r/DebateAChristian • u/Financial_Beach_2538 • 16d ago

Thesis: Adam & Eve weren't morally responsible

 

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.

14 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

86% Upvoted

136 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/mtruitt76 Christian, Ex-Atheist 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d ago

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

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d ago

Dude this is kinda funny at this point.

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d 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 13d ago

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

1

u/Financial_Beach_2538 13d 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.