err…The Bares!?!
We were created by G_d without the ability to discern between good and evil –> and G_d found this to be VERY good!
We can assume from this that both good and evil existed in the world – the serpent for one – Wrong doing existed in the world – the serpent deceived Adam and Eve.
So…we were created without the ability to discern between good and evil…G_d was okay with this – in fact He created it this way! So if good and evil existed – wrong-doing existed, if we weren’t created perfect…How did eating from the tree bring sin into the world? Wasn’t it already here- at least according to the way we typically define it???
After all Adam lied about what G_d told him (Genesis 2.15-16), apparently, when telling Eve the restrictions (Genesis 3.1-3). G_d said don’t eat the fruit…Adam must have told Eve that G_d said not to touch or eat the fruit!
What does this have to do with the realization of nakedness - and that it was wrong to be naked - when to G_d it must not have been wrong since that was how He created us and found it to be very good!
The very act of eating from the tree made Adam & Eve realize what wrong doing felt like, and with that feeling they felt how imperfect they were as individuals, whereas before being with God they were probably in a very joyous state. In their distress I think they did everything in their power to hide or cover up their imperfection. As they saw it as something within them, covering their body was the best they could do (but then why did they only cover themselves with loincloth).
ReplyDeleteAs for the bit about Adam having lied about what God said, I think because this was done in innocence, and that there was no commandment not to lie, nor anything to spur his conscience apart from eating from the tree of Good & Evil, his heart was in the right place when he embellished God's commandment about the tree, the whole "not touching it" was probably to emphasize the severity of what God had said, since it was coming from Adam.
I think the serpent's lie to Eve is more interesting, because the serpent clearly had knowledge of good and evil, and it's actions didn't cause sin to enter the world. So for sin to enter the world, I think it took an innocent being (Adam & Eve) to blatantly go against God's commandment.
I see flaws in this, but it's the best I got for right now. My dad's got a book titled "Who told you that you were naked?" I'm tempted to read it now, get whoever wrote it's perspective on this.
---
P.S. You spelled 'fruit', 'fuit' in the second to last paragraph ;)
@howie17 - fixed the typo...Thanks!
ReplyDeleteCause & effect is one thing, and it exists within a relationship.
ReplyDeleteIntent is whole-nother thing, and it exists in a relationship equally but seperately.
For example, if I raise my daughter, since birth, to be as healthy as possible in all physical dietary ways, the cause will be good eating of healthy food. The effect will likely be a healthier life for her. This is cause & effect no matter how it's done.
There are many ways to provoke this scenario though. I could segregate her from knowing the existance of chocolate, sugar, fats, processed foods, etc. OR I could train her with information to CHOOSE the best foods. OR, I could FRIGHTEN her with exaggerations & worst case scenarios, OR I could PROMISE unrealistic benefits, OR....
With that in mind, let's assume the first scenario; I have guarded her from access to even KNOWING that unhealthy food exists. The cause & effect remain the same; She eats only the purest veggies, fruits, meats, etc and benefits with health at the utmost (as designed).
...until she discovers the existance of brownies. Yum. She eats this food innocently, unaware that it is even different in any way from the better choices. Her body processes the fats, sugars, etc and craves more. She innocently begins dabbling in other "wrong" foods outside of the design for her utmost health. In this scenario the effect will be a less healthy body than my original hope for her. There is no willful disregard though. She did not usurp the choosing of right & wrong yet...but the food is still less than what was intended for her.
In another scenario; I inform her of best heathy choices. She decides to outwardly choose other than my instruction. She eats the same diet as above and rationalizes her independence. The results are no worse or better as her body digests the input of food. It is equally less than the design I had in mind for her health. However there is NOW an infraction of trust that transcends the "food instructions". She has infringed on the trust of my knowledge of how the human body works. She is just a child, but as she grows, she may seek new ways to over-ride my plans for her happiness. Worse ways. Ways that offer only results that are less than she was designed for.
It is ONE problem with TWO infractions and dual results. One is a natural consequence, the other is a complication of our relationship. Both affect her more than me if it were not for the fact that I love her so much that I am equally invested in her experiencing the most of the life she is designed for. I am affected only because I love her so.
Intent matters. IMO.
Now I want a freakin' brownie.
Once again, by the way, it's a limited anaology above, but I think it also works in the continuation of the scenario if;
ReplyDeleteWhen she was unaware of the existence of less than healthy foods...the unhealthy food choices STILL existed. She just did not KNOW they existed. And;
A snake tells her that I just dont want her to have the knowledge of these foods because they are so good, then prompts her to discover the knowledge of the many "forbidden" ingredients out there to try and endless recipes to combine them in, etc. Her new knowledge can never be unlearned. The curiosity never quenched. The craving never entirely settled. Etc.
....stupid snake.