The entire story of Adam and Eve confuses me, and I rarely look at it as anything but a story. Little back story on myself I was raised Roman Catholic, but grew out of organized religion over time finding far too many incongruous ideas. So, Adam and Eve are newly created beings by God. He places them in this garden anew, we can essentially tell they have no knowledge of morals, reason, etc. He tells them not to eat of the tree of knowledge. Now the assumption is that until they eat from the tree of knowledge, they don't know what is right or wrong. My question then is how on earth do they differentiate that not eating the fruit is good or bad? How do they know the serpent is bad? How do they know God is good? How could God blame them for doing something they lacked the knowledge to understand completely? It's like telling a child not to touch the stove because it will hurt them. Some children try to touch it anyway. The usual thing a parent does is not keep the child in a room with a stove, until they are old enough to understand the danger. This entire story paints God in a really weird light because it seems like his plan was for Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit in the end. Also the other part of the story that is just plain weird is when God casts out Adam and Eve because they could become like him if they eat from the tree of life. That is a really weird and scary implications for Roman Catholicism, who like to believe that God is literally the beginning and the end. I mean it's just weird for them to set the tone of the Bible by saying human kind is half-way to Godhood.
I think an underlying concept, not directly written out in the story but brought up by your question, is the importance of obedience to God. Adam and Eve didn't necessarily have to know about good and evil beforehand, but their lack of obedience landed them in the position they found themselves. As to whether how central that theme should be, I think that's up to individual interpretation. I don't know if eating from the tree of life has as strong of an implication as you say. If it means that they'd live forever in the physical world, that just means they live forever. They're still subject to physical limitations and the will of God as a creator. If anything, I could see it as an even greater punishment, as it forces them to live forever in the physical world (which God has now allowed to cause them to suffer) meaning they can never be released from life and ascend to heaven.
So I mean if you think about it the earlier part of genesis is essentially setting the reader up for the fall of mankind. We are shown Gods power so that obedience makes sense because God obviously has more knowledge on these subjects than humanity could, so even if we don't know whether something God tells us is good or bad we should follow his lead anyway because he is the more powerful company. That for me sort of sets a weird tone for the rest of the bible doesn't it? I mean we are essentially saying "regardless of what God says obey him because look what happened when adam and eve didnt." It's an interesting perspective I've never really noticed.
Yes. It is an odd tone, but I think it's a necessary one at the time given the audience. From my understanding, life was very much on the ropes for people back then. The message of obedience was a necessary one because social cohesion went a long way to ensuring the survival of communities and nations. The stories that are told and the beliefs that were held help reinforce this mindset. This idea gets pulled into weird directions sometimes, for example a military victory is proof in being held in God's favor or a hardship comes about because an individual or a group of people have done something that dissapoints God. When you get to The New Testament, the tone changes. Theologically speaking, Jesus and his revelation are meant to replace the laws and requirements of The Old Testament and his message is something new. He still speaks of obedience, yes, but he also speaks heavily of compassion and justice. This happens literally centuries after The Old Testament was written and the world is a different place now, more advanced, more stable, and more connected. Yeah, it's not a bed of roses, but it's better than what was before. This stability brings about a lifestyle security that allows people to think with a slightly higher level of motivation. The message is no longer "Fear God and fear thy neighbor," but "Love God and love thy neighbor." In both though, there is still a message to obey. It just comes across differently.
No I definitely understand how the Old Testament was made to cater to the needs of the time, and it sort of begs the question did the writers ever think the religion would last this long? I mean discussing the implications of this idea of obedience. Do you think they knew it would be so strictly interepted thousands and thousands of years later like it is?
Well, I have two ways of thinking about that. If we're to consider religion as something that is revealed in dispensations in the Abrahamic tradition, I think the prophets knew themselves that their words were meant for a certain age, but that people would still cling to tradition. While people might argue over the meaning of words though, The Word, that is God's Word whatever it might be is permanent and changeless, and that any changes in our areas of focus and our perception of it is due to our limited understanding and the times and situations we find ourselves in. So I don't think they worried, because in essence they know it is good, just, and true. On the other hand, we could be more mundane. The people who passed on the message were concerned with their immediate times and not much more. For example, if I vote for president I'm concerned about how it'll affect the country in the short term, not how whoever wins is gonna dictate history for the next 2,000 years.
I think I'm more in line with the second way of thinking than the first. I mean both seem right, but one is just assuming what you know is the only thing there is and that there can be no other way, but God's way right? I mean to assume that we could fully interpret the will or ideas of God in any time or place is a little bit weird to say. I find it hard to blame those traditions because how can we expect anyone to make doctrine or dogma that is full-proof for thousands of years? Does that then mean that religion is to be interpreted differently as time moves forward? Then that brings into question the idea from the first way about God's Word. Is it something that is unaffected by perspective or focus? I feel like we are pulling pretty far away from the original subject, but this is a cool discussion.
Well, while I think God can become knowable and familiar in a fashion, I'm inclined to agree with you that the totality of God will be forever incomprehensible to us. He's just too vast. At the same time, I think as we come to better understanding of ourselves and the world around us, we can better understand His messages, from all sources and all dispensations. What once might have seemed mundane and straightforward becomes revelationary and profound all over again. Something that was once vague and nebulous suddenly becomes clear and easily discernable. I think certain dogmas seem irreconcilable sometimes because we're often tempted to take the words at face value and interpret with our current understanding of the world. I think when we stop to look at the potential underlying purpose behind them and try to view them in the time frame they were meant for, suddenly they become much more sophisticated. For an overly simplified example, if we were to look at a religion's dietary restrictions and compare them to the time, region, and culture they came from, we can see how some restrictions that might seem silly to us today protected people at that time and place from all sorts of diseases. Finally, I don't think it is the dogma that we should look at as permanent, but the underlying spiritual messages of the religion. In the grand scheme of things, whether or not a person eats pork is probably near inconsequential. The line for what is and isn't blasphemy will sway. That we are to love each other, care for each other, and better the world along with ourselves, that will never change. I think that message is The Word.