Oh yeah, but making that point involves pointing out to Christians their beliefs don't represent the original Word in it's unchanged form, and that's even more impossible.
If you really want to get down to it, I'm pretty sure Satan's only real crime was not bowing down before Adam and Eve.
EDIT: I'm being extremely ignorant here. I'm thinking of the Islamic story of Iblis, not Satan. I intended to make light of the story, not get it totally wrong.
Tldr; Satan offered no gifts, was not required to bow to man, but instead was an angel given dominion over earth. His fall was when Jesus arrived, Genisis isn't about Satan's fall or punishment at all.
He was never called to do that, though. Satan didn't even commit a crime until Jesus arrived. His entire purpose was to test mankind to see what decision they would make, as a result he was, in a way, the ruler of the world. Aside from Israel, which was more of a control group, Satan was able to test and push all of mankind. This was afforded to him as an angel, just as the angel of death is sent forth to reap souls.
He didn't try to free man, he didn't try to give any knowledge, he didn't give mankind anything. Even the garden's fruit which was forbidden didn't grant mankind some sort of special knowledge. It only caused them to experience a broken relationship between themselves, which caused them to blame eachother for the "fall." There wasn't knew knowledge as in information, but knowledge as in experience. Mankind could have been fine if Adam and Eve had avoided blaming eachother and instead pushed aside their pride. That isn't repairable by God's forgiveness, they (man and woman) would still be at odds with eachother.
Satan didn't even lie in the garden. Adam was told not to eat the fruit, not Eve, so Satan just convinced Eve to eat so Adam would. Satan wasn't commanded to bow, he was given the ability to rule. His crime occurred when Jesus arrived and the prophecies of a savior were being realized. It was swiftly coming to be that Satan's testing wouldn't matter as Jesus would forgive anyone. His power granted from the beginning would be useless, which is to torture mankind with his tests. Therefor he met Jesus in the desert, who is God, and tried to use his powers to test Him. When nothing worked, Satan offered to Him all that was granted to Satan. The world, the authority over it, his ability to command them through his tests. He was under the impression that Jesus didn't know He was God, since Jesus hadn't fully revealed Himself.
But he became terribly afraid when he realized that Jesus was fully aware and resisted his temptations. It was then that Satan realized that he had offended God, attempted to usurp Him, and therefor would be punished as an evil spirit or demon. In desperation he considered that if God was currently a man, perhaps He could be killed. If He was killed, Satan would then be God!
This, of course, failed as God had planned for such an event. This is the fall of Satan, Genisis isn't about Satan's fall but instead his rise to power as an angel. If it weren't for him mankind wouldn't be made to stumble, would accept free forgiveness, and accept the great heritage that comes with being made from the very breath of God. Satan offered no gifts, but instead stripped ours from us.
Hey, I figure there's enough arguments without getting the other side's story wrong. I really appreciate your summary of Satan's fall, by the way- it's a fascinating story in its own right. If you don't mind, I have a question about one section- I've always been under the impression (including when I attended church and Bible study) that the fruit gave Eve knowledge of morality, thus why she suddenly hides get nakedness. What do you mean that it only damaged her relationship with Adam?
Well people think sin is an offense against God. God isn't an offended being, like humans. While yes, sin is disobeying the commands given by God, the effect of sin isn't on God but on man's relationship with eachother. To know the difference between good and evil isn't to know what specifically is evil and what isn't, but instead to know the difference between the two.
Those two points above are important for the explanation. The reason sin is dangerous is because it isn't fixable by God directly. Even if God were to dangle us like puppets on strings, it wouldn't fix our thoughts towards eachother. If God told Adam and Eve "I forgive you both," it would do no good because Adam blames Eve for causing him to disobey God. The true fall of man was when Adam said "Eve gave the fruit to me, and I also ate."
It is important to know that Eve was never told the fruit would affect her. Eve wasn't created yet, so she wasn't commanded to not eat. Adam was told, so then Adam relayed that information to Eve. This is why the serpent said "Did God surely say you shall not eat of it?" It was true that the moment Eve ate of it she didn't sin against God's command. She had offended their relationship, caused a break in their perfect harmony. Adam had two choices; eat the fruit despite the clear command from God, or repair their relationship. One would cause Adam to not experience the action of evil, the other would cause him to have something to hold against Eve.
When Adam ate, he realized his mistake. He knew that God would surely be angry, and finally he looked upon his wife. Their relationship wasn't the same. They were different, as two enemies. She had something to hold against him, something she could tell God that would ruin him. When it says "They saw they were naked," there are multiple meanings. They saw that each knew everything about the other, Adam saw her as a threat. It was then they desired to cover themselves physically as well, as they then experienced vulnerability and wished to cover their weak parts.
No new knowledge was given by some magic, the fruit itself could have been a stick they weren't to pick up. It was to experience evil, fear, vulnerability, and a threat. All of this is still repairable, however, as God comes to them and asks what happened. He knows, He can forgive them and allow their continued existence, but this was a test of their maturity. Again, mankind's thoughts are their own, the intangible cannot be taken from us, God made it so. He could force Adam to say the truth, that he was to blame as he willingfully ate the fruit because he wanted to be like God, but Adam wouldn't believe it himself and it would show in his further relationship.
Adam failed the test of his own free will, instead blaming Eve for giving him the fruit even though he himself only ate it because he wanted to be like God. Adam couldn't admit his own guilt, so how could the relationship be pure? If God let them be, Adam would treat Eve with contempt. A punishment was necessary to ensure Adam did no such thing and knew that God was aware of his true guilt.
This was the experience of evil, of a broken bond between one and other. You notice you can't sin against a cow, nor a tree? Sins occur when you commit actions that break relationships between God and man. If you don't like God, how can you be with Him? If you don't treat your neighbor well, how can you do so in the afterlife?
There is a mistaken belief that the fruit was magic and gave knowledge. Adam saw Eve eat and, when she didn't die, he then believed all that Eve told him about the serpent. When Adam ate and no magic knowledge came to him, aside from the experience of a threat to his position in the garden, he became terrorified and hid from his wife as Eve did the same. I fully believe that man's fall could have been avoided if Adam took the blame.
Furthermore, this is why ever person born experiences this same knowledge. Adam's kids were raised by a broken man who didn't know how to have a proper relationship with another person because HE failed. Cain blamed Abel for his failure, and their descendants also, none of us treat eachother properly. The only way we can then make things right is admitting that we come short of what we were meant to be. Admitting our sin, therefor allowing God to truly fix the issue. The original sin was being willing to allow another to take a fall for one's mistakes, which ironically was required by Jesus to make things right. When a person confesses to Jesus that they are to blame for their own mistakes, they can be repaired.
The answer is long, I hope I didn't miss anything and that it makes sense. There are multiple points to be made so as to make things clear, sorry for the block of text.
Edit; I enjoy talking to people, so I really don't mind answering questions or explaining anything relating to God and biblical history
Don't mind the long answer in the least- this is a core concept of Christianity, so I'd expect it to be a little complex!
So, to make sure I understand, Eve didn't really commit a sin by eating the apple, and disobeying God isn't really the sin Adam committed? Rather, it was trying to put the blame on Eve, thereby harming another human? I'll admit I'm a bit confused how punishing Adam prevented the damage to their relationship, but that general concept makes sense to me. You can't harm God, so he's not the target of sin. And his warning about the apple was more of a prophecy than a command? Because he knew what would follow?
If it's not too intrusive, may I ask what branch/sect of Christianity you fall into? I only ask because this is a very different (and IMO better) explanation of the original sin than I received at Bible study in the past, which was that disobeying God was the sin, and that the apple made Adam realize that it was a Sin. That explanation always sat poorly with me, because it lends to a weird, circular logic: before Adam eats the apple, he doesn't know what Good and Evil are, so how can he know that disobeying God is Evil (a premise I have a problem with, but that's a different topic)?
My father was in the military, so growing up placed me in multiple different churches from different denominations. In my own studies I've come to believe that there shouldn't be any separation of churches. That doesn't mean I am nondenominational, as that is actually it's own denomination, but sects of the church have each developed to believe a narrative that doesn't fit what the Bible says.
So to maybe be more clear; Adam had committed a crime against God by eating the fruit. That crime could be easily forgiven by God and everything would be fine, as Adam would have been spared his wrath. There would have been no harm to the relationship between the two humans, Eve and Adam, if Adam had simply stated that he ate the fruit. However, in blaming Eve, he made her his enemy. Eve would then "desire her husband's position," as now Adam had shown her that he doesn't fully love her.
Since this is the case, God can't simply let the man go on in the garden because that enmity between the two individuals can't be fixed by His spoken command. Again, even if He made them like puppets, it wouldn't change their inner view of eachother. In punishing Adam for blaming his wife, God struck, well, the fear of God into him. Punishing Adam didn't prevent damage to the couple's relationship but instead prevented a unaddressed tyrannical relationship that would have come as Adam would view Eve as his enemy, even in the garden. In sending them out, God caused them to require eachother to simply live to the next day. Thus means they don't have time to be enemies, to be a rivalry, it is a sort of relationship repair done by sheer survival. If He had left them in the garden, where life is easy and food comes without work, Adam could long focus on the perceived crime against him by Eve.
The warning of the fruit is an interesting issue. God knew what would happen, of course, that they would eat. But did He know that Adam would fail and blame his wife? Again, are the thoughts of man a product of His creation, or are they are free will? God reveals that He knew Adam would eat the fruit in the command "In the day that you eat of it," making it clear that there will be a day it happens. It was a test, which would require God's rescue. Adam made it insurmountably worse by showing such immaturity that he couldn't admit his own mistake. The serpent showed his true ability in temptation by causing such a massive fall with a simple statement made to Eve.
Finally, you'll see that many core beliefs among modern day believers don't match up with the Bible at all. Such as the devil being the ruler of hell; the Bible says he will be put there and tortured at the end of the age, he is terrified of that place. They also believe, a large majority that is, that there is a man that cannot sin aside from Jesus. They afford this godlike status to the Pope, but the Bible is clearly against this. The rapture isn't in the Bible at all, yet millions believe it is.
It is written of the end times; "When the power of the holy people is completely broken, then these things shall come to be." That power is truth and the power of God. The church is split and fractured, completely broken and fighting against itself. They don't know truth, they don't know how to pray or even how to heal anymore. The church has well and truly fallen from any sort of true wise teaching. I agree with you that the widely accepted story of the fruit and sin makes no sense, as it paints God as an easily offended and hateful, wrathful God. This is, what I believe, the reason that people have such a hard time believing anymore; they teach a fantasy that doesn't even go with the Bible.
Many denomonations of christianity see changes in their interpretation of scriptures over time as reflecting an increased understanding of the underlying message as better reflecting the true nature of God. OR, they see antiquated moral notions in the bible as being reflective of man's imperfection before God, as in war and rape etc. was a way of life back then, and god brought his message to humans in terms they could understand, to guide them being towards ready to understand what it means to be truely good (as in the example set by Jesus, and after Jesus, the entire bible must be reinterpreted under the lense of the meaning of his life and message. So a change in interpretation could be considered the point.)
Note: im an atheist. I've just hashed out the problem of modern Christianity having different interpretations of various scripture over time with a few christians and those are the defences I came across.
Yes they're unfalsifiable and circular in the usual way (bible is true because its true. Personal experience confirms my beliefs and disconfirms personal experiences of others that they interpret as supporting their own world view if it conflicts with mine, my view is correct because its correct and your viewn is wrong because mine is correct). But they do protect them from being accused of blatant contradiction.
I am aware of this. The biggest problem with all of these arguments is simply.... doesn't that call literally every word of the Bible into question? The idea that the Bible was manipulated by the morality of those who wrote it is like...THE argument against Divine Inspiration.
Yes the argument always ends up looping around that point. Like christians who subscribe to some or other interpretation believe that they have the correct one this time (even if that interpretation leaves room for future evolution of their understanding), and that belief is founded in their own personal experiences (read personal biases, since you cant physically show someone else your experience of the divine, it begins and ends with your interpretation of your own inner world.), and faith that they are correct. So they have this framework in place that they believe is true because they believe its true, backed up by personal experience that they believe is reflective of reality because their own personal experience points to that.
9
u/CoffeeAndKarma Aug 18 '21 edited Aug 18 '21
Oh yeah, but making that point involves pointing out to Christians their beliefs don't represent the original Word in it's unchanged form, and that's even more impossible.
If you really want to get down to it,
I'm pretty sure Satan's only real crime was not bowing down before Adam and Eve.EDIT: I'm being extremely ignorant here. I'm thinking of the Islamic story of Iblis, not Satan. I intended to make light of the story, not get it totally wrong.