The Narrow Path Ministries

In the beginning, or shortly thereafter, God admonished the first parents not to eat of the fruit of good and evil for on that day they would surely die. We know the story, Eve is tempted and submits, she tempts Adam and he to eats of the fruit. Some versions have the tree named knowledge, but regardless, before eating of the fruit there was no conception of good and evil in humans, before eating the fruit.

When God kicks the first parents out of the garden, he place an angel to guard the way to the tree of life. The basic truth of these passages is the trick and the trap. The trick was innocence, the snake was the trap. To know that the serpent in the garden, was not to be listened to (the serpent was not just a snake, unless we are expected to believe that snakes can talk) requires the knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong. Without that it is like baiting a dog with meat or a child with candy.

The promise: if they ate the fruit they would die - what is that? How would the first parent have a concept of death, a word without teeth for one that has never seen anything die. I don't blame the dog the comes to food or the child that is attracted to 'what seems good'. The blame lies with the trickster, not the tricked. Or is it a sin to be deceived by the 'Great Deceiver'. I can not believe so. (I say and mean tricked, just like illusion, it relies upon the subject not knowing what is really going on, if they knew the consequences, not the words - but the consequence, then they would be fools, not innocent as they were).

However there is more. What was the deceiver doing in the garden? the angel with the flaming sword might better have served to keep the serpent away from God's creation. To imply that God could not have done so, implies a lack of ability, which is not the case.

We are told the fate of the serpent on the last day. Would that that war, of power beyond us in every-way, did not spillover onto human creatures, not able to defend themselves from wrong, or evil, because they had no concept of it until they ate the fruit!

If my dog takes food from a stranger, I don't beat my dog. It means that I have not trained my dog well enough. There is no sense saying to a dog, 'don't take food from strangers or I will end your life'. Just writing this makes it seem silly. If I said that, and I always kept my word; it wouldn't be long before my very friendly dog was doomed by my vow.

Keeping my word would keep me honest, but the deed of my word would make me vile. God knows all things, I know so little; it is a truth I accept. But my birth parents were hunters, they taught me to catch prey, I must use the preys advantages against themselves. The first time I knowingly took a life I was just four. Forty-one years later I recall that day, a though it were but five minutes ago.

The last time I knowingly took a life, with my own hands I was eight-teen. What I recall from that first day was the wrongness of it. People have to eat, that is no sin, but I do not have to kill for that to happen each of the few times I have taken life, I have felt wrong. I have sinned against life and must carry that.

I was very efficient at killing, it is too easy if you know an animals nature, the trick is child's play, the consequences of the act are complete adult. I ate everything I ever killed, does that make it right; not to me. They had no chance, because it wasn't luck it is life and death.

I too have no chance. I do not hope for heaven, I know I do not deserve such a state. It is knowing that makes the difference. Before I knew death, before I had become death - they were only words. Only God can undue what in my lack of grace I have done.

I know well enough that I am a hopeless sinner. Usually not through action, so much as, complicity and compliance; I am a weak and flawed creature. My father started life as a papist, as birth would have it. He insisted that we attend regularly, but never in a catholic church. Consequently I have seen, from inside the walls, more than a few faiths. Faith is the key.

Brother Andre, of St. Joesph's in Montreal, has a vast wall lined with crutches and braces and chairs and all kinds of beginning of the twentieth century prosthetics. He did nothing but conduit their own faith in the power of God.

I have through an investment in patience, I have taught my dog not to run on the roadways or chase cars. I warn my children about predators, all those I know of; In the sea are fish that will eat you, in the forest there are verminous snakes, insects and spiders, then their are the four legged connivers, not much from the sky bothers humans, but we should stay observant. Finally in every place you will go, there is the man the most to be feared creature my children are ever likely to encounter.

Most importantly, all of these creatures can be made to fear humans, by our actions alone. A creature acting without conscience, must be avoided or dealt with if encountered. Satan is such a creature, and worse for us may take the guise of any other creature, and it is joy to do harm to mankind; how might anyone defend against that.

No faith has ever answer my view; before man was God, and the angels. Satan rebelled against God, and was expelled from heaven. Man was the grievance between these two powers. Humans are not, in our present form at least ready to look upon the 'face of god'. This angel rebelled against God. There is a serious discrepancy here. How could Eve and Adam, innocent, defend themselves against an angel that would rebel?

When my children were first born, I viewed them as innocent of all sin, save the first parents wrong. Yes they were told not to eat from the tree, No where does it say don't do any other creatures bidding - do not talk to strangers. Or, perhaps - there is a creature in this garden, that is hunting you. It is not that creatures will to harm you physically, that creature wants to harm you spirit. But, they were not told what that was either.

You see the problem; I do more for my children, in preparing them for the world they are to live in, than was done for the first parents. I am frustrated by this, they were children, they need protection. My dog did not sit, the first time I told him to - he needed to learn what I was say and what that meant for him. I don't expect my children to always answer the first time I call.

I remember from my own childhood how wondrous was the world - it is so easy to be distracted. Who would I be to expect more from my children than I have within myself. I was not made for instant and absolute obedience, and I do not expect nor desire it from my children. I never taught my children to take life. I have I hoped taught them to be observant and know, that there is a creatures hunting them.

The animals I have killed where not random happenings, though I did not chose their path. They were unique in creation, and I saw the path they would use, without knowing them, I knew they would use it again, killing is patience, or the lack thereof. Without a whisper of intent, I struck them down, in their own domain. That is what the serpent did; and God came to his creation, and rather than cradle his mortally wounded, and not innocent anymore children to his breast.

Such is the mystery. It does not change anything for me. I have seen little and that is too much. I have learned so little and that to is too much. I see the bait, like candy at the checkout in the supermarket, I do not see the father; I see a predator, like no other on the face of the earth, and I see first one child and then the other. You can translate the words as man and woman; I know children when I see them; and so did Christ Mat: 18: 1- 6. We know what children are and how they must be treated and cared for.

I would expect to fail against such a creature, armed with the awareness of it. On the last day, I expect a sinners reward. I see know room for a righteous human, in the world I live in. I can not hide from myself that with complacency, I do partake of evil, that can extract no one in western culture. That which I render lawfully unto Cesar, is then used as fuel to harm God's children. Literally any child, if the first sin is their only sin; I have firm belief in God's mercy for them. That is as it should be; God's love first, then this world intrudes itself.

Sadly given the reality of this context, I seem to have broken all of God's law, even murder if only of my lack of compassion and objection coupled with complacency. In following man's law, and sometimes not, I have broken God's law. I am not confused about which is more fundamental. Nor am I confused about truth and perception; perception is what I have, truth is out side of me perceived or not. My confusion, and lack of understanding regarding the story of creation in no way excused my sins. So do not perceive my position, as only sinner without hope, I am also a creature of God, rebellious though I may be, I will serve his purpose. Of that I have no doubt. I perceive a fault, that does not make the perception which I hold a truth.

Being sorry, and remorseful, even deeds of atonement, can not undo one thing that any of us has already done. Whether we are the ones who do the deed or do the deed a second time, or any other time, if I read the lesson correctly. Once I do it myself, I assume the consequences of the doing. Christ is the answer, for those that 'can' follow his teachings. My society of which I am a participating member, break God's laws, thus I am hopeless for myself. I lake the courage to speak or do when I see, and know I see that which is conflict with God's laws. They are so very simple to say. It is not difficult to perceive the meaning intended, yet it is more than most humans will ever do. The Narrow Path: - Nice name.

Does a sinner have right to honest answers?

Sincerely Steve Maurice

Hi Steve.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Welcome to the forum.

As far as the fall of man goes, this is a subject I've personally put a lot of study into. As you said, Adam and Eve were like children before they ate of the forbidden fruit. They didn't know good from evil.

In saying this, you've hit upon the key to the whole story, though. You've hit upon what will make all of it make sense to you and seem like the most ethical answer possible, believe it or not.

How do children learn the difference between good and evil, right and wrong? Through experience. Through the process of growing up and maturing. Right?

Look at Isaiah 7:14-16, the famous prophecy of the birth of Immanuel. Although Jesus certainly fulfilled this prophecy in His day, this was also speaking of a child born to Isaiah and his wife, as a sign to King Ahaz. Notice what verse 16 says: "For before the child will understand to reject what is evil and choose what is good, the land that you abhor [Syria and northern Israel] will lose both her kings." So there's obviously an age before which we don't know good from evil, right from wrong.

Now, God doesn't hold people accountable for sinning if they don't know what they're doing wrong, just as you wouldn't hold a child accountable for doing something wrong if they didn't know any better. Right? See Romans 5:13.

However, once Adam and Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit which gave them the understanding of what's right and what's wrong, God had to hold them accountable for choosing right instead of wrong even though they were still like children inside!

That's why the curse came upon Adam and Eve. As emotional newborns, they could never hope to bear up under the adult responsibilities of choosing right instead of wrong. Therefore, they were doomed to pay the penalty of death.

What God had intended to do was to raise Adam and Eve as you would have raised your own children: by teaching them over time to discern between right and wrong, as they were able to handle it. Sadly, Adam and Eve didn't want to wait.

As far as why God allowed Satan to tempt them, notice that He didn't allow Satan to kill them or do anything else that would have been seriously harmful. Compare Job 1-2. So obviously God had something in mind when He allowed Satan to tempt them then, right? That being the case, what was God's angle, so to speak?

The answer is that God will not protect people from the harsh realities of life. He won't protect people from the effects of others' sins. Otherwise, what driving reason would they have to seek to overcome the effects of sin in the world, if God always protected them from it?

The Jews who endured the Holocaust have a truly astonishing testimony in this regard. Who better than they could claim that God was unjust for allowing them to suffer so egregiously at the hands of the Nazis? And yet the Jews chose not to blame God, but instead to recognize that because of what they went through, they bear a responsibility to never again allow such evil to claim innocent lives in the world.

If Adam and Eve had experienced Satan's first temptation and, instead of giving in to it, had gone to God and had sought his loving counsel and wisdom, trusting in the fact that He had already expressed His love for them by blessing them with all of the abundance that the Garden of Eden had to offer, what do you think would have happened?

God would have strengthened them to be able to endure Satan's temptations. That's what would have happened. The same would be true if, say, a stranger tempted your children with candy. If you'd told your children not to take candy from a stranger beforehand and when it actually happened they chose to listen to you instead of giving in to the temptation, then asked you afterwards about it, you would have strengthened them in part by rewarding them for their trust and obedience. Right?

Anyway, those are the ethics of the circumstances surrounding the fall of man. I hope that helps to answer your questions.

Damon

Thank you for your welcome, I have read a very many of the interesting things posted here since joining. I certainly appreciate your comments, as answer to my query.

I feel we are, as I have felt with similar answers by others since I first began asking this question some thirty odd years ago off the mark. This is not to some how lay blame on your feet, saying see it's always the same answer. It is not you or me, the issue itself has depth. I don't ask it because I wish to be glib, God knows what happened, and why.

You asked rhetorically, how do children learn, and your supplied answer, 'through experience'. Fair enough, and Isaiah 7:14-16 touches upon that time of innocence where there is no ability to discern. But there is more to the rhetorical answer than 'through experience', though to a child learning, I concede experience must be primary.

Part of that experience we are told 'butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil; and choose the good' (Isaiah 7:15). What else, this is not mentioned here; what else is not important to this message. This is prophecy. Isaiah was delivering a bigger message of which this is just a part. Isaiah chapter seven, has got to be one of the most 'In Your Face' messages ever delivered; it is a testament to Isaiah's faith; a messenger without faith would have had, a hard, hard time, with this one.

And I do agree, once Adam and Eve eat of the fruit, they are doomed to the consequences of that event. If the fruit was any kind of poison; if the fruit was any kind of nutrition, this is how it would work. That is not at issue. You say:

What God had intended to do was to raise Adam and Eve as you would have raised your own children: by teaching them over time to discern between right and wrong, as they were able to handle it. Sadly, Adam and Eve didn't want to wait.

What I say is that they did not know to wait, they were as children; they didn't know any better, because they were innocent. Until I saw death myself it was another word, that I really did not understand. Yes they were told not to do it. How does our unsure and abstract concept of death, because that is what I am speaking of, how do we grasp the thing itself? When does innocence become experience?

See Genesis 2:15-17. '...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' No one asks anyone to take this literally, because that is not what happened. They lived many years afterward, and had many children. But the fruit was poison; it was exactly the thing that causes spiritual death. And further the poison is hereditary. You ask me to notice that Satan didn't harm them physically, though you imply he was not allowed, I see no reason to assume that one way or another. God is everywhere and in all things; when God calls out to Adam in chapter three 'where art thou?' I do not imagine the question is out of ignorance of all that is.

This must include where Adam is hiding; the question is because God knows Adam is hiding. When God further questions them; it is not because he can not already see the answer in their souls (the part he did not create from earth but gave of his own breath). There is a difference between being present, and being manifestly present. In one instance you are corporally there; in the other you are a presence.

Humans to the best of my knowledge can only be present manifestly so. In the way that all things are of God and the awareness of God to the counting of hairs upon our heads, humans can not be present. God was present at the tree when the serpent tempted Eve, and she convinced Adam. I think there was no intention on the part of the serpent to physically harm either human. What more grievous harm could be done than to kill an immortal soul? That was always the goal for Satan.

The humans were meant to make the choice without having experience. That is the essence of free will. You ask me to imagine

If Adam and Eve had experienced Satan's first temptation and, instead of giving in to it, had gone to God and had sought his loving counsel and wisdom....

Instead imagine the humans had eaten of the tree of life first. Imagining, if only, is fruitless work.

The tree was a trap and a predator was in the garden; where is the warning: 'don't listen to the snake?' Am I to think that this is oversight? It is not if Satan was free to hunt us, not for our bodies, but for our souls. That must needs be true before God warned Adam about the fruit. As asked earlier; when does innocence become experience? I can not say; nor would I be likely to believe anyone who said they could say exactly when. At best we may recognize transitional phases, a nebulous becoming aware of sorts.

When I first began warning my children about the danger of fire, long before I would ever allow them near it. It is a gradual thing, when did I trust my child to put something into a fire himself, after I knew his awareness that the closer you get the hotter it is, and the situation is worse and closer you get. Fires burn everything they touch - no exception worth mentioning here.

At first I wouldn't let my children close at all, I denied access to the source of the danger. This clearly was not done. Which might be the case based upon our absolute free-will from the get-go. But in this case God did what he did, and left us in the Garden with the serpent. Based upon results humans, Adam and Eve were not mature enough to make an informed choice. Nor to record were they warned of all the dangers in the garden, nor the worse of dangers.

We need Christ because none of use by ourselves is able to free ourselves from a trap sprung on innocent children, by the most insidious of beasts. God gave us that tree and every other, not so that we would run wild and eat ourselves sick. I think each was for its own season; it doesn't change the intoxicating effects of knowledge, our children swim in it.

For Adam and Eve it was poison. As God creature, it was never meant for me to question, and truthfully I don't. I grant God all authority over me; sometimes, I look into the vastness of atoms and of all the universe. The magnitude of God is beyond my reason, and manifests in everything. Blind luck is one thing, and providence is another.

The Testaments as a body of knowledge speaks of our effort to recover that which has been lost. Is it just irony, that we use, what we seek to do away with; the grace in which there is no longer a need to know good from evil.

It is not through our understanding that we will be redeemed. It is through our deeds and our words, across the journey all humans travel; it is through our faith in God's presence as we journey through the human sea. Our only constant companion is God - and this is where we need to place our faith, and seek our council. Our understanding doesn not redeem, it gives us reason to be faithful, and to act in ernest for redemption sake.

I do see that we are meant to know that we will not be shielded from the the 'harsh realities of life'. It seems that the possibility that we would eat the fruit had to be present, and so did the hunter. Cyanide may smell like almonds but I hope never to prove it; the fall is a trap, that we could and did fall into, that we were warned doesn't make it less so.

But we have the testaments and whether irony or not, they are I confess the chronicles of our walk with God, and God's word transmitted through his messengers. Moses was not what I would term 'a slow learner,' if he were we all would have dismissed him long ago. Paul did so many 'impossible' things; things that go beyond 'magic'. Archimedes, was a man out of time in regards mathematics, his thinking on such things went far beyond then current understanding.

Paul's journey captured within the New Testament, is what; are we to believe that Paul's epiphany, his vision and his journey, are like Archimedes in thinking out side of his time, and then beyond Archimedes, to live that life out of time in the world of men. The life of mathematics happens, in the norm - between the ears, where only God can see the error.

Paul makes a like journey through the seas of humanity, that is hard to believe. Life was easy for a very few, not to bad for a few more, and for most plain misery. Paul as Saul radicalized quite early; and was zealous for 'the law'.

Check out the laws; if people did these things 'religiously' I would expect that people would notice a difference for the better, over night, but we can not follow the laws, not enough of us can follow the laws to change the misery of most. Still true today.

Any way Saul asked permission to prosecute the law extra-national, that's how serious he takes it. And introspective of how we take it too. He is granted permission, and along the way - his vision.

So this guy who has a piece of the pie as it were, able to act as agent provocateur for his own country stops cold. Knowing himself well enough to know what he does for a living, having been present when Stephen was stoned, read into the cloaks of the 'executioners' be laid at his feet for what you will. He decides he wants to be one of these people.

One might say nuts. His journey screams miracle, miracle, miracle. Saul becomes Paul, he didn't live the quite life. He became the person he use to hunt, and to those who had sent him out kill, he returned a convert. Knowing the Saul was granted authority begs that others would be too. He would become hunted; if he then did as other Christan's did speak the message of redemption, and he did. And again as in pursuing Christan's, Paul was zealous. One would think given the conditions of life that sooner rather than later Paul would have been gather up and silenced. That is most politically expedient course, and history can not claim continually buffoons that drop their 'of the times' issues. In that world Paul walked freely for years, and had close calls.

Now comes back to the chronicles, they are what we have, and they are what they are - such as it is. I don't like what I see, but I am not going to pretend that I do not see it. If I should believe this is no trap place, not 'in' our path, but, 'on' our path. We were told, but only part of the danger, we did not have to, but we did. It is quibbling at best, in one sense, yet in another wider way, it is the plan; God's plan. Demographically if Paul had been marked for death, he most likely would have died soonest, as outspoken as he was, he could not hide his presence.

Other loud-mouths, with far more resistance than Paul ever offered, were not missed. In the days of Paul the law had very sharp teeth, and could attack a man in many ways, not all legal, as in Paul's own extra-national authority. Saul turned Paul was already his own societies and times, version of double-oh-seven. The notion that Paul is a double-agent as-it-were, makes no sense what so ever. Imagine a Zealot for God, on a mission to divert the children of Israel to a new religion, one that gives God a champion for humanity, his own son.

How real is that, not very I think it would be irrational for Judaism to undertake such a mission. Life is harsh, we say that today, who have no idea, yet we imagine we do. Demographically Peter, Paul and John are well outside normal trends. And they all bucked the system in a time when such lead to dying in one's early thirties being center inside the normal trend. That they lived so long, and spread the message so far, is the first of miracles. The Testaments are the only way we might find salvation, absolutely there is a plan, it is in the fiber of the universe itself.

I am prepare to see what is in front of me, I am not shaken by it, only confused. As I said in my first post. Our first parents made a mistake, that is clear. God told them to eat was to die. They being innocence, and living in the 'time of creation' would, being told only this, not have enough information to choose wisely. There is something missing a danger not spoken of until it is cursed. It is interesting, that we blame ourselves when it appears we had no knowledge, innocent of blame but not consequence.

Would I do such to my children, say don't touch the fire or you'll be burned and then stand off and let them experience the consequences. No I think I would not, I would be concerned, concerned enough to intercede if need be on a stranger's child if need be. I don't blame God for being unconcerned, I don't believe that is so. I hope they will make good choices and in all ways that I am able, I choose when they are not able to make good choices, I intercede, preempt their free-will.

I hope they will make good choices, but I will not allow a child to wander free around fire until I can see that they know the fire will hurt them. They may have or cause an accident after such time, but they know. Not by keeping them away but by gradually letting them closer as I hold them. I don't hold them because they are untrustworthy. I do it because they are innocent of the danger nearby. You mentioned they should have trusted God; they were not told to. It was assumed they would, and us all curious. The lesson of trust and obience follow. Go figure.

walk in the presence of God.

Hi Conceptualizer.

conceptualizer wrote:What I say is that they did not know to wait, they were as children; they didn't know any better, because they were innocent. Until I saw death myself it was another word, that I really did not understand. Yes they were told not to do it. How does our unsure and abstract concept of death, because that is what I am speaking of, how do we grasp the thing itself? When does innocence become experience?

Well, how does it happen with children? Sometimes they won't trust their parents and will insist on learning things the hard way. For instance: "Don't touch that hot stove! You'll burn yourself!" Whereupon Junior, not knowing what it means to get burned, touches the hot stove anyway and finds out the hard way.

We can't take away the natural consequences of disobedience. Hopefully you wouldn't want to, either. Otherwise, people would never learn - or learn to value - proper boundaries.

On the other hand, sometimes children decide to trust their parents and never push certain boundaries. As they grow up, they begin to understand for themselves the value of not crossing that boundary and not disobeying one's parents. But they first have to obey before the understanding can come.

This is how the Jews believe that the Mosaic Law was meant to be understood. As evidence, they cite the literal rendering of Exodus 24:7: "All that the Lord has said, we will do, we will hear (figuratively, understand)." In other words, they would do it first, then understand it afterwards.

conceptualizer wrote:See Genesis 2:15-17. '...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.' No one asks anyone to take this literally, because that is not what happened. They lived many years afterward, and had many children. But the fruit was poison; it was exactly the thing that causes spiritual death. And further the poison is hereditary.

I don't believe that it was hereditary. Rather, I believe that Adam and Eve's sins sabotaged their children, and caused them to sin as well. This begs the question, how can a sinless Messiah be descended from sinful ancestors (a-la Genesis 3:15)? The answer is through overcoming.

And by the way, the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil itself wasn't poison, but neither Adam nor Eve were mature enough to understand good from evil and be able to choose what was right and good. That's why God commanded them not to eat of the fruit. It wasn't yet time for them to do so. (There are proverbs which talk about the gaining of knowledge of good and evil as a good thing, so to everything there is a season.)

conceptualizer wrote:You ask me to notice that Satan didn't harm them physically, though you imply he was not allowed, I see no reason to assume that one way or another.

Well, why wouldn't Satan have destroyed them if God hadn't protected them? Isn't Satan the great destroyer?

conceptualizer wrote:This must include where Adam is hiding; the question is because God knows Adam is hiding. When God further questions them; it is not because he can not already see the answer in their souls...

God was teaching them using the Jewish method of teaching: He questioned them. This was the same method that Jesus used when He taught during His ministry. Of course God knew where Adam was, and that he was hiding. But rather than confront Adam about it directly, he allowed Adam to choose whether to own up or to try to avoid the responsibility for his actions. Adam chose the latter route, and that's one of the reasons God held him all the more accountable. I'm sure you'd do the same with your children, wouldn't you?

conceptualizer wrote:What more grievous harm could be done than to kill an immortal soul? That was always the goal for Satan.

I don't believe souls are immortal (Mat. 10:28 ).

conceptualizer wrote:Instead imagine the humans had eaten of the tree of life first. Imagining, if only, is fruitless work.

Not in my opinion, because we can learn quite a bit from posing these "what if's".

conceptualizer wrote:The tree was a trap and a predator was in the garden; where is the warning: 'don't listen to the snake?' Am I to think that this is oversight? It is not if Satan was free to hunt us, not for our bodies, but for our souls. That must needs be true before God warned Adam about the fruit. As asked earlier; when does innocence become experience?

So you'd rather be warned about every danger in this world before you encounter it? But then, would you develop as much character as if you hadn't been prepared to know every single eventuality beforehand? I think wisdom comes in finding a proper balance between the two extremes. Otherwise, we'd end up like the father in the movie "Finding Nemo."

IMHO, God didn't warn Adam and Eve about Satan in order to find out what was in their hearts. Not because He didn't already know, but to allow circumstances and events to prove it. This is the same reason that He said "now I know that you [Abraham] fear Me" (Gen. 22:12) when Abraham offered up his only son. Not because He didn't know before, but because Abraham had proved that he feared God through his actions. Such evidence would refute any accusations of unrighteousness in God's judgment (by Satan, for instance).

conceptualizer wrote:We need Christ because none of use by ourselves is able to free ourselves from a trap sprung on innocent children, by the most insidious of beasts. God gave us that tree and every other, not so that we would run wild and eat ourselves sick. I think each was for its own season; it doesn't change the intoxicating effects of knowledge, our children swim in it.

One of the major practices of the ancient Babylonian mystery religion was to take a young child and break his or her social boundaries to such an extent that they couldn't discern the difference between right and wrong. They usually did this sexually. They did this so that they could more easily control the person when they grew up.

In the modern world, in gradual steps and stages, our children are having their proper social boundaries eroded away before they can be properly formed, by all sorts of knowledge, as you said - including sexual knowledge. It's that same system all over again.

conceptualizer wrote:It is not through our understanding that we will be redeemed.

It's actually through a combination of love (for God and for others), trust, faith, knowledge, maturing, and overcoming. Leave any one of these out, and redemption and salvation become at best academic and at worst impossible.

conceptualizer wrote:Would I do such to my children, say don't touch the fire or you'll be burned and then stand off and let them experience the consequences. No I think I would not, I would be concerned, concerned enough to intercede if need be on a stranger's child if need be.

But sooner or later you have to let a child make their own choices and their own mistakes, otherwise you prevent them from maturing. I know a nanny that used to tie a young boy's shoes all the time because he didn't want to tie them himself. Well, he's ten years old now and can barely tie his own shoes. That ain't a good thing. The world won't be so forgiving; they'll make fun of him for not knowing and not being mature enough for his age. He needed to learn for himself early on, and now it'll be harder on him.

conceptualizer wrote:You mentioned they should have trusted God; they were not told to.

People shouldn't need to be told to trust, once they've been given an instruction. They should be free to ask questions however, and that's what Adam and Eve apparently didn't do.

Damon

It is a story, it is a history, of spiritual belief. They are words. Individually they have a meaning; each word has unique properties. Together words are strung into sentences, paragraphs, chapters and books, that's is just the way it works. Over time language of use has changed as human empires have risen and fallen. Some languages of scripture have lost current use, other languages of scripture, and in languages still used but absolutely changed by the events of human history.

I do not see the point of chasing all through the scripture for what is right in front of you. Or is it that you doubt the translators, or Moses. I have some issue with the ethical grounding, of some of the people responsible for translating and editing, and 'updating', but in this there really are, checks and balances. The work has 'many scrutinizers'. I have done some struggling with Latin and Greek, but beyond the basics, I myself can not go. I leave that battle to those that can, and accept on faith that diligence is still practiced in some places.

It is important that we read it, and a lot of what is said, is repeated and emphasized in other various ways, there are good reasons for this. I know that there is a time of innocence, I did not need Isaiah to inform me; his was a message concerning timing, so that those who had ears could hear. I know that Adam and Eve were in this state, when the serpent approach Eve. How do I know; I read the words. Like them it is all we have.

If I see the situation as the words present themselves, then man was created up from the earth, and God place man in the garden, warning him(them), not to eat the fruit of the tree. Then Eve is approached, and the serpent said his part. Eve tastes and then Adam, God always knew. When God made us, there was a period of innocence. How would we know God is good, we could not recognize that what the serpent spoke was desertion. Do you think when God made Satan, he did not know all that Satan would do; God knows.

We are warned away, and we are tempted toward, but we can not tell good from evil, because we have not eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Yes God created us; think what it must have been like, to be pulled forth from the ground. Things are so new some don't have names. The thing is, for an innocent; the understanding, is not there. That is how it works, don't ask me, I am only human. I could not imagine that time as anything other than wonderful confusion, until that tree, that bite. Oh yeah, I know now what was said is true feeling.

Innocence is blind trust, not trust. Innocent is being in the arms of a parent, not knowing they could drop you, the possibility of the event is not there, whether it happens in the future or not. It is just as clear God was with Eve then and ever after, even when she did not know it, or wasn't thinking about it. All we did is fail to heed a warning, Yes it was from God, all is from God, but God had not 'opened their eyes,' the fruit did that. And every child of Adam and Eve since, pretty hereditary I think.

The truth is, I do know what good is, and I do know what evil is. I am not innocent, I have said as much. Of course we ate the fruit, take a look around, it is a very human thing to feel temptation. To imagine a warning as other than that is your idea. God knew what Satan was going to say, before Satan existed. The fruit of that tree is poison; something we have taken into our body that is harmful to the body and effects multiple(singular) major systems of the body. I think my spirit a fairly major system.

There is no sense arguing blame, humans, as individuals made a choice to try the fruit, regardless of the warning, closely comforted by assurances. Now Christ could say get thee hence, and the devil must go; but I don't think, I would be up to that kind of challenge. Not that I am anything, as much as those two. Do you think you could fend off Satan, without Gods active help. They could not have either.

I can not imagine God, and I terror at his power, but Satan did more, he defied him. That's his look out, I can not operate at that level. I will not accuse Adam nor Eve of failing me, How can I? It is wrong to say our first parent failed, they made a very bad mistake, from a human point of view, but it was a mistake made in innocence, for the humans, God knew and Satan schemed, and all to Gods glory.

You can continue to call it the fall of man, years ago I gave up blaming them, and God. I know who the malefactor was and still is; I don't play at that level, so to think I have an immortal soul is perhaps premature. If however I am for what God know allowed to know the promise fulfilled - that's eternity; pretty immortal if you ask me. The promise is; there is a way. The consequences haven't changed since the first bite.

We will know good and evil and we will die. The promise is Gods gift, that we can not earn, but must try to earn, the best we can. It will be given to those that are in Earnest, with their effort to follow Christ. God did not fall on Adam and Eve in wrath, he clothed them, and he told them in a lot more detail the consequences of eating the fruit. God does love us. How much can he show us that he loves us, but we must loose our blame.

We do know good and evil. I think we do, If we are made to see it. What I see; most of us doing their level best to pretend 'it's all good.' Or, we are not with those bad people over there, we all hope it doesn't get any worse. Sure do that, it is your choice. That is the point, now we have to choose. Since then it has been this way but that is not anyones fault, because I don't blame children for talking to strangers.

It is in a child to trust, not at every age but at some age children are saying hi to everyone, whose fault is that; it is no ones fault. This is how it works. How much of our time do we waste blaming each our because we can not have our way. No it has got to be this way because 'we say so.' Well I have never had someone else say, yeah okay so we stop cuzzin the old folks cuz they messed up, and get started on working out this good and evil thing. Christ affirms that we must choose, but our choice is not whose fault it is. About judges he says something other.

I am not asking you to adopted some new doctrine, it's the bible; your flavour, read the story. Why must you search for meaning when it say what it says. I see the warning, I see the temptation, I see a mistake, I see both Adam and Eve understood the mistake right away, they were ashamed of themselves. That doesn't change consequences as we all know. God asked them, they confessed, he told them what had to happen, nothing but God could change that, but that would not have been fair to us.

If you insist on blaming Adam and Eve like they did something evil and so go the sermons of the fall, that's baggage. I see what I see, it isn't destiny, it is free will. In life eating of the earth can be always be a peril. My father told me not to eat green apples, but I thought they were red enough; my mistake. My father showed me things in the wild I should never eat, because they would kill me. He showed me many of the ways of life in the wild, and of the dying and death, and the killing.

When I left the wild I knew what dead was. My father told me, life feeds life; I still can not find a flaw in that. I do not need to be on some battle field, I saw a creature about the size of a man, a deer; living, then dead. So little in between I could not see. I learned to do that, and have done it myself, that is food. I do not do that, I never from the first, wanted to.

The earth is bountiful, the best hunters find their prey by waiting quietly, until the synchronized second. But hunting is not alway about killing. Chess is a game, that hunters can play, and the object is to capture. Do you think there is no slavery in our world. There are many who are not free. The reasons are too many, and they all come back to people choosing. But what is it we are choosing, is it to follow Jesus, or is only whom to blame for the trouble we have.

I don't blame children for there mistakes, I can not change what has happen, and there are always consequences. What I can do is walk with my children and support them as they work through the consequence of their action. If the children had understood the consequences they may have chosen differently, but that is what ifs, it is silly because its primary function is to assign blame. It not whose fault it is about anyway. It is about you and me and the choices we make.

I can not help my children if they will not tell me what is wrong. If they make a mistake, and clearly didn't understand what happened, could of happened. What good if I blame them too. What a friend of mine described as flogging a dead horse. It could be a terrible thing, and now they know it. Can I change it; can they as much as they might want it all to go back, no they can not. So if I blame them too, I am sure I increase there sense of guilt and shame; but please explain to me the benefit, of thinking of them as fallen?

But as I have experienced, it is far easier to blame someone else for the problem, than either accept responsibility for our mistakes, or do any thing constructive to fix what is now wrong. God didn't have to predict Eves choice, no more than he had to predict Abrahams. God always knew the outcome, though we choose for ourselves, that is the paradox. For us, not God, and thinking about eternity explains why, though no science is likely to prove it; God is.

Christ would be unremarkable as a man if all he did was live then die. But that is not what he did is it? He didn't go around beating people when they were in error, his first thoughts were not to blame and punishment. There are consequence for wrong action, but we are not judges of others. When his people clamored for a king, God let them have one; he also made it clear he thought it a unsound idea overall. Remember in the garden, over the other creatures, but nothing about over other men.

God is not telling you what to do, who to trust, all these things you find out on your own, as he watches silently, or you ask for his help through Christ. Christ who accepting responsibilities for our sins, mistake do not need forgiveness they need acceptance, and he was without sin himself. It was our shame and wickedness, deceit and murder, these and others he took upon himself. I do not see Christ point his finger and say you wicked man. My sins will stand witness against me.

Christ asked questioned that they might see within themselves, for themselves, and when they did see, they knew, and then what, they might ask Christ what they could do to get free. Christ might offer it up freely, as he did so often. I know some times he got angry, yet his anger was at the deed, and at the 'body' of those that allowed it. It wasn't going on just in Jerusalem. Word gets around fast when stuff like that happens.

But Christ went around telling people how to fix it, he didn't blame the woman at the well, only let her know that he knew. He didn't beat her down with rapprochement, he gave her what she need most, and sent her away. She still has to do the work. She knew that someone cared, and believed in her. Christ is the key. But not if we don't follow. He did not give us salvation, only the chance for salvation. If God would not take away our choice in the garden, neither does Christ. If we pay attention that is.

Some how we have gone from forgiveness to blamer, I try not to be like this, but I am a sinner, things I have done were not mistakes to be accepted. I know because of Christ, if I am unsure what is good, I need only look there. There I see no blame for what has gone before, I do see all of use being held responsible for our choices. We must do good, not because it is easy, but because it is good.

One of my children a few years ago gave me a piece of wisdom, more precious than gold, though I have trouble with it still. He told me, my life would be easier, if I would stop struggling. I have to listen to him; I watched him put just that into practice in his own life first. When he began in grade school he fought from the first day. So much so he had to wait an extra year to start. I was so sure that would hurt him. I knew the fighting had to go, so I watched, and it was hard, and he struggled, but he listened too.

Being a year older, made him bigger than everyone, After a year, most of the fighting stopped, only once were his fights with the students. After a couple of years I notices how he was forming his friendships, and how important fairness is to him. I noticed how with the grace of someone who understands where their body is in space, he does flips and jumps, like he always new how. Then I see how he waits for the others, and runs with them, and how he encourages them to continue, and how he stays with them.

He has chosen the autistic children that can attend school for his friends. He has, because what he does in athletics, I have heard his whole school cheer him; he's made children visable that would otherwise be invisible, as they usually are in our society. If they are not any better understood, at least they are not persecuted. My son doesn't fight anymore, he has found better ways. As I said, I still struggle, but he has stopped some time ago.

We talked the other day, about that time. He told me, I am still the same person Dad, I just don't do those things anymore. I could, but I don't have to. I will not tell him how ashamed of myself and proud of him that makes me feel. What if I had someone like that at my school who noticed the slightly different kids, and befriended them. He enjoys his friends, they are a tough crowd for me. One of the boys who I was assured talked to nobody, or anybody hardly ever, asks me questions none stop every day at lunch, and he phones my son. He uses the phone for no one else.

I watched this, I did nothing. But, I know what is good, I talk to a boy that knows about as much as anyone about the Roman Empire. Go figure. This is God stuff, and I know some happy parents, who love my son too for being the person that he is. He has corrected me, and many might not think that right for a son to do, but he has been right, and I thank God I can listen to my children. I feel it is Gods grace and a gift to me that I can tell my children, that I am wrong and they are right, and that I am brave enough to adjust myself to the 'realities' of a situation.

The point is not whose fault it is; the point is we have a problem; we will know good and evil and we will die. The test, the point is to choose, not lament over whose fault it is. Stop blaming the children, that is not what the story say, and you can read it word for word. It doesn't go away, or change or do anything auspicious. Moses, could have said and they went on to make other mistake and other sins. Even when we don't know we are doing good or doing evil, as humans it is our right to choose. And even if we sometimes messed up, because we can leap with out looking, we have the power of faith.

What we need to see more than anything from this chapter is that regardless of the choice of which God knew the outcome, always has, will whatever, humans were left to choose on their own. They could have called out for help from God, but children some times don't do as they should. Our ability to make a leap of faith is no small thing. It is not that we were wrong; again, could you stand up to a thing, that could stand up against God. Sorry I doubt.

I have gone on. You see, I have thought about this a lot as well, wasting time sermonizing about whose fault it is, that is time lost choosing good. How much time has been wasted blaming Korea or Iran or Palestine or those people in the house on the corner. Jesus came and did what he did, so we could be righteous in the eyes of God once more, the way is easy, pick up your cross. Need more see Paul. Laying blame is a judgment against someone.

Doesn't it go something like, let he that is with out sin cast the first stone. Doesn't say anything about being guilty, as far as dishing out punishment goes, only who is fit to do it, and who is not fit. Nobody was told to leave off, everyone had to choose; Christ gave them grace, and time to think. Knowing oneself did the rest, but that is another story. It seems we sould be in the forgiveness business, and leave off blaming for those that can cast stones without fear of God. My children taught me that too, in a very curious fashion. They love me and tell me so most every day, they miss a day here and there so it feels really good when they do.

Walk in the light of Jesus
sincerely
Steven Maurice

Hi Steven.

I appreciate the fact that you pour your heart and soul into every reply, by the way.

I wanted to share something with you. You say your son likes to befriend autistic children, right? The ten year-old I mentioned before is borderline autistic. He doesn't always know what's best simply because he doesn't have the social skills to know. But he does exactly the same thing that you described your son as doing. He makes friends with everyone at his school. He's the most beloved student there, primarily because he's so pure-hearted.

Steven, I'm not *blaming* anyone for anything. I'm only pointing out the facts of the situation in Eden as I myself see them. This ten year-old child is still very dependent on others to do things for him that he should be able to do for himself by now, and I'm trying to help him to become more independent. It isn't easy either, as he's very strong-willed and demanding (partly because of his borderline autism). But nevertheless, I can see that if people continue to do everything for him and tell him the right answer to everything, he'll never learn how to think for himself.

Just the other day, he was demanding that someone help him to take a boiling tea kettle off of the stove. I refused, and told him to figure it out. He was all in a panic about it, but he finally managed to turn the burner off and move the tea kettle to the back burner.

Again, I want him to be independent as much as he's able to, and I can see that God was trying to have Adam and Eve be independent too. It was their choice to give in to the serpent's temptations or to go back to God and ask Him about the serpent instead. Yes, they did make a mistake because they couldn't see the consequences, but God had already warned them. If they'd obeyed God, sooner or later they would have understood for themselves why God had forbidden them to eat of the fruit. That's just how it works.

They lost their innocence because they ate of the forbidden fruit. They could have lost their innocence through obedience instead, and learned that way, but they didn't make that choice.

Steven, we disagree on how we see things, and that's okay. You and I have had different life experiences, and that tends to color our perceptions of the biblical account. That's just the way it is.

Anyway, thanks again for sharing...

Damon