The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

[AHIMSA]

They didn't need to know good and evil to transgress against the will of God.

Finally an answer! Your position is that one does not need to be a moral being to be morally accountable. To me, this makes for a crude god; roughly the legal equivalent of throwing an infant child in prison.

I think you need to revise your philosophy. It seems that you sacrifice too much to cling to an "infallible" interpretation.

 

[Drew]

Ye have caused me to rend my garment.........

No one is disputing that Adam and Eve disobeyed God, but what mystifies me (and I suspect AHIMSA) is why you fail to understand that in order for Adam and Eve to be subjected to what is apparently a punishment suitable for a moral transgression, they need to have a facility to make moral judgments.

Let's say I do not know that cheating on the wife is morally wrong. God has told me "Drew, ye shall not cheat on thy wife". I nevertheless cheat on my wife. Because I do not possess the knowledge of good and evil, my cheating cannot be judged as a moral transgression. I do not deny that it can indeed e judged as an unwise or incompetent decision - I should know that the creator of the Universe has my best interests at heart and that disobedience is probably stupid and has consequences. However, I cannot have committed a moral transgression.

Here is the critical point, it is conceptually incoherent to punish people (as critically distinguished from letting them experience the consequence of unwise decisions) for acts of disobedience if they do not have the facility to make moral judgments.

If we see what happened to Adam and Eve as being the natural consequnece of acting unwisely, there is no problem. But to claim that they have committed some kind of moral offence that specifically warrants punishment makes no sense.

If one argues that the consequences of their action are merely the consequences of acting unwisely, then perhaps there is no problem. But this is not how most Christians see this account - they believe that Adam and Eve have committed a moral transgression.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Who is willing to squarely address the following question


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?"

The believers of Scripture were attempting to establish that Adam knew what he was doing when he ate the fruit.

The topic has been subtly shifted to is an ignorant person responsible for their sin.

 

[Rick W]

The believers of Scripture were attempting to establish that Adam knew what he was doing when he ate the fruit.

The topic has been subtly shifted to is an ignorant person responsible for their sin.

And that's what this is about. Making Adam unaccountable, to create a dilema where there is none.
But, Adam was accountable whether he knew good and evil or not.
If the speed limit says 55, I do 80 and get pulled over the officer isn't going to buy my alibi that I don't know right from wrong. He'll write a ticket to which I am held accountable. :-D

Again, they knew not to eat because God told them so. There was no need of a moral faculty or knowledge of good and evil to willfully disobey God and be held accountable.

 

[Jon-Marc]

Adam was apparently very intelligent since God gave him the responsibility of naming all the animals. It is always unwise and evil to go against what God says. He told them not to eat of that one tree, and they chose to disobey. Whether or not they had a knowledge of good and evil, God was their Father, and they were His children. Children often don't know what is right or wrong, but they are told what not to do or what TO do and are expected to obey regardless of their ignorance. If they disobey they will be disciplined. Well, some kids will be anyway.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Ye have caused me to rend my garment.........

No one is disputing that Adam and Eve disobeyed God, but what mystifies me (and I suspect AHIMSA) is why you fail to understand that in order for Adam and Eve to be subjected to what is apparently a punishment suitable for a moral transgression, they need to have a facility to make moral judgments......

Drew, what mystifies me, and I suspect other believers on this thread, is the implication that God was wrong in His response to Adam.

Answer this question. Do you believe that God was wrong?

 

[Drew]

Drew, what mystifies me, and I suspect other believers on this thread, is the implication that God was wrong in His response to Adam.

Answer this question. Do you believe that God was wrong?

No I do not think that God was wrong. However, we have to develop a different understanding of what is going on here in order to avoid inconsistency. We cannot be untrue to the meaning of the concepts that we deploy - we cannot say that Adam and Eve are subject to a specifically moral judgement if we also say that they do not possess a facility to make moral judgements. So I am not saying that God was wrong - I am saying that we need to ensure that we do not build a wildly self-contradictory model of who God is.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Finally an answer! Your position is that one does not need to be a moral being to be morally accountable. To me, this makes for a crude god; roughly the legal equivalent of throwing an infant child in prison.

I think you need to revise your philosophy. It seems that you sacrifice too much to cling to an "infallible" interpretation.

Oh.
It is AHIMSA that thinks God is wrong.

 

[Drew]

If the speed limit says 55, I do 80 and get pulled over the officer isn't going to buy my alibi that I don't know right from wrong. He'll write a ticket to which I am held accountable

In order for this situation to be a proper analogy, you simply cannot know that driving 80 is a moral transgression - you simply do not have the facility. Therefore you are not being "punished" as we normally use this term - with it implied connotation of moral wrongdoing.

In your example, you have merely acted unwisely or incompetently - there simply is no possiblity of you acting immoraly. Therefore, as long as we see the writing of the ticket as something other than punishment for a moral transgression, there is no problem.

Without a faculty to make moral judgements there are only smart and dumb decisions, not good and evil ones. So any act of reprimand can not be "righteous moral judgment" - and yet this is how I suspect most of you see the "punishment" of Adam and Eve.

Something is still wrong, methinks

 

[TanNinety]

I will try not to side-step and see if I can tackle the question of the thread.

Less likely Solution 1:
Let me start with "death". God told Adam, the consequence of eating the forbidden fruit was death. Since Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of right and wrong this was not presented to them as a punishment but as a consequence, "Dieing you will surely die". Now Adam and Eve had access to the tree of life from which they were able to live eternally (the same tree of life whose harvest we will depend on for our eternal life ..refer to revelation). The tree of life was in the garden, so Adam and Eve had to be kicked out so they wouldn't eat of the tree of life and live which would negate the consequence of death if not. So Adam and Eve weren't morally responsible for anything so they weren't morally judged and punished but just given the consequence that was already told to them. So the question of "how are they accountable" does not arise because they weren't judged but given the consequences just like they knew the consequence of tilling the ground would raise a farm? :roll:

More likely Solution 2:
There was no death before the fall. Now how did Adam understand what death was when God said you will die if you eat the forbidden fruit? This is because Adam already had the knowledge of death. Did he have the knowledge of what is right and wrong? I believe he did. What we do need to reinterpret is what this "knowledge of good and evil" is. Is it merely knowlege of morality (good and evil)? Or actual in depth knowledge of creation that could be used for good and evil?

What I am trying to get at is, lets take the knowledge of "atomic science". Now this can be used for atomic power or to make an atomic bomb. Atomic power, knowledge of good. Atomic bomb, knowledge of evil. Now Adam and Eve already knew right from wrong, good and evil, I believe they were created moral beings. But they did not possess indepth knowledge of the workings of the earth around them that they could use it for good and evil. Now THIS knowledge is what probably what was opened up to them and not the knowledge of morality. We are assuming "knowledge" as moral knowledge. May be Adam and Eve were already moral and "knowledge" refers to scientific good and evil or otherwise?

 

[Rick W]

God spoke directly to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the face of a direct commandment. What moral judgment is necessary when the fact is they disobeyed a direct command?

/Potluck
God, meet Adam and Eve.
Adam.. Eve, meet God.

/Adam
How are you doing God? Good to meet you. :smt023

/God
Well, I've been better but then I could be wrong I suppose.

/Eve to Adam
Hey Adam. What does God mean by "wrong"?

/Adam
Beats me. I don't understand the new language these days. :smt017

/Potluck
God? Is there something you'd like to say to Adam and Eve.

/God
Well, yeah. There is something that's been on my mind lately.

/Potluck
And what might that be God?

/God
I'd just like to tell them not to eat of that tree over there. Do not, under any circumstances eat from that tree. :smt018

/Adam
Where?

/God
Right over there. The one with the snake crawling under it.

/Eve
Oh! Yes, now I see it! 8-)

/God
Good. Don't eat eat of it. Ok?

/Adam
Gotcha! :smt023

[Adam nudges Eve playfully]

/Eve
:D

/God
Ok you two. This isn't the time or place for that. We have guests.

/Adam
:P

/Eve
:D

/Potluck
:

[Later in the day]

/Snake
Hiya! Say, you're Eve aren't you?

/Eve
Do you see any other females around here Sherlock?

/Snake
:-?
Anyway, what's with the tree? Why aren't you eating thereof?

/Eve
God said not to eat of it. I have no clue why He doesn't tell us such things.

/Snake
Well I know why. Because if you do you'll be like God.

/Eve
Really?!?! :o

/Snake
Oh yes. Your eyes will be opened and you'll know right from wrong.

/Eve
Wrong? I heard that somewhere before.

/Snake
Never mind that. Go ahead, get that apple hanging over there... the big one.

/Eve
Well, I don't know. God said not to do it. :

/Snake
So? Don't you want to be like God?

/Eve
Give me some time to think about it.

short pause

/Eve
OK!!!

[some time passes]

/God
There's an apple missing. :smt011 I know. I number everything.

/Adam
Hey now. Don't pin this one on me. Isn't my fault you gave me the woman. It's her fault too you know. :-?

/Eve
:o Don't you love me anymore? :smt022

/Adam
I didn't say that. :roll:

/God
I told you not to eat from that tree didn't I? Well?

/Eve
Yeah, you told us. But the devil made me do it. :P

/Adam
8-)

/God
And for that you're history. You're outta here! I told you and yet you STILL did it! What's wrong with you??

/Adam
There's that word again.

/Eve
wrong ;Pronunciation: /rawng, rong/
–adjective 1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.
2. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.
3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him.
4. not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club.
5. out of order; awry; amiss: Something is wrong with the machine.
6. not suitable or appropriate: He always says the wrong thing.
7. (of clothing) that should be worn or kept inward or under: You're wearing the sweater wrong side out.
–noun 8. that which is wrong, or not in accordance with morality, goodness, or truth; evil: I committed many wrongs.
9. an injustice: The wrongs they suffered aged them.
10. Law. a. an invasion of another's right, to his damage.
b. a tort.

–adverb 11. in a wrong manner; not rightly; awry; amiss: You did it wrong again.
–verb (used with object) 12. to do wrong to; treat unfairly or unjustly; harm.
13. to impute evil to (someone) unjustly; malign.

8-)

/Adam
:-?
Well, come on Eve. We're not wanted here.

/Eve
:smt022
I don't like the looks of that guy with the flaming sword. :o

:onfire:

/Adam
Never mind him. We need to go.

/Eve
:

----------

The names have not been changed to protect the innocent because they weren't innocent.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

PotLuck,

 

[Drew]

The handclapping is premature, I assure you.

The fact of the matter is: If we are going to be true to the very meanings of the words we use, we simply cannot say that someone is "not innocent" in respect to action x, if it is further claimed that this person has no facility to make moral judgements.

The very concept "not innocent" embodies a pre-supposition of the existence of a moral faculty, which, by the very statement of the problem, does not exist in Adam and Eve at the time of their fruit-eating.

If you guys are willing to say that Adam and Eve are "guilty" on the one hand and yet also claim that they had no knowledge of the difference between right and wrong when they ate the fruit on the other, well, I guess I will just have to reiterate my claim that you are creating an obvious contradiction - since the very meaning of the word "guilty" embodies a belief in the existence of a moral faculty. To be "guilty" means, perhaps among other things, to violate some moral code.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

If you guys are willing to say that Adam and Eve are "guilty" on the one hand and yet also claim that they had no knowledge of the difference between right and wrong when they ate the fruit on the other, well, I guess I will just have to reiterate my claim that you are creating an obvious contradiction - since the very meaning of the word "guilty" embodies a belief in the existence of a moral faculty. To be "guilty" means, perhaps among other things, to violate some moral code.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Drew,
Do I need to understand the concept of electricity and know how the power plant functions in order to turn on a light?

How much knowledge do you think Adam required before he was smart enough to grasp the concept of not eating the fruit off of that tree? How much good and evil existed for Adam to have knowledge of?

Speaking for myself, I am totally stuck as to what it is that you feel like you need to hear. It seems to me that you are not seeking an answer to your questions, not trying to build your faith and trust in Jesus Christ, not trying to build up the faith and trust of others~~~ but trolling. Violation of TOS.

I got suckered into your trap this morning. You have wasted enough of my time today.

Have you tried to take your questions to God? Perhaps you can google your question and cyberspace can provide you with a quench for your thirst. Best wishes in your quest.

 

[jgredline]

God spoke directly to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the face of a direct commandment. What moral judgment is necessary when the fact is they disobeyed a direct command?

/Potluck
God, meet Adam and Eve.
Adam.. Eve, meet God.

/Adam
How are you doing God? Good to meet you. :smt023

/God
Well, I've been better but then I could be wrong I suppose.

/Eve to Adam
Hey Adam. What does God mean by "wrong"?

/Adam
Beats me. I don't understand the new language these days. :smt017

/Potluck
God? Is there something you'd like to say to Adam and Eve.

/God
Well, yeah. There is something that's been on my mind lately.

/Potluck
And what might that be God?

/God
I'd just like to tell them not to eat of that tree over there. Do not, under any circumstances eat from that tree. :smt018

/Adam
Where?

/God
Right over there. The one with the snake crawling under it.

/Eve
Oh! Yes, now I see it! 8-)

/God
Good. Don't eat eat of it. Ok?

/Adam
Gotcha! :smt023

[Adam nudges Eve playfully]

/Eve
:D

/God
Ok you two. This isn't the time or place for that. We have guests.

/Adam
:P

/Eve
:D

/Potluck
:

[Later in the day]

/Snake
Hiya! Say, you're Eve aren't you?

/Eve
Do you see any other females around here Sherlock?

/Snake
:-?
Anyway, what's with the tree? Why aren't you eating thereof?

/Eve
God said not to eat of it. I have no clue why He doesn't tell us such things.

/Snake
Well I know why. Because if you do you'll be like God.

/Eve
Really?!?! :o

/Snake
Oh yes. Your eyes will be opened and you'll know right from wrong.

/Eve
Wrong? I heard that somewhere before.

/Snake
Never mind that. Go ahead, get that apple hanging over there... the big one.

/Eve
Well, I don't know. God said not to do it. :

/Snake
So? Don't you want to be like God?

/Eve
Give me some time to think about it.

short pause

/Eve
OK!!!

[some time passes]

/God
There's an apple missing. :smt011 I know. I number everything.

/Adam
Hey now. Don't pin this one on me. Isn't my fault you gave me the woman. It's her fault too you know. :-?

/Eve
:o Don't you love me anymore? :smt022

/Adam
I didn't say that. :roll:

/God
I told you not to eat from that tree didn't I? Well?

/Eve
Yeah, you told us. But the devil made me do it. :P

/Adam
8-)

/God
And for that you're history. You're outta here! I told you and yet you STILL did it! What's wrong with you??

/Adam
There's that word again.

/Eve
wrong ;Pronunciation: /rawng, rong/
–adjective 1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.
2. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.
3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him.
4. not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club.
5. out of order; awry; amiss: Something is wrong with the machine.
6. not suitable or appropriate: He always says the wrong thing.
7. (of clothing) that should be worn or kept inward or under: You're wearing the sweater wrong side out.
–noun 8. that which is wrong, or not in accordance with morality, goodness, or truth; evil: I committed many wrongs.
9. an injustice: The wrongs they suffered aged them.
10. Law. a. an invasion of another's right, to his damage.
b. a tort.

–adverb 11. in a wrong manner; not rightly; awry; amiss: You did it wrong again.
–verb (used with object) 12. to do wrong to; treat unfairly or unjustly; harm.
13. to impute evil to (someone) unjustly; malign.

8-)

/Adam
:-?
Well, come on Eve. We're not wanted here.

/Eve
:smt022
I don't like the looks of that guy with the flaming sword. :o

:onfire:

/Adam
Never mind him. We need to go.

/Eve
:

----------

The names have not been changed to protect the innocent because they weren't innocent.

I am not diving in here; PotLuck, this is Classic :smt023 :-D

Now I think I will grab some : and continue to enjoy this debate

 

[Jon-Marc]

I stopped reading what PotLuck wrote after I read "God, Well, I've been better but then I could be wrong I suppose." God can NEVER be and never is wrong, and I'm quite sure He never questions whether He is or not. Call me overly sensitive, but I don't like any statement that makes God appear less than what He is--omniscient.

 

[Rick W]

I stopped reading what PotLuck wrote after I read "God, Well, I've been better but then I could be wrong I suppose." God can NEVER be and never is wrong, and I'm quite sure He never questions whether He is or not. Call me overly sensitive, but I don't like any statement that makes God appear less than what He is--omniscient.

Of course Jon-Marc. I agree totally. And there never was a Potluck there and Adam, Eve and God never needed introduction.
I gave up this discussion, beating a dead horse so-to-speak, so instead of venting frustration I bowed out without any display of personal attack or insult.

God is sovereign. Period. God is never wrong and God doesn't engage in small talk.

Peace in Christ.
Potluck

 

[jgredline]

Of course Jon-Marc. I agree totally. And there never was a Potluck there and Adam, Eve and God never needed introduction.
I gave up this discussion, beating a dead horse so-to-speak, so instead of venting frustration I bowed out without any display of personal attack or insult.

God is sovereign. Period. God is never wrong and God doesn't engage in small talk.

Peace in Christ.
Potluck

I got the sarcasm right away, infact, it sounded like something I would say and type up :wink: , which is why I apppreciated the post :-D

 

[stranger]

. . .

The fact of the matter is: If we are going to be true to the very meanings of the words we use, we simply cannot say that someone is "not innocent" in respect to action x, if it is further claimed that this person has no facility to make moral judgements. . .
Why is this so hard to understand?

Hi Drew,

I do not accept the assumption that Adam had 'no facility to make moral judgements'.

It is clear to me that the command that God gave Adam concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil brought Adam into the very realm that you deny Adam had. Ahimsa even agreed (hyperthetically) that if God had not given Adam any command - Adam would have done no wrong.

Furthermore - the principle that the law (in this case the command given to Adam) brings knowledge of sin and that is exactly the seemingly elusive moral faculty. The action of sin brings the consequence. . .

After Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - Adam was in fact worse off than before to make moral judgements -As Romans 5 makes clear that sin entered in. I believe scripture teaches that sin impairs the moral faculty of man.

A perfect man has a perfect moral faculty - an imperfect man has an imperfect moral faculty. Only Adam pre-fall and our Lord Jesus Christ ever had a perfect moral faculty.

In Christ: Stranger.

 

[stranger]

The very concept "not innocent" embodies a pre-supposition of the existence of a moral faculty, which, by the very statement of the problem, does not exist in Adam and Eve at the time of their fruit-eating.

Hi Drew,

Adam before the fall had a perfect moral faculty.
Adam after the fall had an impaired moral faculty.

The statement that Adam was innocent (before the fall) presupposes a moral faculty just as much as not innocent presupposes a moral faculty after Adam's fall.

I am breaking up the arguments for the sake of clarity. . .

In Christ: Stranger