Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
A
AHIMSA
Guest
I don't think chalking up the entire thing as some kind of "agenda" on my part really solves the apparent problem here. Yes I believe this needs to be re-interpreted, but I also gave clear and evident reason why; it just doesn't make sense under the current understanding.
Adam at no point (from my thesis) understood what he was doing was wrong (even though he knew he was disobeying a command). Obviously, if God had not instructed him to avoid the tree there would have been no disobedient act.
cyberjosh
Member
I developed a theory a while back on the fundamental nature of sin. Because of the law we know what sin is, as Paul said. But the law only points out certain types of sin. What is the law itself is based on that determines the nature of sin? What would sin have been for Adam and Eve before they knew good and evil? How could God have been fair to them and blame them for eating the fruit? The answer is quite amazing to think about. Sin is anything outside of God's will or against his will, thus sin even in its most harmless state (biting into a fruit itself does not constitute an act of sin - there has to be something more) can be defined as anything that is harmful to God's plan for you, thus sin can be equated with disadventageousness. Why was it sin for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit? Not because eating it is fundamentally wrong, but because eating it would disadvantage them. If Adam and Even had known this then they wouldn't have done it, if they knew it worked against them (same goes for us today - unless we just ignore it).
Things can be sin because of their spiritual results. I once asked myself, on a fundamental level, how is homosexuality wrong? Sure the law tells us it is wrong but it doesn't tell us how or why. Two men or two women can be intimate friends and still not sin, but if they get sexually involved then they've gone to far. So where is the line? What is the defining factor? The answer must be in that somehow, something in the way God made/wired us, having a same sex marital/sexual pairing must work to a spiritual defecit, because love in its simpler form (friendship) between two people of the same sex is not wrong, and actually builds up. The intimate kind of union between two people of the same sex must be degrading (disadvantageous) to the spirit, and not to mention one's moral upstanding. In a similar way, unwittingly, Solomon demonstrates why homosexuality is wrong!!! Though his sexual & marital interactions were heterosexual his multiple wifes and concubines disadvantaged him spiritually and he was led into worship of false gods. Yet another aspect of the reasoning behind the law explained! Because the law commanded kings not to marry more than one woman, now we know why because we can understand the funamental nature of sin.
This also goes for sin in "gray areas" if it is worthless (vain) and/or disadvantageous then it works against you, thus become sin to you. Paul said I count all things loss, because his previous life had been sin to him, and he actually was working against Christ then. I hope this has shed some insight on the nature of sin.
R
Rick W
Guest
AHIMSA said:
He wanted to become as God. Both of them did. You are missing the point that Eve turned down Satan once and for good reason.
Why did she finally do it when it's a fact she knew not to do it?
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
She knew already that it was wrong for her to do so. She testified to that fact. What made her go against the will of God? Because she wanted to be like God. cybershark5886 said it best in one word... vanity. And where does vanity come from? Pride. If I call someone vain is that a compliment?
Adam and Eve were not animals. Animals don't have egos. Satan appealed to their pride to become greater than they were. To have something that appealed to them. Eve knew right up front what God commanded. And that is the whole point. She chose to do that which she knew not to do already. She knew AHIMSA. Why do you suppose Gen 3:3 is included in the first place? To demonstrate that she knew the will of God for she told Satan that very thing, she said so. How much clearer can that be?
AHIMSA said:
Of course he didn't know right from wrong. Why in the world would he have to? He KNEW the will of God already. so did Eve. She said so ok? AFTER they ate then they knew wrong and were ashamed for trying to fulfill their vanities. They wanted to satisfy their egos KNOWING what God had already told them and went against the will of God to do so.
R
Rick W
Guest
continued:
And IF they HAD to know right from wrong to understand God's commands in the first place then there's no way God could possibly command them not to do something and His attempt to do so is quite useless. God gave them a command. Period. They did not have to understand it, they didn't have to know all the why's and wherefore's. God imparted His will and that's all they needed to know. Did God answer Job's question as to why he had to suffer as He did? No. God never answered Job why he suffered so. Have you read what God DID tell him?
And IF they HAD to know right from wrong to understand God's commands in the first place then there's no way God could possibly command them not to do something and His attempt to do so is quite useless. God gave them a command. Period. They did not have to understand it, they didn't have to know all the why's and wherefore's. God imparted His will and that's all they needed to know. Did God answer Job's question as to why he had to suffer as He did? No. God never answered Job why he suffered so. Have you read what God DID tell him?
A
AHIMSA
Guest
Potluck....there seems to be a conceptual barrier here. I'm not saying pride was'nt a factor here.
You can give me as many reasons for their sin as you want: pride, greed, curiousity, disobedience.....
What you HAVE to establish is how they knew that a given "sin" was infact sinful and wrong without the ability to differeniate between good and evil.
You can give me as many reasons for their sin as you want: pride, greed, curiousity, disobedience.....
What you HAVE to establish is how they knew that a given "sin" was infact sinful and wrong without the ability to differeniate between good and evil.
R
Rick W
Guest
AHIMSA said:
"What you HAVE to establish"
No, I don't.
It's not what they didn't know but what they DID know that brought them down AHIMSA.
Gabbylittleangel
Member
AHIMSA said:
AHIMSA,
I addressed your question in an earlier post. Why is it that you believe that when God created Adam, that He did so without giving him the ability to understand what "Don't eat the fruit" means, and then told Adam not to eat the fruit? It was also posted earlier that Eve said "We are not supposed to eat the fruit" denoting that she understood the concept. (Paraphrases mine)
It appears to me as if you want to believe that God is wrong, or that you want to see that somehow Adam should have known that if he ate the fruit that he was going to screw up your life and mine.
Let me post the verses again where God told Adam not to eat the fruit.
Gen 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Now, show me in these verses where Adam somehow thought that eating the fruit was okay. How did Adam get out of this statement that he could eat the fruit and nothing bad was going to happen?
A
AHIMSA
Guest
They could have been walking encyclopedias for all its worth. It is still not confronting the single and most obvious question!
How is someone morally accountable without the knowledge of good and evil?
Gabbylittleangel
Member
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it
= everything that the needed to know.
= everything that the needed to know.
Drew
Member
I am frankly a little mystified at how people can argue that there is not a real problem here. Sure, we all agree that Adam and Eve were instructed by God to not eat from the tree.
But without a facility to judge whether acts are good or evil, any decision to eat the fruit simply cannot constitue a specifically moral transgression. Your arguments' seem to conveniently slip in assumptions about moral knowledge that the very terms of the problem statement simply do not allow.
I do not have an answer to AHIMSA's question, but the act of disobedience, even if factually evil, cannot legitimately be judged as a specifically moral transgression for the very reason that Adam and Eve did not possess moral knowledge at the time that they ate.
Unless and until a non-sidestepping answer is provided, the worst we can say about Adam and Eve was that they did an unwise thing, but not an evil thing.
But without a facility to judge whether acts are good or evil, any decision to eat the fruit simply cannot constitue a specifically moral transgression. Your arguments' seem to conveniently slip in assumptions about moral knowledge that the very terms of the problem statement simply do not allow.
I do not have an answer to AHIMSA's question, but the act of disobedience, even if factually evil, cannot legitimately be judged as a specifically moral transgression for the very reason that Adam and Eve did not possess moral knowledge at the time that they ate.
Unless and until a non-sidestepping answer is provided, the worst we can say about Adam and Eve was that they did an unwise thing, but not an evil thing.
Gabbylittleangel
Member
aah...
It is the unwise thing that opened the door to allow evil into the world.
The act of eating the fruit brought the sin into the world.
Drew,
We are not 'sidestepping the question'. When we understand the issue and accept the answer, we then have to figure out what part of the passage it is that you do not understand.
At times it seems as if people do not want the truth, and at times it seems as if they start asking questions because they want God to be wrong and are looking for things to support that thought.
Many of the questions here seem to want to support the idea that Adam never had a chance. Even after Adam ate the fruit, perhaps things would have been different if he had confessed his sin, and asked for forgiveness.
Job 31:33 If I covered my transgressions as Adam...
Adam, who knew not to eat the fruit, blamed the woman for what he did. Not only that, but he pointed out that it was not just the woman, but it was the woman whom thou gavest [to be] with me
Gen 3:9-12 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art] thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I [was] naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou [wast] naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest [to be] with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
When Adam died, he plunged the whole human race into sin. When Jesus died, he turned it around and 'whosoever will' can come back to God.
It is the unwise thing that opened the door to allow evil into the world.
The act of eating the fruit brought the sin into the world.
Drew,
We are not 'sidestepping the question'. When we understand the issue and accept the answer, we then have to figure out what part of the passage it is that you do not understand.
At times it seems as if people do not want the truth, and at times it seems as if they start asking questions because they want God to be wrong and are looking for things to support that thought.
Many of the questions here seem to want to support the idea that Adam never had a chance. Even after Adam ate the fruit, perhaps things would have been different if he had confessed his sin, and asked for forgiveness.
Job 31:33 If I covered my transgressions as Adam...
Adam, who knew not to eat the fruit, blamed the woman for what he did. Not only that, but he pointed out that it was not just the woman, but it was the woman whom thou gavest [to be] with me
Gen 3:9-12 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where [art] thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I [was] naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou [wast] naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest [to be] with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
When Adam died, he plunged the whole human race into sin. When Jesus died, he turned it around and 'whosoever will' can come back to God.
Gabbylittleangel
Member
Drew said:
Ok, I think I get it now. We are supposed to start with the assumption that Adam is a turnip?
So when God said "Don't eat the fruit" It went right over Adams head. And as a result God is wrong, Adam was not treated fairly, and Jesus Christ came into the world to fix Gods mistake and not Adams. WOW. :roll:
Drew
Member
Who is willing to squarely address the following question
"Is a person morally accountable for anything they do when they are in a state of ignorance in respect to what is good and what is evil?"
I'll make it easier. Is anyone willing to provide a simple "yes" answer to the following question:
"Is a person morally accountable for anything they do when they are in a state of ignorance in respect to what is good and what is evil?"
R
Rick W
Guest
Drew said:
Yes.
Before I was saved I did evil things which to me then seemed ok. After being saved that preception changed and I now know I erred and will still be held accountable for what i had done.
Can I sin before accepting Christ?
yes
Did I sin before being saved?
yes
Did I know I was doing wrong?
no
Did I do wrong?
yes
Will I be held accountable?
yes
Fortunately I believe God (not believe in God) that His Son died for me paying the price due for my sins. I accepted the free gift from God offered to all.
Further:
In Adam's case he didn't know good and evil but knew what God commanded. Again, I point out Eve told Satan what God had told them. She knew but something changed her mind to do what God had commanded them not to do. She willfully disobeyed God's command.
They didn't need to know good and evil to transgress against the will of God. You want to say they needed to know but such is not the case. It's what they DID know and going against that is what got them into trouble.
A
AHIMSA
Guest
Your own personal experiences are not valid in this discussion. A literal rendering of the Adam and Eve story paints a picture of a primordial humanity that existed without knowledge of good and evil; a primordial ignorance in which they were not able to discern between right and wrong because they lacked a moral faculty.
After they ate of the Tree of Knowledge they gained this moral faculty and all humanity with them. You, Potluck, have inherited this moral faculty and have never existed in a state of pure ignorance like Adam and Eve were in their pre-fall state. (is this not bound up with original sin?)
R
RJS
Guest
AHIMSA said:
Yes it was sinful.
R
Rick W
Guest
Why did they have to have a moral faculty? Why must that be when scripture clearly shows they knew exactly what God told them not to do? Who cares if they knew it was evil or not when in fact they willfully did what they wanted to do knowing the will of God but doing otherwise? They chose to eat when the facts are they knew NOT to do it. Moral faculty or no moral faculty they went against the command of God.
R
RJS
Guest
Was Adam's transgression sinful? What saith the Scriptures?
Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"