Created Good?

[Chappie]

Adam did that (ate the fruit) which God had earlier defined as wrong. Having disobeyed God, Adam could then be described as "evil." Prior to that, we could describe Adam as "good" because his actions and thoughts were not contrary to what God had said. We can say that Adam was innocent, but what does that really mean - that he was sheltered from bad influences, like Satan?

What passages are you referring to when you say, "that which God had defined as wrong". Where did God define it as wrong?

[Ormly]

I'd like to know how Adam became evil? I see where Adam allowed evil, something from outside himself to influence him, but to say he actually became evil? No way. -- He may never have done an evil thing again in his life.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Adam did that (ate the fruit) which God had earlier defined as wrong. Having disobeyed God, Adam could then be described as "evil." Prior to that, we could describe Adam as "good" because his actions and thoughts were not contrary to what God had said. We can say that Adam was innocent, but what does that really mean - that he was sheltered from bad influences, like Satan?

Chappie
What passages are you referring to when you say, "that which God had defined as wrong". Where did God define it as wrong?

I was thinking of this--

Genesis 2
15 The Lord God took the man and place him in the orchard in Eden to care for and maintain it
16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard,
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”

Had God not created a tree that could not be eaten without causing death, then there would not have been a problem.

I think the question we might ask is whether the death that resulted from eating the fruit was a consequence of some characteristic of the fruit (it was poisonous) or a consequence of Adam’s disobedience to God’s instruction. I view the fruit as innocent and not poisonous making death a consequence of Adam’s disobedience of God’s command. Take away that command and there would have been no ill effects from eating the fruit.

[Chappie]

I was thinking of this--

Genesis 2
15 The Lord God took the man and place him in the orchard in Eden to care for and maintain it
16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard,
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”

Had God not created a tree that could not be eaten without causing death, then there would not have been a problem.

I think the question we might ask is whether the death that resulted from eating the fruit was a consequence of some characteristic of the fruit (it was poisonous) or a consequence of Adam’s disobedience to God’s instruction. I view the fruit as innocent and not poisonous making death a consequence of Adam’s disobedience of God’s command. Take away that command and there would have been no ill effects from eating the fruit.

Genesis 3:

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Not poisonous, the sting was disobedience to God's command...

[rhutchin]

Genesis 3:

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Not poisonous, the sting was disobedience to God's command...

I agree. The fruit was not poisonous and not to be avoided in the absence of God's command. The adverse result from eating the fruit had nothing to do with the fruit (except as a prop) and everything to do with God's command.

[Ormly]

I agree. The fruit was not poisonous and not to be avoided in the absence of God's command. The adverse result from eating the fruit had nothing to do with the fruit (except as a prop) and everything to do with God's command.

Then you must apply the same reasoning to the "Tree of Life".

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I agree. The fruit was not poisonous and not to be avoided in the absence of God's command. The adverse result from eating the fruit had nothing to do with the fruit (except as a prop) and everything to do with God's command.

Ormly
Then you must apply the same reasoning to the "Tree of Life".

There is always the chance that Ormly was trying to make a point with his comment, but being unable to explain what he was thinking, he leaves everyone in the dark.

Maybe Ormly can enlighten readers as to where he is going with this.

[Ormly]

There is always the chance that Ormly was trying to make a point with his comment, but being unable to explain what he was thinking, he leaves everyone in the dark.

Maybe Ormly can enlighten readers as to where he is going with this.

Nope. If you've read the first chapter or two in the book of Genesis you should know. My oneliner was clear enough for a child.
--- that is if you can reason

[rhutchin]

Nope...

Well, I suspected that you could not.

[Ormly]

Well, I suspected that you could not.

Wrong! Won't. Even in this you people can't get it right.

I believe we have a little bit O "total depravity" going on here, folks.