Adam, Eve and the Forbidden Fruit

[Maquissar]

A thought that crossed my mind after reading the Genesis, Chapter 3:

 

[...] 6: And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

8: And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

9: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10: And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

11: And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

12: And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

13: And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. [...]

 

Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They were naked

before, but they didn't realise it because they were innocent like babies and

knew not what was good or bad. Now... the main conditions for committing a

sin is: 1) to know that something is wrong, and 2) to do it anyway. How can

they have committed a mortal sin when they had no knowledge of good and

evil? God told them not to eat of that tree, alright, but they couldn't fully realise

the magnitude of their actions if they had no knowledge of good and evil. So...

hasn't God overreacted? :)

 

I am not the religious type, I just want to know what you think of it from a

philosophical point of view. Is it a paradox?

[Peregrine]

It's simple, Christianity (and pretty much any other religion) is full of paradoxes and contradicitons that seem absolutely stupid to anyone not brainwashed by its propaganda. There is no explanation, you're expected to just accept it as "God says so," no matter how impossible it seems.

[Hogosha Ookami]

no paradox here, they were told not to eat of the fruit.

[Peregrine]

Obviously you didn't read the post, because there is a clear paradox:

 

1) Sin requires knowledge of the concept of sin. For an act to be sin, the sinner must intentionally do it despite knowing that it is wrong.

 

2) Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of right and wrong. Their understanding was at the level of a very young child. Therefore their acts prior to obtaining that knowledge can not be considered sin.

 

3) God punished them as sinners and declared their acts sin, despite not fitting the definition.

 

We have a paradox. All three of these points can not be correct. So let's look at the consequences of each point being wrong:

 

1) God's defintion of sin is absolutely immoral and punishes "sinners" who had no knowledge that their acts were wrong.

 

2) The bible is flawed and tells an incorrect version of the story.

 

3) The bible is flawed and tells an incorrect version of the story.

 

 

By your argument, if I leave a button connected to a nuke aimed at a major city where a baby can press it (and even tell them not to), and the baby presses it, the baby is far more guilty than I am. Any rational analysis of the situation says that I am guilty of those murders, not the baby who lacked any understanding of their actions.

[Maquissar]

It is true that they were ordered not to eat the fruit, but - to continue Peregrine's

metaphor - it would be like telling a baby, with no conscience of good or evil,

"Not to press the red button". The baby presses the button; he disobeys, all

right, but is it a mortal sin? Is the baby really conscious of what he's doing?

 

Admitting that Adam and Eve only had a PARTIAL knowledge of good and evil

which allowed them to realise that disobeying God was a sin, but being naked

was all right, would imply that "the bible is flawed and tells an incorrect

version of the story".

[dunmer_jediknight]

how i would love to be able to read the original drafts of the bible before the church of the 1400's changed it to suit ther political agenda it would be extreamly interesting to see how the original writers had interpited what they saw.

[Breton Thief Oriana]

But heres the real question: Was the forbidden fruit Really an apple?

 

and heres a better one: Doesnt me pointing out that question put the whole relevance and futillity of this debate at hand? Whats the point wether it was a sin or not, god told them no and they did anyway. It wasnt a sin to eat the forbiddn fruit, it was a disobeyance of orders. Likewise, if a comanding officer gives you orders to go into battle and kill people and you disobey, you are not commiting a sin at all, you are just disobeying orders.

[Morgoth]

What is an even more important question: Are all the people here who call themselves atheists far more fundamentalist Jews/Christians than most people who actually belong to these religions?

[Darnoc]

If you read the passage carefully, you will notice that god asks Adam and Eve after they have eaten what they have done and both want try to blame someone else (Adam his wife Eve and Eve the snake). Now some theologists argued that god would have forgiven them if they would have told the truth and said "I have done it" instead of blaming someone else. Note that at the point where they blamed someone else they were fully aware of their actions and knew what was good and bad, this means they blamed someone else for something they have done even when they knew that this is not right. And this is per definition sin.

[Maquissar]

This is a philosophical and religious debate... it is supposed to be futile.

However, Darnoc, you have a point... blaming someone else once you have

full knowledge of your actions could actually be considered more of a sin than

eating of the Forbidden fruit :)

 

Morgoth, by the way, who were you referring to when you asked if all the

atheists in these fora are more fundamentalist Jews/Christians than people

who actually belong to those religions?