prediction? The Lord also said: 3:18(JPS):
"... your food shall be the grasses of the field." So? We eat wheat,
rice, maize and barley. Is that a punishment or reality? The Lord said:
2:16(JPS): "... Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat; but as
for the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for
as soon as you eat of it, you shall die." Note: He didn't say, eat this
and I'll punish you, He said eat this and you shall die. But, what is
the human being without death? Again, is this a punishment or a
prediction? Would Adam and Eve have died anyway, just like the animals
and plants who have not eaten of the fruit of knowledge of good and bad?
And one more thing, The Lord said you are free to eat of the Tree of
Life. That is if you can get by the obstacles in the way and if you see
such an act as "good."

>Second, this doctrine is used as a primary defense of original sin.

Why should this affect *my* analysis, *my* reading?

As I've said before, if Adam and Eve were not created with knowledge of
good and bad, they were not created with ethics or morality, just as we
are not created with these, we learn them. The Lord pointed the tree out
to them directly in the middle of the garden and said, don't eat this or
you will die. How do you decide a course of action without the knowledge
of good and bad? Is it good or bad to eat the fruit? Is it good or bad
to do or not do what The Lord says? How could they know? How can you be
such a harsh judge of Eve and Adam knowing that they had the morality
and ethics of an infant, ie none? Who is the party responsible? The Lord
is. He set this situation up on purpose, with foreknowledge that Eve and
Adam would eat the fruit, if He pointed it out to them. It is you who
must judge the actions of The Lord with your knowledge of good and bad.
If you judge that Eve and Adam should not have eaten of the fruit, then
clearly The Lord is negligent or He has created the human being as a
toy to play with, as a cat would play with a mouse. Is that any way to
run a religion? Granted it's a great way to market a religion but is it
anywhere near "The Truth?"
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc