The Fall Wasn’t Our Fault

So yesterday, we left young Adam and Eve standing next to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. As I explained, I was told/shown that the tree was to Adam and Eve what the adult world is to a child. Rather than being a temptation or even a danger, it was a good thing which let them know that there is more to life than their childish existence. God told them not to eat from that tree because the experiences of the adult world are not for children to have – adult experiences being the fruit they were not to eat. Under normal circumstances, the existence and close proximity of the adult world does not pose a threat to children, nor is it particularly tempting. Unless one of the adults does something to bring a child into the adult world inappropriately. Enter the serpent.

It has often been pointed out that the serpent isn’t specifically identified with the character of Satan in this story. However, the serpent was indeed Satan (whatever or whomever Satan is in reality). The connection between the serpent and Satan is made in several places in scripture – particularly in Revelation 12 and Revelation 22. But even more damning is that both the serpent and the character of Satan work in the same way. Satan is a Hebrew word meaning accuser or adversary. In Revelation 12:11, the serpent is described as “the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night”.

Satan’s job is to serve as an adversary. He does this through accusations. Which is to say that Satan calls the goodness of God, creation and humanity into question by offering alternative explanations for what is going on. So at the opening of the book of Job, we get the accusation that Job isn’t faithful because he loves God, but because God has protected him. When Job remains faithful after losing everything, Satan claims it is only because Job has not suffered physical harm himself. This is what Satan does – looks for any explanation possible to explain away what is good, true, faithful and loving. When Satan tempts Jesus at the end of his 40 days in the wilderness, he uses scriptures to argue that things which are forbidden – grasping power, testing God, etc – are in fact scripturally sanctioned. He offers an alternative vision of reality which Jesus rejects.

The thing is that Satan had a legitimate role in God’s kingdom. One of the ways to view the existence of the material world is that it is God exploring and expressing the reality of himself through this physical creation. I’m probably going to flub this explanation, but outside of the created world, God exists as whole, complete and unchanging. Within the created world, God can unpack all of that and share himself with us, his creation. One of the ways which we can know and understand something is by seeing how it is and isn’t like something else. God is light – in him there is no darkness. But without darkness, how can the light be known? If there is only undifferentiated light, nothing can be seen or observed. And this is the purpose which Satan serves. He introduces the dark by which the light can become known.

Or to put it in slightly less abstract, esoteric terms, God is love and created everything in and through love. But what does that mean? Are there limits to love? When people suffer, is that a sign of a lack of love? How do we know what comes from love and what comes from serving self? Satan’s job is to come up with challenges to God. He tells God, “that’s not really love; here’s what’s really going on.” And God then has a puzzle or a challenge which must be resolved in such a way as to demonstrate that love is, in fact, the ultimate reality. This is why the serpent was “the cleverest of all the creatures”. If you are working on a tricky problem and need to step outside your own head for perspective, you seek out the most clever, challenging person you know to offer the opposing view and poke holes in your ideas in order to tease whole thing out. That’s the Accuser’s reason for existing

So when the serpent approaches Adam and Eve, he does what he always does – he makes an accusation – offers a skewed vision of reality: “did God really say that you can’t eat the fruit of the garden?” Eve’s response is interesting. She actually adds to God’s instructions claiming that they were not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good or evil nor were they to touch it. But God hasn’t told her not to touch it. Even before the fall, human had a tendency to err it seems. The serpent responds: “God isn’t worried about you dying. God just doesn’t want you to be like him.” It’s the game he plays.

Here’s the thing, though; this was a game to be played with God. It wasn’t a child’s game. What we have here is a powerful, clever creature – one whose job it was to act as an adversary for God himself – bringing the grown-up’s world into the lives of children. Remember – the existence and proximity of the grown-up world is neither a threat nor a real temptation to children unless an adult inappropriately involves them in the world of adults. Which is exactly what happened here.

When this was shown to me, it was impressed on me that what happened at the fall was akin to what happens when a child is sexually abused. The fact that the grown-ups have sex is no threat to children, even if they are aware that it is happening. But when grown-ups involve children in sex, it is horribly damaging to them. Now, you may protest that Eve made a considered decision when she ate of the fruit: “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.” However, this is exactly what predators do. They induce their victims to make a decision to engage in something which they should never have been invited or tempted to do. They create the appearance of willing co-operation on the part of their victim. In fact they count on this dynamic – children who are being victimized often to do not seek help because they see themselves as culpable in what is happening to them. They are doing something they know they are not supposed to be doing. Which is exactly what happened here with Adam and Eve.

We have always thought and been taught that the fall was what happened when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and reached for what was forbidden. But it was strongly impressed on my that the fall was in actually an act of abuse by a more powerful creature against immature, unprepared, unsuspecting mankind. And if you look at the reaction of Adam and Eve after the fall, you will see that their reaction is very much in line with how children react after being abused. They feel intense shame. They hide. They blame themselves while also lashing out at those closest to them. This is what happens when a child is traumatized and exposed to things which they are unprepared to cope with. We see it everyday.

And all too often, callous and unthinking adults do blame victims of abuse as much as the victims do themselves. They say unless you put up a huge fight, it wasn’t really abuse. Or that if the child wasn’t physically forced to do it, it wasn’t really abuse. Or if there was any element of choice involved – the child went there, touched that, listened to this – then it was their fault. But the reality is that a person with power and experience inviting children into adult experiences and exposing them to adult experiences is a predatory abuser. The serpent was a predatory abuser. And Adam and Eves were victims of the worst, most damaging case of child abuse on record. And through them, we all fell victim.

In my next posts I’ll get into more detail about why such a terrible thing could happen, the aftermath and results of having eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, what this all means for sin (traumatized people tend to fall into a lot of sin, after all) and some of the implication for our thinking and theology today. But for now, I want to leave you with this: as the story I was being told ended and I was coming back to myself, I sensed God telling that he was so, so sorry for what we’ve all been through. Yes, we’ve handled things badly, but the road we found ourselves walking was a broken one that was never meant for us. He never wanted us to go through so much suffering and it’s broken his heart to watch his lost, broken and suffering children on it. It wasn’t our fault that we lost our place in the garden and our innocence. There’s no going back, but it’s time to lay down the guilt and self-condemnation and allow ourselves to be comforted and redeemed by our pappa whose heart has broken over us and who has always, always loved us.

35 thoughts on “The Fall Wasn’t Our Fault

  1. Absolutely everything you’ve stated here is conjecture. Not one shred of credible evidence for any of it yet you talk like this is a truth by which people should guide their lives. How can you justify interpreting these things to mean as you have said they are to mean and thus create meaning where there is no evidence for the basic premises?

    You have identified Satan as the adversary and we humans imagine our conscious thoughts has having both good and bad advice – often acting as adversary to our intents. There is no reason not to think that the serpent in the garden was not YHWH himself in disguise. At this point your discussion falls into incoherence. You have no explanation for the serpent or why it was allowed free run of the garden to do as it wished with YHWH’s special pets. Your analysis is not complete and in being incomplete is not useful.

    1. Well, it sure got a rise out of you, so I guess that’s something! Actually, why the serpent was able to do this is something I will be addressing specifically in the next few days. As for the idea that this is all conjecture, it’s actually much worse and less respectable than conjecture. If you go back to my last post, this was I guess what you would call a vision I was given. So of course I’m going to discuss it as if it were the truth. And of course you and anyone else is free to reject it. But I didn’t come up with it on my own. In fact, I have spent many years trying to figure out the story and made relatively little headway. It could be that one day my subconscious took all that contemplating and popped this out to me whole cloth. But that’s not something my brain tends to do. So whatever the case is, as a Christian I will follow what Jesus said – you will know the source of the thing by its fruit. If for your own reasons, you’d prefer to see it all in some other light, I’m certainly not trying to stop you. Do as you please and I guess if it makes you feel better to be all angry about it, do that as well. But I have every right to present what I know for those who would hear it.

    2. Reason is more than linear logic build on empirical facts.

      Intuiton, although subjective and not any more infallible than human reason, is also a factor, especially in acquiring wisdom from our knowledge.

      Empirical evidence, apart from subjective human interpretation, is meaningless and the need and search for meaning beyond mere biological existence is the primary difference between our species and other sentient animals.

      As Michael Polanyi, a philosopher of science, observed, “the experimenter is always part of the experiment” and, likewise, the reader is always part of the story.

      ‘The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.’ –A. Einstein

      It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.
      — Albert Einstein

      You are not thinking. You are merely being logical. –Neils Bohr, physicist

  2. It is of little value to say that you have a right to present what you know. You don’t ‘know’ it with any credible evidence and a drunk on the street corner has a right to present what they know too. Who said I was angry. Simply giving an opinion on what you’ve written is hardly being angry. What good is a vision if it provides nothing provable? It would seem no more of value than the whimseys of a dog if it cannot be verified. If all dreams and visions were to be seen as true, the world would be a terrible and horrifying place. Speaking in opposition or even to question is not being angry. If you heard anger you were listening for it and heard what you wanted to hear, much as I suspect your vision is what you wanted to see.

    1. OK, you are fervently oppositional. Or how about passionately dubious? Emphatically unimpressed? Pugnaciously protesting? Assertively antagonistic? Unfavorably disposed to my presupposition? Any of those work better for you?

      As for evidence – it’s a vision! Of course it’s not evidence. Of anything other than that I may have gone round the bend or been using drugs. (which I am sad to say, I have not been. But if the good people of Wisconsin would all band together to legalize weed, that could change.) The only evidence other than the experiences in my brain which you are free to say are frizzled and fried is whether what I say fits with how things work in the real world. In the real world, when people are traumatized they do tend to react the way Adam and Eve do. And humanity has a rather impressive track record of victim blaming and punishing traumatized people who act out. Other than that, again, it’s a vision. It’s by definition about as far away from solid evidence as it’s possible to get. I never made any claims it was anything else. But it was my vision, and I believe it to be true and I’m free to present the best I can. I don’t owe you or anyone else anything more than that.

  3. A fair statement then. When I hear religious claims I am looking for truth, evidence, something that tells me this is true and not what I’ve seen so far. I’m an atheist and anti-theist among other things but not looking for new evidence or information is to give up and say to myself that I know all that there is to know. It is my natural wont to question and probe to understand and learn. If this is merely a dream that you give credence to, s’alright. If it is a truth claim, I want to know why it is truth. 2+2=4 for everyone but the derranged and delusional. Truth, if it be truth, must be the same for the best of us and the least of us so the understanding of it should not be mystical or ensconced in the experience of a single individual, rather it would be available to all – from the least of us to the best of us. So when I hear truth claims and I cannot access this truth on my own, I am propelled to ask why it is that this ‘truth’ claim is not available to me in my experience. It’s not anger. Most people like to call it science.

    1. I wouldn’t call that science. But the problem is that subjective reality is subjective reality. And it is inherently beyond the scope of evidence. If I say I am in love, how are you to know if I am in love, brain damaged or lying or what? You can look at my actions, but I can fake it. You can look at my brain and see chemical reactions which we know correspond to the experience of feeling love, but what does that mean? And if I swear I am in love, but you look at my brain and don’t find the usual chemical signatures, for love does that mean that I’m wrong? Can I think I am in love when I’m not? Is love a real thing? Is it an idea? What’s an emotion? A chemical response felt in the body? If so, then it’s pretty bizarre that most of us run our lives according to these chemical responses isn’t it? And how are we to even know if what triggers these responses is real? A glance from a stranger across the room sets our heart racing, but what if they were just checking the time on the clock right behind us? What’s the meaning in that? The physics of the material world is amazing and well worth our time to study, but the reality of the experience of a human life goes well beyond what can be measured, touched and verified.

  4. Wow, yes it is bizarre that most people run their lives by what chemical responses they have. Trust me, I’m all in on that statement. What we can know as true (for what that can mean) is what is shared experience. Feelings are chemical responses, not truth. I do not think that the reality of human experience is beyond being measured and verified. What most of your post dithers on is the definition of love. There is no exacting definition of love, it is a chemically based ’emotional’ state of our brains. It is verifiable even if we do not yet have the technology to do so. Emotional states are those ‘situations’ in our brains which we can reasonalby convey to others, but cannot quantify them ourselves to the point that they can accurately be conveyed – thus the discusions of love and other emotional states is necessarily fuzzy. What is certain is that we share similar or identical experience such that we can say love is a real emotional state, rather than some imagined bit of fluff. Because we share an experience of this state (though fuzzily explained) it is enough for us to verify that it is real. At least as real as the color red is real.

    Experience does go beyond what we normally measure and verify, this is why it is important that we trust shared experience and not what is experience only by ourselves. It is how we can be sure of the truth of a thing. Love is one of those things which we share an experience of even if it is ill-defined. This is science, like it or not.

    1. So if I have an experience which no one else witnesses or has experienced, than it isn’t real? Ultimately, we do have choices. Our lives are more meaningful because we do allow ourselves to be heavily influenced by subjective emotions, so even though we think maybe emotions are basically chemical reactions, we keep allowing ourselves to live this way. And if I have a vision which I know that I really had (I’m not the only person such a thing has happened to!) and it helps me make sense of my world, then I can choose to accept that and be lead by it. I’m not going to make my partner have a brain scan to verify that they actually experience the chemical reaction associated with love when they think of me. Science is a useful tool, but it’s not the be-all and end-all of what is worthwhile or valuable. As I wrote a week or so ago, even if there is no God, I want to live in a world which is being redeemed by love, so I will choose to live and act as if that is the case. And scientific or not, I think that’s a good thing.

    2. If shared experience or repeatable events are the only criteria that you will accept for validation of reality/truth than your epistemology is reductionistice because unique experiences and events happen all of the time and the only access we have to them is anecdotal stories.

      In this case intuition [gut feeling] is a more reliable [not infallible] means of discernment than logic based on our own limited experiences and fact-based empirical knowledge.

      “Like all sacred art, legends are for the feeling; and it is more important to feel what one knows—even if it is only one thing—than to know with the head alone a mass of theories and facts. When modern people assume that we have made so much progress over ancient or nonindustrialized cultures, they forget this point. It is far, far better to understand a central truth with the whole of oneself than it is to know many things only with the mind. When one knows only with the mind, and the feelings are not integrated into the knowing, then the knowledge one has becomes harmful. Technology without ethics is the result of having knowledge without developing the instrument of ethical perception, the feelings. As it was said long ago, ‘The mind is for seeing what is true; the feelings are for understanding what is good.’” –Jacob Needleman, Money and the Meaning of Life

      1. I don’t think you’ve thought that through well enough. You seem to be arguing that it is better to know a central truth with the whole than to know many things with the mind. So, given that your idea of truth does not require evidence we can say that knowing that Vishnu created the universe with your whole being is better than knowing actual and provable truths with the mind.

  5. You are indeed right to choose to live as you wish. If no other person experiences what you do you cannot, by definition, know that it happened. This is the nature of hallucinations. That you think our lives are more meaningful because of subjective experience is an opinion. All others I meet who believe in god seem to think that meaning is objective, not subjective. I did not say you did not have a vision. I only said that if this revelation is not available to me then how can I know it is truth? If you wish to live in a world that makes sense because it feels right rather than is truthful, that is your choice. Science, currently, has no opinion in particular on the value of the world’s great art. In this sense it is possible to say that science is not the be all and end all of what is worthy or valuable to humans. What you’ve done here is claim that your vision is truth and has value despite the lack of evidence or proof of it’s validity. That is okay for you to believe. I simply question and ask for evidence that I too might believe it. There seems to be none, no reason for me to believe it. If you wish to call it a ‘story’ or work of art and expect it valued in this way, no problem. If you wish to call it a truth claim I have reason to question and my questions are valid. It might make sense to you, but that notion that what you think is valid is valid to others is a flawed way of thinking. 2+2=4 and it never needs defending. This truth is available to everyone. What you are claiming is not available to everyone so questioning of it is both natural and valid.

    Revelation is the weakest way to recieve truth.

    1. “What is truth?” It’s a matter which has been argued for millennia and will not end with an answer any time soon, methinks. I am a very intuitive, creative person. I cannot be otherwise – I have tried and it nearly killed me. I judge truth in balance between observed and measured reality and experienced/lived reality. I would not have it any other way. When someone says something which cannot be proven, my habit is to ask myself, “what if this were true?” Nearly always, the practice is very illuminating. If it makes my heart sing, then there may be something to it. If it turns my stomach, that could be about me or it could be about the topic at hand. Takes more investigating. I’m actually very methodical in my intuiting. But I accept that not all truth is provable. Not even all that is physically real is provable. We are not the be-all and end-all of creation – there will be plenty more to discover long after we are gone. I think it might be safe, but rather dull and perhaps a bit arrogant to limit ourselves to only that which can be proven at this current moment which, after all, is barely the length of a sneeze in the scheme of things.

  6. What if the story is a metaphor of the last bit of human evolution? My hypothesis is similar to yours. What if we weren’t ready to know these things.but we forced the issue and ever since we’ve been battling the duality of our nature.

    1. I think that may be the possible meaning. My theory is that it simply represents the development of consciousness. If you take the symbology and break it down you come up with some interesting conclusions. These of course are mine and I don’t expect others to necessarily agree:

      The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: I just realized not long ago that the language is interesting. The way we think of it is “The Tree of Evil”, but that is not what it is. The tree (and it’s fruit) represents KNOWLEDGE, not sin. Thus we could be talking about the development of a conscience here. Plus in some cultures a snake is a symbol of wisdom.

      Once we started to become aware of the reality that there are good and bad actions, we realized that we were “naked” meaning exposed and ashamed. We were cast out of “paradise”, where we had formally been one with nature (animal consciousness). After that life became harder as we had to deal with the consequences of our actions.

      No insult to you Rebecca, it is just a theory 😉

      1. I’ve thought the same things as both of you. In fact, I think that the creation story can probably be viewed as being told from the perspective of the growing awareness of the life forms which eventually became us. So light and the day and night come first because that was the first thing life was aware of outside of itself. The creation of man probably represented the point at which we developed the requisite brain structures to be endowed with God’s breath – whatever that means.

        I am convicted, though, that the fall is the story of something that went wrong. It wasn’t a natural, albiet painful, part of our development. As to the significance of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, I’m actually going to be getting into that in the next few days. I think you are right that it’s knowledge – not sin. Or rather, not knowledge, but the fruit of knowledge – the responsibility for applying that knowledge. And since we had not gotten the knowledge before eating the fruit, we were not prepared for. Like handing a 6 year old an infant or giving the controls of a plane over to a 9 year old. The traumatizing effect of that along with our lack of understanding leads to sin, I would say.

  7. ==When someone says something which cannot be proven, my habit is to ask myself, “what if this were true?”==
    This is exactly what I’ve done. The trouble is that if it is not provable, it cannot be truth. Truth is provable. You clearly believe in science and the facts that it has brought us. Why do you balk so when I simply asked for evidence?

      1. Except when it’s not true in which case your truth looks no more true than what is not true and cannot be proved. Truth is not subjective. That is to say that if it can not be shown to be true for all people at all times, then it is not true all the time and so is not a truth in that sense. Not being able to prove that something is true does not make it false, but we cannot conclude it is true without proof … it’s just something that is claimed to have happened. You seem to be asserting that things are true until they are proven false, and that is a logical fallacy.

  8. I am trying to understand if you are interpreting the Fall as an actual event or as a symbolic story. As a visionary experience I would say that it could be like a dream, which has a meaning for you but may not represent objective truth.

    Personally I believe the story is mythological. Most people take that to mean untrue, but the meaning of myth is really truth in symbolic form. I personally like Jung’s approach.

    I get myatheistlife’s objection in that in the article it sounds like you are making a dogma out of a personal subjective experience. Maybe that is not how you intended to come across, though.

    1. Mary if you look at the last post I did, I went into my take on the creation stories. I don’t think they are literal. If you go back to the last couple of posts I did, I do think that this wasn’t simply a personal revelation any more than the original stories themselves were. I think that I was shown a way of understanding them which is more accurate and definitely more helpful than what has been taught about them up until now.

      I think I’m a little confused about the dogma reaction. While I happen to be the person who had this experience, there’s clearly nothing in it which would be particular or personal to me, but rather addresses wider questions about a commonly shared story from our faith. So I’m not sure how else I even would handle it other than to say, “this was what I was shown/told about this story and us as humanity, etc.” I mean, any number of teachers regularly say that the stories mean this or that apropos of nothing other than the tradition of men and their own opinions. I’m not sure why it would be strange or problematic for me to present what I was shown in this way. Does that make sense? Or maybe I’m missing something? I think maybe I’m missing something.

      1. I am sorry Rebecca. I was out of line. It is not for me to question your experience or to say whether it came from God or not.

      2. Oh no – it’s OK. Like I said, it’s only right that you would “test the Spirit”. I’ve just been a bit confused by the dogmatic bit, that’s all. I wasn’t offended or anything!

  9. Your insight that rather than being created perfect in an absolute sense the world was created perfect in a potential sense is the Tradition of the Eastern Church [the Orthodox Churches of the East]:
    In Orthodox theology, the two words “image” and “likeness” are not used interchangeably as they are for Roman Catholics and Protestants. For Orthodox Christians, “image” denotes the powers and faculties with which every human being is endowed by God from the first moment of his existence. “Likeness” is the assimilation, the growth process to God through virtue* and grace. We call this growth process “theosis.” For Western theology, man was created perfect in the absolute sense and therefore, when he fell, he fell completely away from God. For Orthodox theology, man was created perfect in the potential sense.
    –Fr. George Nicozisin

    That has huge implications for soteriology and sanctification:

    The biblical text also reveals that the immediate subjective/psychological effect of the Fall to be fear/shame, not guilt.

  10. Rebecca, I love reading your heart’s thoughts. You seem to speak to my own. I often think of the garden. I don’t know if it was real or not, but the lesson is. My thoughts: The original “do not” provided seed for the accuser, which makes me think God had a plan from the beginning. Do we need evil to understand the goodness of God? The fruit opened the eyes of humanity and they went through a kind of spiritual puberty where they realized their nakedness, etc. In vain, they tried to cover themselves and hide from God. However, there was no going back to the innocent playground of children. Our identity was lost. Cast out and cut off from the Tree of Life, we began our journey toward adulthood, seeking to find a lost identity within our own unregenerate minds. With the 613 added “do’s and don’ts” of the law, the accuser had plenty more seed to stir our passions. Sin multiplied and flourished. The schoolmaster of the law was providing fuel for the crafty accuser to tempt and condemn us in our fleshy identity. He used the opportunity to push us further away from God and deeper into trust in self. Throughout the history of Israel, we see God’s provisions and miracles being quickly forgotten, lost in the confusion of our own lost identity and our misunderstanding of God. Israel was chosen to reveal the heart of God. The judgments of Israel and other nations represent a shedding or refining of our own misplaced ideas and beliefs about ourselves. Sometimes it was severe, but a faithful remnant always remained. In God’s perfect timing, he sent his seed to reveal to us all of the lies the law, that was wielded as a weapon by the accuser, had led us to believe about God and ourselves. Jesus fulfilled the “do’s and don’ts” including the original “don’t.” We are now spiritually back in the garden. There are two trees. Jesus and law. As we learn to feed solely from the Tree of Life within us, God prunes away the branches from the ministry of condemnation and death. We are free from the “do’s and don’ts,” the weapon of our enemy! He is disarmed! Sadly, many religious organizations still play with the weapons of the accuser. They feed the followers from the tree of law. In doing so, more harm is caused than good. Nevertheless, we must accept that we are each at different stages in his gracious spiritual refinement, but it is definitely the path back to the garden. With each lie falling to the wayside we become more like children, trusting his image within us as our identity and dancing in his loving provision. I don’t know all the answers, but I know he is love. Keep writing girlie and I’ll keep reading! <3

  11. I don’t know what to say, other than…flabbergasted…maybe? I don’t know what it is about your posts. I read them and it’s like layers are being peeled away from my mind. Your insights just make so much sense to me, more than anything else I’ve read. I’m blown away yet again.

  12. Fantastic Rebecca, I love reading your posts. The truth is in the depths of the deep somewhere inside my understanding, and i can’t quite fathom it, but you bring it up to the surface where it resonates and I can get a better look, and it all seems a bit clearer.

  13. This was great to read! I like things that are different and that make me think. I would like some further thoughts about the role of Satan in this because part of the analogy bothers me though the rest of it is fantastic. Whether Satan chose his role as adversary or not, I don’t know, to me it would seem off if God was the one who made him into that. Of course I’m still following the theology that Satan rebelled and chose that, which IMO is the same as humans having free will and choosing to be evil. Now that doesn’t mean God didn’t make him that way, but then why would God let Satan come near his children when we should not have been exposed to him, at least not yet? No parent would let an abuser near his or her children, knowing that abuse is detrimental to their development. If we were introduced to knowledge before we were ready, why did God leave us alone with a child abuser? I’m not stating this is what happened, but I’d like further clarification so I’m not seeing it the wrong way. Analogies can be funny like that.

    1. Sonya, excellent questions. And oddly enough, I get into all of that in the post right after this one. I hope you get a chance to read it. I have more of these in the works. I just got way-laid a bit the last couple of days. But I hope you can follow along!

  14. Thanks, I did read it and it makes a lot more sense now. After thinking about all this for a couple days, I have to admit that the analogy of Adams and Eve being children is right on. I go even further than that because I think we, humanity, are still children. So many things politicians, corporations, and people in power do remind me of a bunch of five year olds having tantrums, manipulating each other, and living out egocentric views (not to mention the power struggle against parents which in this case could be anything morally constraining them like social responsibility, global warming, environmentalism, heck even God). And they do it with incredible power behind it, whether money or military or technology, as if the five year olds were infused with superpowers (scary thought there). I don’t know at what point we would have been ready for the knowledge to split atoms or be a global society, but I think we are still too young for it. Maybe we are developmentally stunted from all that power and knowledge, who knows. The only thing that gives me hope that we just might not nuke ourselves out of existence or cause a global environmental catastrophe to our extinction is that God is somehow invested in us through it all. Some of us kids are a little older, able to understand the bigger picture, and look to God as our parent and model and so we are growing up to be like him. Theologians, philosophers, philanthropists, missionaries, pastors, teachers, writers, artists, even the next door neighbor with the generous heart are there to inspire the rest of us to grow up. Our evolution might have taken a wrong detour, but God is not done parenting us. We still have a lot of growing up to do.

Leave a Reply