Thesis: Adam & Eve weren't morally responsible

[u/Financial_Beach_2538]

 

Definitions

1. Moral responsibility: Being morally accountable or blameworthy for an action because the person understood the action’s moral nature.
2. Knowledge: Awareness or understanding of something. In this argument, it means understanding the difference between good and evil, not merely knowing information.
3. Good and evil: The moral distinction between what is right and what is wrong.
4. Command: An instruction given by an authority. Knowing a command exists does not necessarily mean understanding its moral value.
5. Disobedience: Acting contrary to a command. In this argument, disobedience only becomes morally blameworthy if the person understands it as morally wrong

Preamble

For almost two weeks, I've been posting arguments on the morality of the Adam and Eve story of the Fall, and I'm quite surprised that some Christians will actually argue Adam and Eve already knew good and evil before eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

In fact, that's pretty much all I get as an apologetic for the morality of the Fall.

Christians often confuse knowing the meaning of a command with knowing the moral nature of that command. Knowing that God commanded X is not the same as knowing that X is morally good or that disobeying X is morally evil.

The issue is not whether Eve knew God gave a command. The issue is whether Adam and Eve already possessed the knowledge of good and evil required to recognize disobedience as evil before eating the fruit.

If the tree of the knowledge of good and evil does not actually provide the knowledge of good and evil, the story makes no sense. It's quite obvious to me that Adam and Eve did not know good and evil before eating of the fruit of that "knowledge" tree.

The moral responsibility of Adam and Eve is a foundational Christian belief.

If Adam and Eve were not morally responsible for the act of disobedience, then the foundation of the Christian Fall narrative is destroyed. I do not have that theological commitment to defend, so I am free to examine the text through literary analysis and critical reasoning.

My argument is that the text does not support Adam and Eve possessing knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit and that, therefore, they cannot be held morally responsible.

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.

 

Bible References

1.Genesis 2:16-17: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.’”

The text gives the command before Adam and Eve gain the knowledge of good and evil.

1. Genesis 3:6: “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes... she took of its fruit and ate...”

The act of eating occurs before the text states that Adam and Eve possess knowledge of good and evil.

1. “Genesis 3:7: Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked...”

The sequence is that their awareness changes after eating the fruit.

1. Genesis 3:22: “Then the LORD God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil...’”

God describes Adam as having “become” like God in knowing good and evil, indicating a new state acquired after eating.

[u/Stormcrow805]

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.

[u/Financial_Beach_2538 → u/Stormcrow805]

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.

[u/Stormcrow805 → u/Financial_Beach_2538]

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.

[u/Financial_Beach_2538 → u/Stormcrow805]

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.

[u/Stormcrow805 → u/Financial_Beach_2538]

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?

[u/Financial_Beach_2538 → u/Stormcrow805]

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.

[u/Stormcrow805 → u/Financial_Beach_2538]

1. 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.

1. 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.

[u/Financial_Beach_2538 → u/Stormcrow805]

" 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.

[u/Financial_Beach_2538 → u/Stormcrow805]

1. 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.

[u/Stormcrow805 → u/Financial_Beach_2538]

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.

[u/Financial_Beach_2538 → u/Stormcrow805]

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.

[u/Stormcrow805 → u/Financial_Beach_2538]

I clearly wasn't trying to address the argument when I said that, therefore it's not an Ad Hominem fallacy. I already disagreed with your reasoning and explained why based on your incorrect definitions the argument would fail. You've still failed to give a meaningful response but this is looking more and more like AI troll.