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
-
Jon-Marc said:
Yes that is a clarification - Eve did quote what God said to Adam and therefore knew the command. . .
Thanks also to PotLuck for pointing out the same thing.
Now I must thank all participants of this tread and take a back seat to see if there are further developments.
Signing off : Stranger
I am not going to even deal with the traditional answers to the question of the thread because most of them are just self contradictory. And it seems we will just dance in circles.
I think it definitely is another ball game Drew. We are assuming "knowledge of good and evil" to mean moral knowledge. What makes me believe that Adam and Eve already possessed this moral knowledge is that they were made in the “image of Godâ€Â. For God to even give Adam this command not to eat the forbidden fruit presumes that God had given him some knowledge of what Adam needs to base his decision on when he faces the situation of having to eat the fruit. I don’t think Adam was just a “yes†man. Adam’s first question would have been, “what is good and evilâ€Â?
Now if it was just indeed moral knowledge that this forbidden fruit possessed, then as soon as Eve ate the fruit, she could decide what is right and wrong. Yet, she went and had Adam take a bite of it, knowing well that it was wrong and having her eyes opened to good and evil.
The knowledge that she gained from the fruit was so great that she could convince Adam of eating the forbidden fruit. This knowledge cannot be mere rules of morality but knowledge that actually lets you see the creation through the eyes of God. I think there was indeed a dose of truth when the devil said “you will be like godsâ€Â, meaning they will possess deeper knowledge about the working of the creation around them. Now this knowledge could be used for either good or bad. We can use or abuse this knowledge, which man continues to do even to this day. Same knowledge can be used both for good and for evil. Eg: Chemicals for medication, chemicals for being a dope head.
This to me solves the problem of moral accountability because Adam and Eve were created moral beings and the knowledge they gained was in depth knowledge that can be used for the good and evil of mankind. In the book of Enoch one can see that the fallen angels taught men how to use this knowledge. "And Azâzêl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all coloring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjâzâ taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, Armârôs the resolving of enchantments, Barâqîjâl, taught astrology, Kôkabêl the constellations, Ezêqêêl the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiêl the signs of the earth, Shamsiêl the signs of the sun, and Sariêl the course of the moon.ÀÂ
Grrr, that was a long post and now I am not sure if it makes any sense. Oh well you guys read it anyway :-D
Drew said:
I think it definitely is another ball game Drew. We are assuming "knowledge of good and evil" to mean moral knowledge. What makes me believe that Adam and Eve already possessed this moral knowledge is that they were made in the “image of Godâ€Â. For God to even give Adam this command not to eat the forbidden fruit presumes that God had given him some knowledge of what Adam needs to base his decision on when he faces the situation of having to eat the fruit. I don’t think Adam was just a “yes†man. Adam’s first question would have been, “what is good and evilâ€Â?
Now if it was just indeed moral knowledge that this forbidden fruit possessed, then as soon as Eve ate the fruit, she could decide what is right and wrong. Yet, she went and had Adam take a bite of it, knowing well that it was wrong and having her eyes opened to good and evil.
The knowledge that she gained from the fruit was so great that she could convince Adam of eating the forbidden fruit. This knowledge cannot be mere rules of morality but knowledge that actually lets you see the creation through the eyes of God. I think there was indeed a dose of truth when the devil said “you will be like godsâ€Â, meaning they will possess deeper knowledge about the working of the creation around them. Now this knowledge could be used for either good or bad. We can use or abuse this knowledge, which man continues to do even to this day. Same knowledge can be used both for good and for evil. Eg: Chemicals for medication, chemicals for being a dope head.
This to me solves the problem of moral accountability because Adam and Eve were created moral beings and the knowledge they gained was in depth knowledge that can be used for the good and evil of mankind. In the book of Enoch one can see that the fallen angels taught men how to use this knowledge. "And Azâzêl taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all coloring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjâzâ taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, Armârôs the resolving of enchantments, Barâqîjâl, taught astrology, Kôkabêl the constellations, Ezêqêêl the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiêl the signs of the earth, Shamsiêl the signs of the sun, and Sariêl the course of the moon.ÀÂ
Grrr, that was a long post and now I am not sure if it makes any sense. Oh well you guys read it anyway :-D
Gabbylittleangel
Member
TanNinety said:
Nuh-uh. the devil is a liar.
Adam was created in the image of God. He had everything that God wanted him to have.
The devil (the liar) told them that they would become like God. Attempting to convince them that God was holding back on them. There was something better, and God was playing keep-away. The devil sold them what they already had. In the process they lost the thing that they were trying to gain as well as what they already had.
Very true.
R
Rick W
Guest
TanNinety,
So what you're saying is that for either to have been responsible they must first have had the ability to to as God told them, not to eat of the friut. And since God did tell them not to then they indeed possessed that ability.
So what you're saying is that for either to have been responsible they must first have had the ability to to as God told them, not to eat of the friut. And since God did tell them not to then they indeed possessed that ability.
R
Rick W
Guest
Some dictionaries include the term "moral" and some don't. And In some cases it depends on which definition one wants to choose.
--------------
Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861735025/sin.html
1. transgression of theological principles: an act, thought, or way of behaving that goes against the law or teachings of a religion, especially when the person who commits it is aware of this
2. shameful offense: something that offends a moral or ethical principle
3. estrangement from God: in Christian theology, the condition of being denied God's grace because of a sin or sins committed.
intransitive verb (past and past participle sinned, present participle sin·ning, 3rd person present singular sins)
Definition:
1. knowingly do wrong: to commit a sin, especially by knowingly violating the law or teachings of a religion
2. commit shameful offense: to commit a serious moral or ethical offense.
--------------
Compact Oxford English Dictionary
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sin_1?view=uk
• noun
1 an immoral act considered to violate divine law.
2 an act regarded as a serious offence.
--------------
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b ... ary&va=sin
1 a : an offense against religious or moral law b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c : an often serious shortcoming : FAULT
2 a : transgression of the law of God b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
--------------
Cambridge Dictionary of American English
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... 1+0&dict=A
an act of breaking a religious law, or such acts considered together.
--------------
1. transgression of theological principles: an act, thought, or way of behaving that goes against the law or teachings of a religion, especially when the person who commits it is aware of this.
1. knowingly do wrong: to commit a sin, especially by knowingly violating the law or teachings of a religion
1 an immoral act considered to violate divine law.
1 a : an offense against religious or moral law.
An act of breaking a religious law, or such acts considered together.
The word "moral" isn't an absolute necessity or concept in defining sin in many dictionaries. Nor is "moral knowledge" or "moral judgment" required to define sin. In fact, the use of the term "moral" or "morality" is used in only about 50% of the definitions in the #1 or predominate positions of most dictionaries.
I seroiusly believe "moral knowledge" and "moral judgment" can not be applied to define the sin of Adam. These phrases act only to add to sin's definition for the purpose of supporting the views of those who use them. It would appear then that "morality" is born through or a product of the knowledge of good and evil.
--------------
Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861735025/sin.html
1. transgression of theological principles: an act, thought, or way of behaving that goes against the law or teachings of a religion, especially when the person who commits it is aware of this
2. shameful offense: something that offends a moral or ethical principle
3. estrangement from God: in Christian theology, the condition of being denied God's grace because of a sin or sins committed.
intransitive verb (past and past participle sinned, present participle sin·ning, 3rd person present singular sins)
Definition:
1. knowingly do wrong: to commit a sin, especially by knowingly violating the law or teachings of a religion
2. commit shameful offense: to commit a serious moral or ethical offense.
--------------
Compact Oxford English Dictionary
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sin_1?view=uk
• noun
1 an immoral act considered to violate divine law.
2 an act regarded as a serious offence.
--------------
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b ... ary&va=sin
1 a : an offense against religious or moral law b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c : an often serious shortcoming : FAULT
2 a : transgression of the law of God b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
--------------
Cambridge Dictionary of American English
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define. ... 1+0&dict=A
an act of breaking a religious law, or such acts considered together.
--------------
1. transgression of theological principles: an act, thought, or way of behaving that goes against the law or teachings of a religion, especially when the person who commits it is aware of this.
1. knowingly do wrong: to commit a sin, especially by knowingly violating the law or teachings of a religion
1 an immoral act considered to violate divine law.
1 a : an offense against religious or moral law.
An act of breaking a religious law, or such acts considered together.
The word "moral" isn't an absolute necessity or concept in defining sin in many dictionaries. Nor is "moral knowledge" or "moral judgment" required to define sin. In fact, the use of the term "moral" or "morality" is used in only about 50% of the definitions in the #1 or predominate positions of most dictionaries.
I seroiusly believe "moral knowledge" and "moral judgment" can not be applied to define the sin of Adam. These phrases act only to add to sin's definition for the purpose of supporting the views of those who use them. It would appear then that "morality" is born through or a product of the knowledge of good and evil.
U
unred typo
Guest
Drew wrote: Who is willing to squarely address the following question
Quote:
How is someone morally accountable without the knowledge of good and 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?"
I'll take a stab, though I may be way off base. Drew isn't frustrated nearly enough.:wink:
The answer I would give is ‘no’, but I don’t think Adam and Eve were in a state of ignorance in respect to what is good and what is evil. They had a mental concept of both good and evil but not an experiential one. What they wanted was the ability to experience not only good but evil as well. In God’s presence were only good things. They wanted to know the reality of what it is like to be outside of God’s reign, and to be in control of their own lives. They wanted to be out of their safe little aviary and fly with eagles, not realizing their vulnerability to becoming raptor prey. I think they were in rebellion and even understood the severity of their sin. The idea from the serpent that they would be ‘as gods, and not die’ was the deciding factor. They must have thought it would make them equal to God and he would be unable to punish them. (Rrrrrr ong.) Their eyes were opened to the complete naked truth of own frailty and liability instead.
Quote:
How is someone morally accountable without the knowledge of good and 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?"
I'll take a stab, though I may be way off base. Drew isn't frustrated nearly enough.:wink:
The answer I would give is ‘no’, but I don’t think Adam and Eve were in a state of ignorance in respect to what is good and what is evil. They had a mental concept of both good and evil but not an experiential one. What they wanted was the ability to experience not only good but evil as well. In God’s presence were only good things. They wanted to know the reality of what it is like to be outside of God’s reign, and to be in control of their own lives. They wanted to be out of their safe little aviary and fly with eagles, not realizing their vulnerability to becoming raptor prey. I think they were in rebellion and even understood the severity of their sin. The idea from the serpent that they would be ‘as gods, and not die’ was the deciding factor. They must have thought it would make them equal to God and he would be unable to punish them. (Rrrrrr ong.) Their eyes were opened to the complete naked truth of own frailty and liability instead.
Right PotLuck. We are assuming that Adam and Eve were not given any discernment of right and wrong before they ate the forbidden fruit. If that were the case, it wouldn’t make God a good Father in setting them up with a task which they had no clue carrying out.PotLuck said:
Based on the character of God I tend to conclude that He indeed gave them “moral†discernment. There was no death before the fall. So how can anything make sense to Adam when God tells him that the consequence of eating the forbidden fruit is death, if Adam couldn’t understand what death meant? These statements that “God told Adam he will die†if “death†was a foreign unknown concept to Adam, then become nonsensical. God would have given Adam enough knowledge to know about death, I would then assume that He also gave Adam enough knowledge to make a “moral judgment†when Adam had to confront a situation where he had to eat the forbidden fruit.
What the tree of knowledge of good and evil should now be seen as, is not just mere “moral knowledge†but something more than that. Knowledge of good that can attain a greater construction for mankind or knowledge of evil that can lead to the ultimate destruction of mankind. Which to me solves the “moral accountability†problem.
I agree. The task now becomes, understanding how the knowledge of “good and evil†that Adam and Eve possessed different from the “good and evil†of the tree of knowledge.unred typo said:
Example:
Adam knew killing Eve would be evil.
Evil from tree of knowledge: You can kill someone by drowning them under water. They will lack air to breathe and die.
The above is what I think differentiates the knowledge that Adam and Eve had later possessed by eating the forbidden fruit. Of cours, my speculation. I am merely trying to find an “out†to an excellent question that Ahimsa has put forth.
U
unred typo
Guest
TanNinety wrote: The task now becomes, understanding how the knowledge of “good and evil†that Adam and Eve possessed different from the “good and evil†of the tree of knowledge.
How about the difference between being able to identify French when you hear it spoken, and knowing French to speak it fluently yourself? Both can be said to know French. With good and evil, it would be the difference between being able to say that ‘it is evil to kill your brother’ or being capable of knowing what it is like to have your passions rise to the point of being able (no pun) to kill your own brother with a rock.
:smt102 :smt093
How about the difference between being able to identify French when you hear it spoken, and knowing French to speak it fluently yourself? Both can be said to know French. With good and evil, it would be the difference between being able to say that ‘it is evil to kill your brother’ or being capable of knowing what it is like to have your passions rise to the point of being able (no pun) to kill your own brother with a rock.
:smt102 :smt093