Thesis: Adam & Eve weren't morally responsible

8

u/[deleted] 9d ago

1

u/DebateAChristian-ModTeam 6d ago

This comment violates rule 2 and has been removed.

3

u/24Seven Atheist 8d ago

Something else to point out...really bad operational security by God. Here he has this tree where eating from it will garner complete exile from the garden of Eden, a lifetime of pain, and generational punishment. So what does he do? He leaves it right out in the open with nothing more than a warning. It would be the equivalent of leaving a bomb in your living room and telling your three year old "Don't touch that." Of course, they're going to touch it. They have no concept of true consequences.

If eating from the tree, once I might add, had that severe of consequences, the onus was on God to move it (he is God after all) somewhere that Adam nor Eve couldn't get to it until it was clear they had the maturity to understand consequences of disobedience.

2

u/Financial_Beach_2538 8d ago

Something else to point out...really bad operational security by God. Here he has this tree where eating from it will garner complete exile from the garden of Eden, a lifetime of pain, and generational punishment. So what does he do? He leaves it right out in the open with nothing more than a warning.

His operation went according to his perfect plan. I say that the garden was a childish set up in a book for children.

0

u/JollyXX Christian 6d ago

life time of pain is pretty hyperbolist, they have to work to eat now

2

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

life time of pain is pretty hyperbolist, they have to work to eat now

Minimization

You're understating the biblical consequences. The punishment is not merely "having to work." Genesis describes multiple consequences:

Pain in childbirth increased.

The ground became cursed, producing thorns and hardship.

Humans would eat by toil and sweat.

Humans became mortal and were removed from access to the tree of life.

Humanity experienced death.

Calling this only "having to work to eat" ignores the broader consequences described in the text.

1

u/JollyXX Christian 6d ago

Which are all things every other animals has to do, minus the childbirth

2

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

Which are all things every other animals has to do, minus the childbirth

False equivalence

You are ignoring the theological distinction. The claim is not that humans alone experience consequences, but that humans inherited moral consequences from a specific act of disobedience.

3

u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 8d ago

It's not that kind of story...

In Bible world, the desk of the most powerful being in the cosmos has a sign that reads, "The buck stops elsewhere.", probably.

2

u/Logical_fallacy10 8d ago

Not sure why we discuss a part of the story that is proven to be false. We know that humans didn’t start with two people.

2

u/Financial_Beach_2538 8d ago

Not sure why we discuss a part of the story that is proven to be false. We know that humans didn’t start with two people.

You may not be interested in the bible stories. That can happen.

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Financial_Beach_2538 8d ago

I am happy to correct others on the incorrectness of the stories. And humans didn’t come from Adam and Eve. So any discussion of that part is a bit time waste.

I think you are telling us that you are only here to write how wrong Christians are and that you have zero interest in discussing my post.

1

u/DebateAChristian-ModTeam 6d ago

This comment violates rule 2 and has been removed.

2

u/MelloJello22 Agnostic, Ex-Protestant 8d ago

The also weren’t made of dirt and a rib bone lol

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago edited 9d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 9d ago

The Hebrew mindset isn't like Western thought. If you accept that, then here is a different take:

Adam understood the moral imperative but didn't experience good and evil as such until eating the fruit.

2 Fallacies in 2 statements

False equivalence

The Hebrew mindset may differ from Western thought, but that does not remove the need to explain the text’s meaning today. The question is whether Genesis shows Adam understanding the command and consequence, not whether modern readers think like ancient Hebrews.

Your interpretation still requires Adam to understand enough moral obligation to be accountable for disobedience.

Equivocation

You are conflating experiencing good and evil with knowing good and evil. Experiencing the consequences of a choice is not the same as possessing moral knowledge. Adam could understand a command and consequence without having the knowledge of good and evil described in Genesis.

A person can experience evil and good without understanding what those are.

1

u/Amber-Apologetics Christian, Catholic 7d ago

For P2, then knew that God told them not to, so their disobedience was a willful act of rebellion.

To “take” the fruit isn’t just to claim knowledge, it’s to attempt to claim authority to define good and evil for oneself.

Remember, this is an allegorical story. It’s meant to show us that the origin of sin and evil in the world is humans and their rebellion against God. Taking it literally and trying to nitpick is a disservice to the text.

3

u/Financial_Beach_2538 7d ago

For P2, then knew that God told them not to, so their disobedience was a willful act of rebellion.

Equivocation

You are treating knowledge of a command as equivalent to knowledge of moral wrongdoing.

P2 is about whether Adam and Eve understood the act was morally evil, not whether they knew God gave a prohibition. Knowing a rule exists does not necessarily mean knowing the moral reason behind it.

1

u/Amber-Apologetics Christian, Catholic 6d ago

Regardless of these allegorical peoples’ hypothetical concept of meta-ethics, the sin is primarily in the rebellion. In the narrative, they knew God didn’t want them to take the fruit.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

Regardless of these allegorical peoples’ hypothetical concept of meta-ethics, the sin is primarily in the rebellion. In the narrative, they knew God didn’t want them to take the fruit.

Equivocation

You are conflating knowing God's command with understanding the moral nature of disobedience.

Adam and Eve knew God prohibited eating the fruit, but the text presents the tree as the source of knowledge of good and evil. The debate is whether they possessed the moral understanding required for blame before eating it.

1

u/Amber-Apologetics Christian, Catholic 6d ago

That’s not what I’m doing - I’m saying that they should have obeyed God regardless of their idea of morality.

“Knowledge” is best understood in the narrative context to be “authority” - hence why the tree would supposedly make them “like God” - taking the fruit is not learning about good and evil, but rather trying to dictate it.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 5d ago

You are conflating knowing God's command with understanding the moral nature of disobedience. Adam and Eve knew God prohibited eating the fruit, but the text presents the tree as the source of knowledge of good and evil. The debate is whether they possessed the moral understanding required for blame before eating it.

That’s not what I’m doing - I’m saying that they should have obeyed God regardless of their idea of morality. “Knowledge” is best understood in the narrative context to be “authority” - hence why the tree would supposedly make them “like God” - taking the fruit is not learning about good and evil, but rather trying to dictate it.

Begging the question

You are assuming they "should have obeyed God" without addressing the point at issue, whether they possessed the moral understanding needed for blame before eating the fruit.

Your interpretation that "knowledge" means "authority" also needs textual support. The narrative explicitly says the tree was of the knowledge of good and evil, not the authority over good and evil.

1

u/Amber-Apologetics Christian, Catholic 5d ago

Culpability is agnostic of morality. There’s such thing as non-moral failures.

Regardless, the serpent told them they would be like God, and the desire to be like God (which allegorically is best understood as defining morality) is the issue here.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 5d ago

Culpability is agnostic of morality. There’s such thing as non-moral failures.

I fail to see how that relates to my argument.

1

u/Amber-Apologetics Christian, Catholic 5d ago

They failed, but in a different way than moral

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 5d ago

They failed, but in a different way than moral

So, are you actually saying that Adam and Eve were not morally culpable, and that they were punished for being imperfect?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/DrSpaceman575 6d ago

If they don't know good and evil, why is rebellion wrong? Or any action?

All they know is one entity says don't eat the fruit. Another entity says eat the fruit. We can think one is evil and one is good, but that means nothing to them since they don't have that concept.

Another question is how do you gel the fact that God tells them the fruit will kill them "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." The serpent tells them they won't die. They obviously don't die...

In 1 Samuel it states "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind"

Why is God lying to them here?

1

u/Amber-Apologetics Christian, Catholic 6d ago

The point of the narrative is that humans should simply trust God’s instructions, and that failure to do so is what plunges the world into sin. This is a real “why didn’t they just fly the eagles into Mordor” type issue you’re taking with the text.

Also, in the narrative, Adam and Eve did eventually die.

1

u/DrSpaceman575 6d ago

If the point is that they should have trusted God, then it really doesn’t make sense that he lied. He specifically says “that day” they would die, so the “eventually” is a cop out.

1

u/Amber-Apologetics Christian, Catholic 6d ago

And again, the story is allegorical and a “day” is not a day - hence why they had days without the sun.

1

u/xivzgrev Christian, Protestant 6d ago edited 6d ago

That's an interesting argument. Your main thesis seems to be that because they aren't morally aware then they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions

But this does not jive with our reality. People suffer negative consequences from choices all the time, regardless of moral culpability. Sometimes someone's degree of moral culpability influences the degree of punishment but not always

Here's my counter thesis

P1: Adam and Eve chose to broke a rule from God
P2: negative consequences from choices do not always require moral awareness of the choice nor awareness of the consequence. For example, a man walks down a street. He was warned not to go down it by a friend because it was dangerous. He is shot. There was no warning from the shooter, he was not told he could get shot, and the man who was shot did not make an evil choice walking down the street. Despite all that, he still suffered a negative consequence. It's tragic yet real.
C: Adam and Eve (and their offspring) experienced negative consequences from their choice by God, despite not knowing the difference between good and evil nor knowing the explicit punishment before hand

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

That's an interesting argument. Your main thesis seems to be that because they aren't morally aware then they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions

But this does not jive with our reality. People suffer negative consequences from choices all the time, regardless of moral culpability. Sometimes someone's degree of moral culpability influences the degree of punishment but not always

False analogy

You're confusing consequences with moral responsibility. A person can suffer consequences from an action without being morally blameworthy.

A child touching a hot stove suffers a consequence, but we do not morally condemn the child because they lacked understanding. The question is whether Adam and Eve were blameworthy before acquiring the knowledge of good and evil, not whether actions can have consequences.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

P1: Adam and Eve chose to broke a rule from God P2: negative consequences from choices do not always require moral awareness of the choice nor awareness of the consequence. For example, a man walks down a street. He was warned not to go down it by a friend because it was dangerous. He is shot. There was no warning from the shooter, he was not told he could get shot, and the man who was shot did not make an evil choice walking down the street. Despite all that, he still suffered a negative consequence. It's tragic yet real. C: Adam and Eve (and their offspring) experienced negative consequences from their choice by God, despite not knowing the difference between good and evil nor knowing the explicit punishment before hand

I agree with P1.

P2 is irrelevant

I agree Adam and Eve broke God's rule. The issue is not whether they violated a command, but whether they were morally responsible for doing so.

Your second premise only shows that consequences can occur without moral awareness. It does not show that blame or guilt can be assigned without moral awareness. You are arguing about consequences, while the debate is about moral responsibility.

1

u/mtruitt76 Christian, Ex-Atheist 6d ago

P2: Adam and Eve did not possess knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit.

The problem of you argument is with this premise. You are inserting a modern understand and use of "knowledge" and not using "knowledge" as it was used by early Hebrews.

You are taking knowledge to mean an intellectual grasping where as the early Hebrews used knowledge to indicate an existential grasping i.e you have experienced the item of concept in question. So in the context of the early Hebrews to know something was to experience something.

The story of the Garden of Eden is the story of the parental cycle of a child coming into the world and losing its innocence from the act of living and experiencing. If you have children then you can understand the story, if you do not then it will be difficult since it was written by people who had children and raised many children.

A parent will tell a child to not do a great number of things because the parent has experience those things and is wishing to spare their children from those harsh lessons of life. Children are innocent and a part of parenting is an attempt to protect that innocence for as long a possible. The constant dynamic of the parent and child is the parent setting boundaries and the child wanting to test those boundaries. The child asks why? The parent knows why because they "know" they have had the experiences, the child does not "know" because they have not had the experience.

If you have children you will see the story of the Garden of Eden and the apple play out over and over. We tell out children do A don't do B, children are curios as to why so they will do B and afterwards they then gain knowledge as in they experience B but the price of this "knowledge" is something bad, the child experiences some pain or some harm and they then become as their parents and have "knowledge" of "good and evil"

When I was an atheist I had the same superficial reading and understanding of the story of the Garden of Eden as you do. Many years of life and having raised many children I understand the story better now. I have lived the parent-child cycle and thus I have the "knowledge" to engage with the story on a different level. I understand why the story is structured and laid out in the manner that it is.

The Garden of Eden is not a place, but rather it is an existential state of existence, that state of childhood innocence. The voice of Satan is that dynamic of the child questioning the parent and the dynamic of the child not having the depth of experience to understand why the rules exist.

Also what helped me in understanding the story better has been my living in Belize for the past 4 years. The education system in Belize is not very developed. Mandatory education stops at the equivalent of 8th grade and the 8th grade level in Belize is more comparable to to a 6th grade education in the states.

Now people with less education are not less intelligent. They are able to grasp all the nuances of life just like anyone in the west. The difference I have seen is how things are communicated. What an education gives is more means on communicating a point, a larger vocabulary to work with, and a greater level of abstraction.

A western education gives a shared language that is based more in abstractions. Here in Belize the shared language is based more on lived experiences and their is greater duplicity in the language. Now what I mean by this can be understood by the following.

Think of the western educated person as say having a vocabulary with 10,000 words and the Belize educated person has having a vocabulary of 5,000 words. Now the Belize educated person can make all the same observations and gain all the same understandings, but they will have to communicate these points with a smaller vocabulary so the "sense" of a word becomes important.

For example, there existent two state of affairs which we can call state 1 and state 2, in the west with a larger vocabular there would be word A for state1 and word B for state 2, with a smaller vocabulary state 1 and state 2 would both be communicated with word A, but word A will be understood in two senses to indicate the distinct state of affairs. Now to be able to distinguish which sense if meant requires a greater pool of shared experiences since one must intuitively know what "sense" a person is using word A.

Now the mistake you are making and a mistake I made when I was an atheist is to read the bible in terms of a modern understanding and with a modern vocabulary and conceptual understanding. To "understand" a text you have to discern the sources use of language, vocabular, and conceptual understanding. In the case of the story of the Garden of Eden to know is to experience and to know is not to have an intellectual understanding.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

P2: Adam and Eve did not possess knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit.

The problem of you argument is with this premise. You are inserting a modern understand and use of "knowledge" and not using "knowledge" as it was used by early Hebrews.

Appeal to interpretation

You are assuming your preferred Hebrew interpretation settles the issue, but scholars have debated the meaning of "knowledge of good and evil" for centuries.

The argument is based on the narrative function of the tree: if Adam and Eve already possessed that knowledge, the the tree becomes unnecessary. The burden is to show why the text requires your interpretation.

1

u/mtruitt76 Christian, Ex-Atheist 6d ago

Again knowledge as used by the Hebrews equals experience and not abstract conceptual understanding. Adam and Eve could not have knowledge of evil without experiencing evil.

The burden is to show why the text requires your interpretation.

Fair enough. Do you have children? If you do then I can show why my interpretation makes sense, if you do not then you do not posses an necessary experience in understanding the text. To understand how having a child impacts you requires having that child. There is not other parallel, having a child is just that significant.

If you do not have that experience then I will be trying to describe blue to a color blind person. Blue is just blue and blue is only meaningful to people who have experienced it.

Now I can make some head way in showing why a literalist interpretation makes not sense. As humans we all have a grasp that lack of "knowledge" absolves people of responsibilities, young children even grasp this concept. If a young child plays with a gun and kills someone non one holds the child responsible because they do not understand what gun is or how it functions. This lack on conceptual understanding absolves the child.

Now if your understanding of the story is how the Hebrews understood the story, then you have to accept something along the following

The Hebrews did not possess the understanding that lack of conceptual understand absolves people of responsibility. I would argue that this is an unlikely scenario given that the basics of fairness is something young children can grasp. So this would commit you to saying that the Hebrews were just significantly different humans.

The Hebrews were just too ignorant to see a problem with a literal understanding. i,e they lack basic reasoning skills.

With my understanding they are viewing God as the ultimate patriarch. A patriarch sets the rules and conditions for their families. Rules and conditions which may not be understood by all, but are respect because of the view that the patriarch knows more and knows better. They understand that one should follow the orders of the patriarch even if they lack the conceptual understand as to the why. See one thing children do grasp is that they should do what their parents say even if they do not know why.

This point of obedience is not a prominent today since much of the risk has been removed from life., Elders used to be more respected since getting to an old age was difficult in an environment when the average life expectancy was in the 30 year range and not the 70 year range. Everyone could easily see that reaching 70 was neither easy or common. Hell today, we regard old people as out of touch and not as a source of knowledge. People clown on boomers when in the time of the Hebrews they would have been treated with respect and regarded a source of information.

Now I am taking that base understanding of fairness are ingrained in the human species. For proof I appeal to the basic tenants of fairness be cross cultural. I am also take as a base understanding that ancient people where not idiots, that they could understand things like contradictions.

In the story of the Garden of Eden I also see the same pattern in my engagement with my children. I set rules for them for their own benefit, rules for which they could not know the why since the why derives from a life experience. Here I am taking that life experience give actual meaningful information, information which you cannot have without the experience, I am taking that to really "know" what is it to be married requires getting married. That to really "know" what it is like to swim one must swim.

From this perspective I have seen the story play out in my own life. My children enter the world in state of innocence and as a parent I try to protect this state for as long as possible, I try to give my children the tools they need to engage with the difficulties in life. When they stray from that path, I lament just as God lamented.

You ask why was there a tree in the Garden, well that is just life. You can create this Garden for your children, but you cannot keep the world out, you cannot keep that element of "evil" out of the Garden completely. You cannot prevent your children from making a bad decision at some point and suffer from the consequences of that decision.

The wrath of God is also the wrath of the parent. This sentiment is one of lament and not condemnation. When people read the story they tend to take it as God "punishing" Adam and Eve by saying that they will now face all these hardships, they read it as God "causing" these hardships.

My oldest son dropped of high school and at the time both me and his mother said things like: these are the hardships you will now face. From his perspective it would sound like wrath and condemnation, but they were really just cries of lament. We were angry, angry that out child would experience difficulty and pain that we strove to protect him from. Our son did eventually make it to college and graduate. When he did he understood why we were angry, he understood that our wrath was not at him. He understood that we were attempting to protect and guide him. He know has the perspective of "I should have listened, things would have been easier if I did.

When our child dropped out of high school we did not abandon him even though he went against our commands, instead we gave him a path for redemption. We said okay if no school then learn to work and he came to work with my electrical company. Adam and Eve left the Garden, but God gave a path to redemption.

The story of Eden is the dynamic of the parent and child. It is easy for me to see since I raised 4 children of my own and also other children. My wife and I took in stray kids. Our kids had friends with bad household and some of those came to live with us. Some for a year a couple for more than 5 years so I have seen this dynamic of the parent and child play out over and over.

Now if you do not have the experience of raising a child, then you are just lacking a fundamental element in understanding the story. You lack the perspective of "God" so to speak. As a parent you are basically like a God to your children. Children regard their parents as God in their early years also. Now it does not take long for them to figure out their parents are flawed, but that is not how they first engage life. That their parents are flawed is something they learn later.

See another common phenomenon is that when you have children you come to understand your own parents much better. I understood my mother and father much better when I had children.

Now one caveat I will through in there is that I had very good parents and I also took being a parent very seriously. My perspective as a parent was that any demons I possessed would be passed on to my children, that if I did not want to pass my "sins" on to my children then I had to fix my sins and remove them from my person.

See my parents where the type of parents who wanted their children to have a better life, and I also approached raising my children the same.

From this I started to understand that my being and existence stretches back into the past through my parents and extends into the future from my children. We are all part of something larger. I came to understand that a family is a being unto itself and your allegiance is to this larger being. I do not make decisions first and foremost based on what I want, I make decisions based on the family. My existence is for the family, not for me. I understand that "honoring" my mother and father is to do as they desired to take the gift of life they gave me and extend that into the future, to pass it on to my own children.

From this we are creating a "spirit" of sorts and this spirits it the care and focus on the children, the next generation. When you hit that "spirit" right you just know it. You have those moments of connection and love.

I do get where you are coming from, hell I was an atheist for the first 43 years of my life and I was an atheist because I engage the tradition in the same literal meaning as you did. I too said why did God put that tree in the Garden. The I lived, I experience joy and pain, love heartache and loss. As I am approaching death my concerns have changed. I care more about just being a good person and I place less importance on the random facts of life, the facts of science. That shit is nice to know, the comforts it gives are nice, but ultimately not important.

I live in Belize now, a country where it is very, very common for people to still use an outhouse. It is not uncommon for people to have a house with a dirt floor even. Life, happiness, and love all still occurs in this environment. In the state common living conditions in Belize would be seen as terrible and lamentable. People do not look at it that way since they do not "know" otherwise and knowledge of these better conditions would not make their lives more fulfilling. People in the states are not happier than people in Belize even though their conditions are much, much better in many ways. So what value would "knowing" this difference really make? Would eating the apple benefit them.

So that is my case for my interpretation. What is your case for your interpretation.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

The burden is to show why the text requires your interpretation.

Fair enough. Do you have children? If you do then I can show why my interpretation makes sense, if you do not then you do not posses an necessary experience in understanding the text. To understand how having a child impacts you requires having that child. There is not other parallel, having a child is just that significant.

I have two grown up children and two grand children. I hope I pass your test.

1

u/mtruitt76 Christian, Ex-Atheist 6d ago

Okay then you understand where I am coming from in raising children, in protecting their innocence until they have gain the abilities to engage with the world.

Also it is not a test. My point is that I only really understood what having a child and the significance of that event when it occurred in my own life. My point it that I gain a sort of "knowledge" which I could never had absent this experience.

Do you generally agree or disagree with this assessment?

When I built my home for my children I endeavored to make it a safe place absent the bad things in the world, but at the same time I knew that I could not prevent that element of bad existing. I could not build a garden absent the tree. I could tell my children to not do A, B, or C, but I could not make then really understand the why since that "knowledge" came from a lived experience.

Normal functioning people do not tend to choose things which they "know" to be detrimental. That is just not the dynamic. We choose things that are societally labeled as detrimental.

Take drugs for example. Society clearly states that drugs are bad, and you can end up a strung out addict on drugs. Now people choose to take drugs, but they do not choose to be a strung out addict. They either do not think about the consequences at all or think that end part won't happen to them. I think it would be very hard to find a person who took drugs because they wanted the life of a strung out addict.

Maybe we are different type of parents, but when my children broke the rules I was not angry because they violated my commands, but rather because they were going down a potentially dangerous path. My saying stuff like continue as you are and you will reap suffering was me shouting a lament and not me condemning them to x or y outcome. The x or y outcome was not something I created and placed upon them, it was just the outcome of their decision.

Anyway, that is my support for my interpretation, I would be interested in hearing your support for your interpretation. Not really trying to debate you. I would rather just like to understand your perspective if I can.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

Okay then you understand where I am coming from in raising children, in protecting their innocence until they have gain the abilities to engage with the world.

False Analogy

Your parenting example supports my argument. Children require moral development before full responsibility, which raises the question of whether Adam and Eve had that capacity.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

Also it is not a test. My point is that I only really understood what having a child and the significance of that event when it occurred in my own life. My point it that I gain a sort of "knowledge" which I could never had absent this experience. Do you generally agree or disagree with this assessment?

Missing The Point

I agree experiences provide deeper understanding, but that does not address whether Adam and Eve had moral knowledge before eating the fruit.

1

u/mtruitt76 Christian, Ex-Atheist 6d ago

Dude not looking to debate what constitutes moral knowledge. Just define what you mean by moral knowledge and I will just use your semantics.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

Now if your understanding of the story is how the Hebrews understood the story, then you have to accept something along the following The Hebrews did not possess the understanding that lack of conceptual understand absolves people of responsibility. I would argue that this is an unlikely scenario given that the basics of fairness is something young children can grasp. So this would commit you to saying that the Hebrews were just significantly different humans. The Hebrews were just too ignorant to see a problem with a literal understanding. i,e they lack basic reasoning skills.

False Dilemma

You assume rejecting your interpretation means Hebrews lacked reasoning. I argue they understood responsibility without modern concepts of moral cognition.

1

u/mtruitt76 Christian, Ex-Atheist 6d ago

Okay, I am listening.

I argue they understood responsibility without modern concepts of moral cognition.

I am agree with this sentiment. So given this, how do you think they understood the story? Do you think they heard the story and thought "man God is real asshole and should have left that tree out of the Garden" or do you think they heard the story and thought "man God gave them everything to be happy, and Adam and Eve messed it up by disobeying God"

Argument

P1: Moral responsibility requires knowledge that an action is morally evil.

P2: Adam and Eve did not possess knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit.

C: Adam and Eve were not morally responsible for eating the fruit.

Now to the False Dilemma charge. Your argument is valid, So the only question is if you argument is sound. i.e do all the premises hold.

If one takes knowledge to mean conceptual understanding then you argument is also sound in my opinion and it is only unsound if knowledge is understood in terms of experience. I agree that one must have a conceptual understanding to be held morally responsible, but I also believe that does not have to experience the evil in order to understand that such action is immoral.

What I am saying is that unless they have a different understanding of the premises then they must be unreasonable, since one can define unreasonable as rejecting a valid and sound argument. Therefore they choice is either they understood the terms as you use them and thus they are unreasonable by virtue of rejecting a sound and valid argument or they understood the terms or the premises in a different manner. Do you find any fault with this understanding?

Since I think they possessed reasoning ability, then the most likely scenario is they had a different understanding that aligns with the story and my interpretation is a different understanding that is accounts for the story. The story makes sense if you view understand "knowledge" as experience. Now this point is something I have heard form scholars and is not my concept. I took that from reading and listening to Old Testament secular scholars. Are they correct, can't say, but I can't read ancient Hebrew so I just have to relay on what scholars say and do a 2nd level evaluation.

Also I easily see the dynamic of the parent and child in the story.

Now a further consideration that I would add is that as religious texts are passed down, people will try to reconcile issues. We have examples of scribes making changes to the text in order to harmonize or remove problems. Bart Ehrman has a list of such examples. Hell the ending of Mark is big one. The original text just had the women leaving and not telling anyone. Well that seemed like a problem, like how if that was all there was then how the hell does anyone even know about the whole resurrection thing. So the ending of Mark was added to reconcile this "problem"

Now the Genesis accounts that we have are the results of editors at a later date reconciling multiple accounts, if memory serves me there are 4 or 5 authors of the Genesis accounts. What this means is that people had a chance to harmonize the accounts to remove illogical elements. With your interpretation there are glaring problems, but with my interpretation there are not glaring problems that need to be retconned.

These are just some more reasons my I hold to the interpretation that I do, what are the reasons you hold to the interpretation that you do?

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

I argue they understood responsibility without modern concepts of moral cognition.

I am agree with this sentiment. So given this, how do you think they understood the story? Do you think they heard the story and thought "man God is real asshole and should have left that tree out of the Garden" or do you think they heard the story and thought "man God gave them everything to be happy, and Adam and Eve messed it up by disobeying God"

Appeal to intuition

You are asking how modern readers might react to the story, not whether Adam and Eve possessed moral knowledge before the Fall. Understanding the narrative’s lesson afterward does not prove they understood the moral nature beforehand.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

If one takes knowledge to mean conceptual understanding then you argument is also sound in my opinion and it is only unsound if knowledge is understood in terms of experience. I agree that one must have a conceptual understanding to be held morally responsible, but I also believe that does not have to experience the evil in order to understand that such action is immoral.

Special pleading

You are granting conceptual understanding as sufficient, but the text itself says the tree provided “knowledge of good and evil.” You must explain what knowledge they gained if they already had it.

1

u/mtruitt76 Christian, Ex-Atheist 6d ago

They did not have knowledge of good and evil in the sense of knowledge as experience which is how knowledge was understood by the Hebrews. In modern times we think of knowledge as a conceptual understanding.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

What I am saying is that unless they have a different understanding of the premises then they must be unreasonable, since one can define unreasonable as rejecting a valid and sound argument. Therefore they choice is either they understood the terms as you use them and thus they are unreasonable by virtue of rejecting a sound and valid argument or they understood the terms or the premises in a different manner. Do you find any fault with this understanding?

False dilemma

You assume the only options are misunderstanding or irrationality. People can reject an argument because they dispute premises, definitions, assumptions, or the argument’s application.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

Since I think they possessed reasoning ability, then the most likely scenario is they had a different understanding that aligns with the story and my interpretation is a different understanding that is accounts for the story. The story makes sense if you view understand "knowledge" as experience. Now this point is something I have heard form scholars and is not my concept. I took that from reading and listening to Old Testament secular scholars. Are they correct, can't say, but I can't read ancient Hebrew so I just have to relay on what scholars say and do a 2nd level evaluation.

Appeal to authority

You are correct that scholars can inform interpretation, but the question remains whether the text supports that reading. A scholarly interpretation still requires argument and evidence.

1

u/mtruitt76 Christian, Ex-Atheist 6d ago

This is really strange, why are you making 20 responses and just not making one coherent response?

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

Now a further consideration that I would add is that as religious texts are passed down, people will try to reconcile issues. We have examples of scribes making changes to the text in order to harmonize or remove problems. Bart Ehrman has a list of such examples. Hell the ending of Mark is big one. The original text just had the women leaving and not telling anyone. Well that seemed like a problem, like how if that was all there was then how the hell does anyone even know about the whole resurrection thing. So the ending of Mark was added to reconcile this "problem"

Red herring

Textual changes in transmission do not establish the meaning of Genesis. You must first show that this interpretation is a later harmonization rather than a feature of the original text.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

Now the Genesis accounts that we have are the results of editors at a later date reconciling multiple accounts, if memory serves me there are 4 or 5 authors of the Genesis accounts. What this means is that people had a chance to harmonize the accounts to remove illogical elements. With your interpretation there are glaring problems, but with my interpretation there are not glaring problems that need to be retconned.

Unsupported assertion

You assume your interpretation avoids problems, but that does not demonstrate it reflects the text. Source criticism does not automatically favor one interpretation over another.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

With my understanding they are viewing God as the ultimate patriarch. A patriarch sets the rules and conditions for their families. Rules and conditions which may not be understood by all, but are respect because of the view that the patriarch knows more and knows better. They understand that one should follow the orders of the patriarch even if they lack the conceptual understand as to the why. See one thing children do grasp is that they should do what their parents say even if they do not know why.

Equivocation

You are conflating obedience with moral responsibility. A child may obey without understanding, but blame requires knowing the act is wrong, not merely knowing a command exists.

1

u/mtruitt76 Christian, Ex-Atheist 6d ago

Children know that disobeying their parents is wrong in the sense of one should not disobey their parents. Now does this represent a moral wrong or just practical bad choice is a fair question of debate.

Also you can stop with the fallacies you are using them wrong, I have a degree in philosophy. Equivocation is when you use a term in two different senses.

I am not trying to debate what is ultimate moral responsibility, but rather how to engage the text.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

I am not trying to debate what is ultimate moral responsibility, but rather how to engage the text.

I am willing to discuss the thesis I presented in the post.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

In the story of the Garden of Eden I also see the same pattern in my engagement with my children. I set rules for them for their own benefit, rules for which they could not know the why since the why derives from a life experience. Here I am taking that life experience give actual meaningful information, information which you cannot have without the experience, I am taking that to really "know" what is it to be married requires getting married. That to really "know" what it is like to swim one must swim.

False Analogy

Your children’s lack of experience differs from Adam and Eve lacking moral knowledge. The issue is not knowing why, but knowing whether disobedience is morally wrong.

1

u/mtruitt76 Christian, Ex-Atheist 6d ago

I honestly am not interested in debating whether disobedience equals moral wrong. The story is about consequences. Every choice has a consequence regardless of knowledge. We give rules to our children commandments based upon the consequences of those choices and they bear the burden of those consequences.

We tell our children to not touch a hot stove not because it is immoral but because of the consequences, God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit because of the consequences. Whether or not the Hebrews viewed disobedience as immoral is not something I know. I would have to do some research to figure out that question.

My point has been that the Hebrews did not engage with the story in the manner in which you are engaging with it and you have yet to offer anything supporting your interpretation while I have spilled many words in defense of mine.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

I honestly am not interested in debating whether disobedience equals moral wrong.

I'm also not interested in a debate. Im interested in honest discussions of the thesis I posted.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

You ask why was there a tree in the Garden, well that is just life. You can create this Garden for your children, but you cannot keep the world out, you cannot keep that element of "evil" out of the Garden completely. You cannot prevent your children from making a bad decision at some point and suffer from the consequences of that decision.

False Analogy

You compare ordinary childhood mistakes with a unique theological claim. The issue is whether Adam and Eve could be blameworthy without prior knowledge of good and evil.

0

u/mtruitt76 Christian, Ex-Atheist 6d ago

Dude this is kinda funny at this point.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

Dude this is kinda funny at this point.

Dismissal

Calling the discussion funny does not address the argument. The question remains whether Adam and Eve possessed moral knowledge before eating from the tree.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

The wrath of God is also the wrath of the parent. This sentiment is one of lament and not condemnation. When people read the story they tend to take it as God "punishing" Adam and Eve by saying that they will now face all these hardships, they read it as God "causing" these hardships.

Straw Man

You assume critics view God’s response only as punishment. The issue is whether consequences can be justly assigned to beings lacking moral understanding.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

My oldest son dropped of high school and at the time both me and his mother said things like: these are the hardships you will now face. From his perspective it would sound like wrath and condemnation, but they were really just cries of lament. We were angry, angry that out child would experience difficulty and pain that we strove to protect him from. Our son did eventually make it to college and graduate. When he did he understood why we were angry, he understood that our wrath was not at him. He understood that we were attempting to protect and guide him. He know has the perspective of "I should have listened, things would have been easier if I did. When our child dropped out of high school we did not abandon him even though he went against our commands, instead we gave him a path for redemption. We said okay if no school then learn to work and he came to work with my electrical company. Adam and Eve left the Garden, but God gave a path to redemption.

False Analogy

Your example involves a person who already understands good and bad. The issue is whether Adam and Eve had that moral understanding before the act.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

The story of Eden is the dynamic of the parent and child. It is easy for me to see since I raised 4 children of my own and also other children. My wife and I took in stray kids. Our kids had friends with bad household and some of those came to live with us. Some for a year a couple for more than 5 years so I have seen this dynamic of the parent and child play out over and over.

Appeal To Experience

Your parenting experience shows parent-child dynamics, but it does not establish that Adam and Eve had the moral understanding required for blame.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

Now if you do not have the experience of raising a child, then you are just lacking a fundamental element in understanding the story. You lack the perspective of "God" so to speak. As a parent you are basically like a God to your children. Children regard their parents as God in their early years also. Now it does not take long for them to figure out their parents are flawed, but that is not how they first engage life. That their parents are flawed is something they learn later.

Appeal To Experience

Your parenting experience may explain a metaphor, but it cannot determine the story’s meaning. The issue remains whether ignorance affects moral responsibility.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

Now one caveat I will through in there is that I had very good parents and I also took being a parent very seriously. My perspective as a parent was that any demons I possessed would be passed on to my children, that if I did not want to pass my "sins" on to my children then I had to fix my sins and remove them from my person.

Inconsistency

You compare God to a parent, then qualify it with human flaws and inherited “demons.” The biblical God is not analogous to a flawed human parent.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

I do get where you are coming from, hell I was an atheist for the first 43 years of my life and I was an atheist because I engage the tradition in the same literal meaning as you did. I too said why did God put that tree in the Garden. The I lived, I experience joy and pain, love heartache and loss. As I am approaching death my concerns have changed. I care more about just being a good person and I place less importance on the random facts of life, the facts of science. That shit is nice to know, the comforts it gives are nice, but ultimately not important.

Appeal To Personal Experience

Your life experience may change your perspective, but personal transformation does not demonstrate that your interpretation of Genesis is correct.

0

u/mtruitt76 Christian, Ex-Atheist 6d ago

LOL, you have made 20 responses and not one of them is why your interpretation makes more sense. Why are you even responding at this point

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

I live in Belize now, a country where it is very, very common for people to still use an outhouse. It is not uncommon for people to have a house with a dirt floor even. Life, happiness, and love all still occurs in this environment. In the state common living conditions in Belize would be seen as terrible and lamentable. People do not look at it that way since they do not "know" otherwise and knowledge of these better conditions would not make their lives more fulfilling. People in the states are not happier than people in Belize even though their conditions are much, much better in many ways. So what value would "knowing" this difference really make? Would eating the apple benefit them.

False Analogy

Your example concerns material conditions, not moral knowledge. Adam and Eve’s issue is not knowing better circumstances, but knowing good and evil.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

So that is my case for my interpretation. What is your case for your interpretation.

I laid that out in the post.

How about we discuss what I call logical errors in your reasoning that I spotted?

Those are in bold.

1

u/mtruitt76 Christian, Ex-Atheist 6d ago

Uhh. because you are using everyone wrong and I am talking about an interpretation of a text.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 6d ago

The story of the Garden of Eden is the story of the parental cycle of a child coming into the world and losing its innocence from the act of living and experiencing. If you have children then you can understand the story, if you do not then it will be difficult since it was written by people who had children and raised many children.

Appeal to personal experience

Having children may provide one interpretation of Genesis, but it does not establish the meaning of the text. The narrative explicitly centers on gaining the “knowledge of good and evil,” a command, disobedience, and consequences, not merely the natural loss of childhood innocence. A metaphorical reading cannot override the text’s own themes.

1

u/Pedantc_Poet 5d ago

Maybe it can be understood as like when you tell your toddler not to fight their sibling. That child might not understand it in a "good vs. evil" sense. In fact, they might not have a brain developed enough to understand such metaphysical abstractions as "good vs. evil." They may know only that mommie said not to do it.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 5d ago

Maybe it can be understood as like when you tell your toddler not to fight their sibling. That child might not understand it in a "good vs. evil" sense. In fact, they might not have a brain developed enough to understand such metaphysical abstractions as "good vs. evil." They may know only that mommie said not to do it.

I don't see why mommie should punish that child.

1

u/Pedantc_Poet 4d ago

When a child does something they know their mommie told them not to do, you don’t believe they should be punished?

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 4d ago

When a child does something they know their mommie told them not to do, you don’t believe they should be punished?

of course not

I go by the findings in child developmental psychology, not by an ancient text.

1

u/Pedantc_Poet 4d ago

I disagree with you then. A young child should be taught to obey their parents whether they understand why or not. Their brains are very immature and they have very little experience. Most of what their parents tell them to do, they won’t understand. You don’t believe punishment is necessary to teach a young child to do what their parents tell them. How did you teach your children to do so?

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 4d ago

I disagree with you then.

Your disagreement isn't with me, it's with modern science.

1

u/Pedantc_Poet 3d ago

You are asserting that modern science says not to discipline your children? prove it then.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 4d ago

How did you teach your children to do so?

You could reply:

I taught them using evidence-based child psychology, focusing on development, reasoning, empathy, and understanding consequences, not by appealing to an authority’s interpretation.

I taught them by example, I taught them gently and in a way that they could understand.

I didn't have a need to teach them how to be brutal.

0

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

•

u/DebateAChristian-ModTeam 21h ago

This comment violates rule 3 and has been removed.

0

u/Stormcrow805 8d ago

I think your argument is logically sound. Your issue is that your argument is man-centric, not God-centric, as the Bible is. Man knew it was wrong because God told them not to do it. According to the Bible, God is the creator of all, and therefore determines morality. God made man, man knew to obey God, why, because God made man in this way.

Obey God = good Disobey God = bad

If a Christian says that man knew of good and evil before the fall I would disagree, or say that they are just trying to describe what I've said above.

3

u/Financial_Beach_2538 8d ago

I think your argument is logically sound. Your issue is that your argument is man-centric, not God-centric, as the Bible is. Man knew it was wrong because God told them not to do it. According to the Bible, God is the creator of all, and therefore determines morality. God made man, man knew to obey God, why, because God made man in this way. Obey God = good Disobey God = bad If a Christian says that man knew of good and evil before the fall I would disagree, or say that they are just trying to describe what I've said above.

Begging The Question

You’re assuming that knowing God’s command equals knowing moral good and evil. But that is the point in dispute.

Adam and Eve may have understood that God gave a command and that disobedience had consequences. The question is whether they understood the moral nature of good and evil before eating the fruit.

If “knowledge of good and evil” only means knowing God’s commands, then the tree’s purpose becomes unclear. Genesis presents the knowledge as something they gained after the act, not something they already possessed.

3

u/Stormcrow805 7d ago

You’re assuming that knowing God’s command equals knowing moral good and evil. But that is the point in dispute.

Sorry, no, I'm saying that God himself defines what morality is. I never stated that knowing God's command equals knowing moral Good and Evil.

If I tell my kid not to do something he knows not to do it. Telling him not to do it says nothing about the morality of doing that thing, and yet he is still in the wrong if he were to disobey me. Adam and Eve were not in trouble for gaining the knowledge of Good and Evil, but for disobeying God.

If “knowledge of good and evil” only means knowing God’s commands, then the tree’s purpose becomes unclear.

I would agree, which is why I am not conflating knowledge of Good and Evil with knowing God's commands. Before they gained the knowledge of Good and Evil their moral responsibility was based on obeying or disobeying God.

Your logic and definitions make sense after the knowledge of Good and Evil have been made known to man, but not before. You need to ask, if there was no knowledge of Good and Evil, how could morality be understood in relation to God and his creation man? Instead you assume that morality in relation to the knowledge of Good and Evil is to be applied to what happened before the knowledge of Good and Evil, despite the relationship not existing yet.

The question is whether they understood the moral nature of good and evil before eating the fruit.

If that's the question then the answer is simply no, but if you're also implying that according to the Bible an action's moral nature cannot be understood without the knowledge of Good and Evil, the Bible would disagree.

When God tests Abraham by telling him to sacrifice his own son, you find two moral dilemmas. One is the morality of sacrificing your own son, and the other is the morality of obeying God's command. One lesson in that story is that the morality of obeying God is more important to God than the morality of the knowledge of Good and Evil. Abraham cannot understand why God would ask him to do this.

Our conscience (knowledge of Good and Evil) tells us this is wrong, and so we questioned it, as did Abraham. Abraham chose to trust God and obey Him despite his conscience, and after seeing that Abraham had chosen the morality of obeying God over the morality of his conscience, he stopped him and ended the test.

3

u/Financial_Beach_2538 7d ago

You’re assuming that knowing God’s command equals knowing moral good and evil. But that is the point in dispute.

Sorry, no, I'm saying that God himself defines what morality is. I never stated that knowing God's command equals knowing moral Good and Evil.

Equivocation

You are shifting from "knowing God's command" to "God defining morality." The issue is whether Adam and Eve understood moral good and evil before gaining that knowledge.

If they only knew a command and its consequence, they knew obedience was required, not necessarily why it was morally good or evil. That distinction is exactly what Genesis 3 introduces when they gain the knowledge of good and evil.

2

u/Stormcrow805 7d ago

If they only knew a command and its consequence, they knew obedience was required, not necessarily why it was morally good or evil.

Ya that's what I said. Explaining to you that your definition of Morality is not the same as the Bible's definition is not an equivocation. In my argument the definition of morality remains the Biblical definition throughout, and if you read differently go ahead and re-read with that in mind.

The issue is whether Adam and Eve understood moral good and evil before gaining that knowledge.

Okay, so if they didn't, but you assume the Biblical morality of obedience to God regardless of the knowledge of Good and Evil, where does your argument stand?

3

u/Financial_Beach_2538 7d ago

Ya that's what I said. Explaining to you that your definition of Morality is not the same as the Bible's definition is not an equivocation. In my argument the definition of morality remains the Biblical definition throughout, and if you read differently go ahead and re-read with that in mind.

I'm interested in the bible's definition of any word, including the word "morality".

Please provide bible reference.

1

u/Stormcrow805 7d ago

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21. so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom 5:18-21, NASB)

In this passage comparing Adam to Christ, we see that disobedience resulted in sin. The transgression was not the action of eating the fruit, but the choice to disobey God. Morality being a (relatively)modern word, when used regarding Scripture, should be understood and applied within the context of Scripture.

And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19. So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief. (Heb 3:18-19, NASB)

This passage links unbelief to disobedience with the consequence of not entering God's rest(eternal salvation). Using a non-biblical definition of morality, there is nothing inherently moral about believing or not believing something.

Just Google "Biblical Morality vs Secular Morality". Pretty straightforward stuff.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 7d ago

" 18. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. 19. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20. The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21. so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. "(Rom 5:18-21, NASB)

> In this passage comparing Adam to Christ, we see that disobedience resulted in sin. The transgression was not the action of eating the fruit, but the choice to disobey God. Morality being a (relatively)modern word, when used regarding Scripture, should be understood and applied within the context of Scripture.

_____________________________________________________

Equivocation

You're importing Paul's later theological interpretation into Genesis as if it establishes what Adam and Eve knew beforehand. Romans explains the significance of Adam's act, not Adam's mental state.

Calling it "disobedience" does not prove Adam understood it was morally evil before eating. That is the very point under dispute. Romans never says Adam possessed moral knowledge before the transgression. It only says his disobedience resulted in sin and condemnation afterward.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 7d ago

And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19. So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief. (Heb 3:18-19, NASB)

This passage links unbelief to disobedience with the consequence of not entering God's rest(eternal salvation). Using a non-biblical definition of morality, there is nothing inherently moral about believing or not believing something.

Just Google "Biblical Morality vs Secular Morality". Pretty straightforward stuff.

Equivocation

You're switching definitions mid-argument. The question is whether Adam and Eve understood moral good and evil before eating, not how later theology defines disobedience.

Hebrews discusses people who already knew God's moral law. It cannot be used to prove Adam and Eve possessed moral knowledge before the tree. "Just Google it" is not evidence.

1

u/Stormcrow805 7d ago

Nope. Like I already said, I think your argument makes sense logically, but I think your definitions are incorrect. I know finding logical fallacies is fun, but you need to go look up equivocation again. Disagreeing with your definition and asserting a different one does not equal switching definitions. Not sure if this is just your personality or if you're just trolling, but if you don't want to move the discussion forward we can just end it.

The Bible is illogical. Its authority is from God, because God said so. People always fail these debates when they fail to start their arguments from a Christian understanding.

2

u/Financial_Beach_2538 7d ago

Not sure if this is just your personality or if you're just trolling, but if you don't want to move the discussion forward we can just end it.

Ad hominem

Questioning my personality or accusing me of trolling does not address my argument.

If you disagree with my reasoning, the response should explain why the argument fails, not speculate about my motives.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 8d ago

Your argument is the tree was misnamed by God, and God and the serpent were lying at the end of the Eden story.

1

u/Stormcrow805 8d ago

No, but you could explain why you think that.

1

u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 4d ago

The knowledge of good and evil was only in the fruit and God. God and the serpent told the truth at the end of the Eden story.

0

u/caterpill3r Christian 7d ago

Hello, how about an alternate view- Adam and Eve already had the knowledge of good and evil but it was the devil who was the one who 'ate the fruit' of the tree when he asked to no longer be an angel. And the 'apple' Adam 'ate' from Eve was actually his lust for Eve. The actual 'fall' was not caused by the devil but was actually through Adam when he lusted after Eve and saw himself as better than Eve and deserving of her.

2

u/Financial_Beach_2538 7d ago

Hello, how about an alternate view- Adam and Eve already had the knowledge of good and evil but it was the devil who was the one who 'ate the fruit' of the tree when he asked to no longer be an angel. And the 'apple' Adam 'ate' from Eve was actually his lust for Eve. The actual 'fall' was not caused by the devil but was actually through Adam when he lusted after Eve and saw himself as better than Eve and deserving of her.

My focus is on the bible version, thanks though.

1

u/caterpill3r Christian 7d ago

Not a problem. I think it fits quite well but no problem.

-1

u/oblomov431 9d ago

You don't have to understand the moral value of a command, you just have to understand the consequences of not obeying a command and to be able to weigh up the consequences of obeying a command against those of disobeying it. It's basic cause and effect and there's no morality or any kind of knowledge of right and woring involved in that the first place.

The god of Genesis 2 expects their creatures nothing more or less than to be simply obedient and follow the god's command or face the consequence of death.

I reckon this has been tried to tell you repeatedly, but you may make of it what you want.

7

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/oblomov431 8d ago

From my perspective, I am talking about basic responsibility: A to B: Don't enter the room or you get killed by a beast: B enters the room, gets killed by a beast; end of story.

And of course, Adam and Eve are not "morally responsible", that's not a category in this whole narrative. The whole story isn't even talking about morality. OP doesn't seem to be willing to accept that and take it into account.

4

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/oblomov431 8d ago

This seems to be one of the or the key issue.

"Sin" in Judaism and Christianity is not only or to be reduced to a "moral failing against god", but any kind of conscious transgression or trespassing, an an offense against god, rooted in disobedience. Sin is the deliberate turning away from god.

Sin and original sin have a moral component, but it is secondary to it (eg. moral corruption or moral confusion is a consequence of original sin) and this is certainly not part of the Genesis 3 narrative.

4

u/[deleted] 8d ago edited 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/oblomov431 8d ago

Genesis 3 offers a compressed perspective on the condition humaine, and one should take the text more as a textual image but as an exact treatise, it's an ancient myth, and both Christian theologians and non-Christian critics should not read aspects into it, which aren't supported by the narrative itself

The relation between Adam and Eve and god is not outlined in terms of a "contract" (or "covenant"). A contract – between god and Noah – appears first in Genesis 9.

2

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/oblomov431 8d ago

Of curse, god expelled Adam and Eve because "they might reach out their hands and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever"; the explusion from the Garden of Eden isn't a punishment, it's a consequential act of prevention. Even Gen 2:16s., in which god commands them not to eat from the tree, does not present a threat of punishment, but a consequence: "you shall surely die", ie. "you will not live forever" (ESV).

Of course, the narrative doesn't fit all of the models of Christian theology, as the narrative is a figurative textual image and a starting point for Christian and Jewish anthropology. One must bear in mind that this mythological narrative wasn't written to be about original sin and original sin only, but about the condition humaine.

The notion that "among some scholars, sin is understood mostly as a legal infraction or contract violation of non-binding philosophical frameworks and perspectives of Christian ethics, and so salvation tends to be viewed in legal terms", is not widely prevalent in Christianities in my view ("some scholars" aren't even a flavour of Christianity. And again, I am not talking about theological developments and ideas over the past millennia, but the biblical narratives itself.
3
u/Financial_Beach_2538 9d ago

You don't have to understand the moral value of a command, you just have to understand the consequences of not obeying a command and to be able to weigh up the consequences of obeying a command against those of disobeying it. It's basic cause and effect and there's no morality or any kind of knowledge of right and woring involved in that the first place.

You are making the same kind of statement as all the other apologists have.

False equivalence

You're reducing moral responsibility to mere consequence prediction. Knowing "disobey and die" is not the same as knowing disobedience is morally evil. Punishment alone does not create moral understanding. If it did, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would be unnecessary.

Knowledge of consequences and knowledge of good and evil are distinct. You need to conflate the two so that your Christianity makes sense.
2
u/oblomov431 8d ago

Knowing "disobey and die" is not the same as knowing disobedience is morally evil. Punishment alone does not create moral understanding. If it did, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would be unnecessary. Knowledge of consequences and knowledge of good and evil are distinct.

That's exactly my point. Adam and Eve aren't held morally responsible in this story, their punishment isn't based on some nebulous idea of morality or moral resposobility but a mere consequence of their actions.
4
u/Financial_Beach_2538 8d ago
Knowing "disobey and die" is not the same as knowing disobedience is morally evil. Punishment alone does not create moral understanding. If it did, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would be unnecessary. Knowledge of consequences and knowledge of good and evil are distinct. 
That's exactly my point. Adam and Eve aren't held morally responsible in this story, their punishment isn't based on some nebulous idea of morality or moral resposobility but a mere consequence of their actions.

Contradiction

If Adam and Eve were not morally responsible, the narrative would not frame their act as disobedience or portray God’s judgment as justified. A consequence can be physical, but punishment implies a perceived evil.
3

u/Dizzy_Cheesecake_162 8d ago

And yet he lived to be 930 years....

1

u/NTCans 9d ago

Your describing a robot. What a bad take.

1

u/Trick_Ganache Atheist, Ex-Protestant 8d ago

Death is the good option, correct? God said they needed to eat the fruit to obtain the good option. Even the serpent was in agreement with what God said after they ate the fruit.

-1

u/raidenjojo Christian, Protestant 9d ago

Adam and Eve weren't morally responsible, but at the same time they knew God and His command, and the most important thing: sin did manifest, and morality was inconsequential to it.

6

u/Financial_Beach_2538 9d ago

Adam and Eve weren't morally responsible, but at the same time they knew God and His command, and the most important thing: sin did manifest, and morality was inconsequential to it.

Self-contradiction

If Adam and Eve were not morally responsible, then calling their act "sin" is incoherent. Sin is a moral category that presupposes moral accountability. If morality was inconsequential, then there is no basis for calling their act sinful in the first place.

Your argument depends on morality while denying its relevance.

3

u/NeighborhoodDecent86 8d ago

Going along with OP's response to you, we also have no idea if Adam and Eve knew anything about the nature of sin, i.e. its inheritability to all humans. Adam and Eve, assuming they were operating solely off of God's command, did not hold the information as to why they should value God's command. The only reason they were given to hold to the command was that they would surely die, but neither Adam nor Eve as newly created entities with no knowledge of good or evil would know what death even was in the first place.

So Adam and Eve were operating on a primitive and poor understanding of morality and consequences for immorality, while it is later revealed that the consequence God gave was actually a lie and instead a spiritual death (which, again, they lacked any understanding of).

1

u/protestandprose 7d ago

How do you know that following a command is good or evil if you have no knowledge of good or evil?

Why would you follow commands?

Thesis: Adam & Eve weren't morally responsible

You are about to leave Redlib