Is God Fair in Giving such a Harsh Law?

[koopa184]

Why did God give a law that we absolutely cannot live up to? I'm an honest Christian seeker who wants to know.

There's always the possibility that we're just imposing our views on fair and unfair on God. But also, if any of you have better explanations, I would much appreciate it. Thanks

[Tina]

What law?

[mum1983]

Oh, probably all of them...

[jlay]

What law could we live up to?

Check out the first law: Do what ever you want. Enjoy what ever you want. Eat of any tree you like, just don't eat of this one tree. Everything else is fair game.

One simple rule, and man blew that.

[Ivellious]

If you had the mental/emotional experience and capacity of a newborn baby, would you have been able to resist the ultimate incarnation of lies and deceit because of a handful of disembodied words? Of course that law and the punishment thereafter were unreasonable and a setup for failure!

[Byblos]

If you had the mental/emotional experience and capacity of a newborn baby, would you have been able to resist the ultimate incarnation of lies and deceit because of a handful of disembodied words? Of course that law and the punishment thereafter were unreasonable and a setup for failure!

By whose standards?

[jlay]

Ditto. By whose standards?

Oh, and where are you qualified to judge the mental capacities of A&E?

[Ivellious]

I understand that God has perfect standards and all, but I still contend that there was a serious flaw in the idea that two children could possibly understand what was going on well enough to make a proper decision.

First of all, barring God giving Adam and Eve an entire lifetime's worth of experience and knowledge, there is no way they could have been capable of reasoning beyond that of a modern day 2 year old. Unless Adam and Eve were, in fact, non-human, that would have to be expected, especially considering Adam and Eve act childish and impulsive and highly impressionable when confronted by Satan.

Also, consider this: God is good. Satan is evil. Without the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve should not be able to distinguish them. Basically, it comes down to a handful of disembodied words versus a talking snake and a tree that is everything that they should want (pleasurable and containing wisdom). God rather explicitly states that prior to them being deceived and eating the fruit, they had not been "like one of us," and did not "know good and evil." Again, if you took a child (or a grown person even) and then took two disembodied voices, giving opposite orders, who does that person follow? Especially if they have explicitly zero knowledge of which one is good and evil?

[jlay]

First of all, barring God giving Adam and Eve an entire lifetime's worth of experience and knowledge, there is no way they could have been capable of reasoning beyond that of a modern day 2 year old. Unless Adam and Eve were, in fact, non-human, that would have to be expected, especially considering Adam and Eve act childish and impulsive and highly impressionable when confronted by Satan.

That is your opinion, and there is nothing within scripture to back this up. We simply don't know their level of reasoning. But we can be sure that God gave them clear instruction. They had direct communion with God. Plus, how do you know how many years they lived in the garden before being tempted? one year, a million? You simply don't know. If you take out of the equation your opinion, you are left with nothing in the facts to substantiate your conclusions. They are highly speculative and I would say intent on skeptically finding the loop holes.
The world is full of plenty of people who are mature in age, who act childish and impulsive. So, that doesn't hold up even against modern standards.

Also, consider this: God is good. Satan is evil. Without the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve should not be able to distinguish them. Basically, it comes down to a handful of disembodied words versus a talking snake and a tree that is everything that they should want (pleasurable and containing wisdom). God rather explicitly states that prior to them being deceived and eating the fruit, they had not been "like one of us," and did not "know good and evil." Again, if you took a child (or a grown person even) and then took two disembodied voices, giving opposite orders, who does that person follow? Especially if they have explicitly zero knowledge of which one is good and evil?

Again, you are making a lot of presumptions based on little more than hyper skepticism.
What makes you think the words were disembodied? What makes you think that "serpant" is directly related to what you understand as a snake?
Since God wasn't disembodied, but manifest in the garden (he walked) what makes you think that they have zero knowledge?

[Ivellious]

The Bible explicitly states that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil. Satan (or "the serpent", which is really irrelevant as far as what it looked like) and God were simply there. I'll admit, I can't explicitly say that Adam and Eve were young.

That aside, it is no presumption to say that Adam and Eve had no knowledge or wisdom pertaining to good and bad. God said something, the serpent another. And, I can plainly say that Adam and Eve could not have known that one was good and another evil. That would totally contradict the idea that morality and "knowledge of good and evil" were actually given by eating from the tree. In fact, it would make sense to me that if I was being held away from doing something that was good and positive and desirable, of course I'd jump at another neutral opinion on the matter!

Also, it doesn't really matter that God and the serpent were in physical or non-literal forms. It's still just one voice against another. God gave a clear instruction, and someone else gave an equally clear instruction. Without knowing who was good and who was evil, there is no way to justify an eternal punishment based on ignorance.

[Stu]

Oh, and where are you qualified to judge the mental capacities of A&E?

This.

[RickD]

Ivellious, are you saying that when God told Adam that he could eat of any tree except the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that Adam didn't know it was his creator that was giving him the command?

[jlay]

The Bible explicitly states that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil

And? How does this make them less culpable for not following the Lords instructions? We know from the parts of the conversation with the serpent that Eve most certainly was able to reason. The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” Gen. 3:2-3

It's still just one voice against another. God gave a clear instruction, and someone else gave an equally clear instruction. Without knowing who was good and who was evil, there is no way to justify an eternal punishment based on ignorance.

How do you figure? Just read the text for pete's sake. In Gen. 3:1 the serpent ask a question, "‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”
Is that what God said? No. And Eve even corrected the serpent. We know why Eve ate. "it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise." There was something Eve wanted, and she didn't trust that God had witheld it for good reason. Since God dwelled in the garden, she could have run to God at that moment, but didn't.

The fact that you say it was just one voice against another tells me that you refuse to examine this text outside of your hyper skeptic. You ignore everything we know about the creator up to this point. The fact that God had even created eve for Him. Did the serpent do that? As if A&E are just a couple of Forrest Gump characters, and God and the serpent are just some sort of disembodied voices. The lack of knowledge of good and evil have more to do with innocence that education.

[Kurieuo]

Why did God give a law that we absolutely cannot live up to? I'm an honest Christian seeker who wants to know.

What law?

Oh, probably all of them...

[Kurieuo]

If you had the mental/emotional experience and capacity of a newborn baby, would you have been able to resist the ultimate incarnation of lies and deceit because of a handful of disembodied words? Of course that law and the punishment thereafter were unreasonable and a setup for failure!

If that's where God left it, then I can see it unreasonable. And yet, that is not where God left it.

Ephesians 1:3-6 --

• 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.

God created us with a freedom knowing we would fall. God could have said don't pick up that stick. And each one of us would have wanted to pick up that stick, if not just to see what would happen next. The very mention of being told not to do something, inspires us to want to do that thing we should not. And when God is the person we are rebelling against, sure He allowed for the situation in which we became tested, but He is not accountable for our rebelling against Him. Such is not possible for God, unless God is divided against Himself. In which case God would be sinister. And I expect the world we live could be a lot more horrible if God be sinister. Take the worst horror movie or worse, then make it a reality. Then there be a valid argument from evil. Yet, it seems to me that evil in our world is constrained, even by death.

Many focus on the fall and sin. To God, while sin must be dealt with, it is not God's focal point. It is the pesky element of our fleshly desire to rebel and be otherwise (sin), that needs to be addressed before He can just enter into a relationship with us. God wanted our hearts, despite our niavities and failings when it comes to our actions we do against Him. Paul goes into detail explaining how our flesh can be at enmity with our spirit and is at enmity with God. That we do not want to do, that is what we do. Even if we desire change, we are helpless and enslaved against our own bodies to be the person we would love to be. For example, I admire those with great patience. I desire to have great patience and be calm, laid back and jovial even in the face of trying happenings. Many loose it in traffic alone. I'm quite easy there. Yet having kids, I realise how much patience I lack especially when tired or sick.

Try telling a 2 year old boy who loves to throw not to throw hard objects like toy cars or sticks. Add a baby or sister into the room when you tell him that. Then watch their mind tick over when they look at their sibling, and then their hand, and then look up at you grinning cheekily with a sparkle in their eye. He has just upped the ante, and the game now becomes: "are you going to stop me"? All this, while being dead tired and sick with the throbbing headache, and now you want to try me? So you call your 2 year olds bluff, ignoring him, to realise he was not bluffing and whack.... *sigh* so you jump up, check on your hurt child while saying some expletives, then grab your 2yo and throw him into his room for timeout, slamming the door behind you.

Why go into this detail? I've got nothing to hide. It could be worse, but I know I fail nonetheless, and I don't like it. I want to change and try to change. I just give one situation to show how what I want to be like, and what I do, can often conflict. Who can rescue me if I can't even be who I want to be, but must strive to be who I want to be?

Romans 8:1-4 --

• 1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Sin and the fall pales so much in comparison to this -- Christ. God is not after what we do, but who we are. He doesn't want us to jump through hoops to gain His love, no He lowered the bar through Christ so that now we can approach God cloaked in Christ's righteousness and He can deal with us without worrying about our sin thanks be to Christ.

So, when you look at the fall, and our falling as grown up babes niave and gullible as Adam and Eve may have been -- well, that is an incomplete picture. For God saw the end and richness in relationships that He desired from us. The fall was just one step to having that. When all is said and done, and this world has passed away... God would have produced through this temporary world wherein humanity fell (and were forgiven), there is pain and suffering (as well as beautify and happiness), freedom for people to do great evil (as well as great good)... through this temporary process of events God would have produced creatures who freely chose to love Him back. Rather than creating such beings in an instance (if that be possible), God chose the process of life that we now experience. And sin, which God tolerates but for a time, is only a small part of the picture which has been overcome to all who accept The Way that God created.