I've always been interested in knowing what people think -- not because they are right or wrong but because of what it tells me about the people. For example, I ask people occasionally if they believe if animals have spirits or, if they're adventists, souls. It's not that I'm searching for the answer to this question, but rather, I'm more interested in their reasoning. If a person believes in Adam and Eve, and if they believe that the God they worship will destroy them because they ate forbidden fruit, it tells me something about them, the way they think and their perception of God and their willingness to worship Him.
That perception of God and people's willingness to worship Him is what I find most fascinating. Is God's power the only qualification for godhood? Or is it power and knowledge? How about disposition? If God were evil, would He still be worthy of worship by virtue of His power and authority?
I actually didn't know what the JW view of Adam and Eve's fate was when I wrote my post. Given that according to the story, the forbidden fruit gave the couple the ability to know good from evil. This of course implies that before they partook of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil, right from wrong. Thus, if God denies them coverage under the redeeming blood of Christ when they were more like children (in a state of innocence), what does this say of Him? One can only sin if they know good from evil. We don't kill a child if they disobey us, neither do we punish them excessively. In this case, Yahweh essentially judges children (who know neither right from wrong) by death.
This isn't what the Christian world teaches. In fact, the Orthodox teach that man's potential in the Garden was painfully limited. God essentially set man up specifically to fail. He couldn't bring the couple to sin on His own accord because it had to be man's doing. What did man stand to gain? Becoming like God Himself; being an heir through the blood of Christ to a heavenly glory far exceeding what Adam and Eve were capable of achieving in the Garden. On the other hand, there was much to lose if men chose the wrong paths in mortality.
Joseph Rutherford made doctrine when he declared Adam and Eve to be doomed. It speaks more to how he viewed God.
But if Rutherford declared his view to be doctrine, does this mean it can't be questioned? If Russell said one thing and Rutherford said another, could one bring it up in study and say, "After studying the issue I'm more inclined to agree with Russell than Rutherford"? Or is Rutherford's view binding on the congregation?