How were Adam & Eve supposed to know it was wrong to eat the fruit?

Great Debates
21

Now that’s done, I can join the wild speculation of the rest of the thread.

The big question for me is why that tree was there to begin with.

I see the story as an etiological myth explaining loss of innocence and (if it’s not too anachronistic) our existential “thrown-ness” in the world–that unlike every other creature, we seem unaware of our purpose and at odds with our surroundings and ourselves. (Remember the immediate consequences of the Fall: pain in working for food and in giving birth, things other animals seem to do easily.)

The “real-world” explanation for the tree is that some mechanism had to exist in the story to explain our transition from happy innocents to self-aware, suffering adults.

“In-story,” I think we can say that humans weren’t created to live in the Garden forever. We were created to till the earth, to cultivate it and care for it (Gen 2:5, 1:26-28, 2:15, 3:23). Eden, I think, was our nursery, to prepare us to encounter the rest of creation and to be truly “like God” in having dominion over it, caring for it, and shaping it.

But we weren’t ready. We were newly created, like children. We had to mature. And part of that was learning boundaries, learning slowly for ourselves good and evil. The tree was there for us to eat of when we were ready, and it was there to teach us obedience and through obedience right and wrong until we were ready.

But the plan backfired. We disobeyed, and like children who encountered violence and sex to early (or rather were taught them by a mischievous older brother, the snake) we grew up too fast. It suddenly no longer made sense to keep us in the nursery; we had seen all that the garden was meant to shelter us from. We were, for better or worse, cast out into the world, too mature and headstrong to be kept at home, but not experienced enough to find our way. And like a problem child grown to adulthood, we’ve been struggling and rebelling and fucking up ever since, unable to forgive ourselves or accept our father’s forgiveness and help.

22

The mountain lion generally isn’t considered evil because it doesn’t know that eating the dog is wrong. If knowledge is necessary, and A&E knew they weren’t supposed to eat of the tree, and they also knew they should not disobey God, then what they did was evil. On the other hand, if knowledge is necessary but not sufficient to define evil, then what is sufficient?

In your example, your motivation was the same as the mountain lion’s - hunger. So, as far as motivation goes, how does this help define evil? What were A&E’s motivation that is not considered evil?

23

You’re right. It was incestuous… but those were the only people there then, according to the traditional view.

Zev Steinhardt

24

The main problem with incest is that genetic imperfections get reinforced. Presumably, having been made by God, Adam and Eve were genetically perfect, and there wouldn’t have been much opportunity for problems to creep into the first several generations. So, no problem with incest.

I’m am so totally making this baloney up. I think I’m ready to start my own religion.

25

The explanation I like is that Adam and Eve were punished not for eating the fruit, but because, when given the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and repent, Adam chose to blame Eve and Eve chose to blame the snake.

26

The OP has identified a genuine logical contradiction in the Genesis story and all attempts to reconcile it fail miserably. “They knew right from wrong but not good from evil?” WTF kind of equivocating is that? Either they knew it was “wrong” or they didn’t. If they didn’t, then they didn’t do anything wrong. If they did, then there was no “fall.”

The anser that they didn’t know right from wrong but still somehow knew it wrong to disobey God makes no sense either. All the attempted explanations just try to build exceptions into their pre-fall “innocence.”

Incidentally, God didn’t actually tell them it was “wrong” to eat the fruit. He lied to them and told them they would die. The snake told them the truth – that they would become “as the gods,” knowing right from wrong. They had no reason to ability to know who it was “right” to listen to, and in fact, the snake was the one with integrity in this case.

27

Why did he punish the snake?

28

The thing I like about this interpretation is that it removes the problem of long-term collective punishment. Though I wonder how long the protected “children” were expected to remain there. And once exposed, how long did it take to catch up? Are we there yet? (Not really asking, just sayin’)

29

You’re kidding, right? If I have a small child who kicks or bites another child, I may explain to the victim that my child doesn’t yet know right from wrong, and so should not be judged too harshly. I may then tell my child never to bite or kick.

Would you, at that point, run up and object that telling my child what to do is pointless, since I already stated that she doesn’t know right from wrong, and hence has no idea that she should obey me?

People, believers and atheists alike, have the bizarre tendency to treat these texts like philosophical treatises that can be picked apart logically for the slightest apparent inconsistency. They aren’t. They’re stories. And what they describe conforms perfectly to the standard of consistency expected of a collection of stories (true or fictional) from the period in which they developed, and in most cases to the standards of everyday language today. Contemporary scholarly history books have bigger inconsistencies for Pete’s sake!

30

Alan Smithee, that (Post #21) is one of the most satisfying, sense-making explanations/interpretations of the story that I have ever encountered.

31

Pfft.

Tell someone that they can do whatever they want except* this one thing and what’s the first thing they’re going to do?

If there’s one entity that can be blamed for the design of ‘human nature’ it’s God. The fact that God then used human nature as an excuse to punish A&E just shows that he’s a sociopath.

-Joe, athiest

32

There are a fair number of people/groups out there who believe in the inerrant word of the Bible and take it all quite literally.

33

Actually there are a number of believers who treat these texts as factual documents. Just so you know.

But even if they’re just stories, so what? I analyze the plots of movies, too. Is there a problem with that?

As for Genesis, I see no problem with it, so long as you don’t assume that God has anybody’s well-being in mind. It seems to be more a story of individuals disobeying a perhaps irrational dictate, and being punished for it. Fairly simple. The most interesting thing about it is that it definitively proves that God (in the story, anyway) is capable of being deceptive.

34

Did you intend your post to be a response to mine? If so, you lost me.

35

But how was God supposed to know about human nature before there were humans? In the creation story, he creates plants before humans. (In the other creation story, of course, the human preceed the plants.) Remember that the first chapter of Genesis has many statements of the form “God created _____________, and He saw that it was good.” Never does God know what’s going to be good before he creates it.

So the situation is thus. God is all-seeing; He can see everything that exists. God is all-knowing; He can correctly assess whether or not the things he sees are good. But he’s not a great abstract thinker. He can’t judge things before they exist. So the creation of light, for example, was a risk. Light might have been good or it might have been bad. God couldn’t see that it was good until after it was created.

So despite being all-seeing and all-knowing, God had no way of knowing at the start that human nature would lead the humans to eat the one forbidden item.

36

So you mean God isn’t omnipotent?

And the obligatory SDMB Terry Pratchett quote: :wink:

37

I think I should have spoken more on this than I did in my last post.

You need not even apply to the fundies and “inerrant word of the bible” people to see the flaw in what you say.

Every church I have ever been to (pretty mainstream, christian stuff growing up) not a single minister once said, “Ya know, this whole bible is really just an interesting piece of fiction from which we can find some nifty moral stories we can talk about.” If they did I probably would have gone more.

What they do is tell you Jesus said this and Matthew said that and God said this other. ALL portrayed as not a story but real entities who said these things and must be listened to. It is all delivered as fact and not really to be questioned.

But then we see things in Genesis and other parts of the Bible that don’t seem to make sense when scrutinized. If we question those parts then it becomes a “story”. Well which is it? Who decides? This part is to be taken literally but that other part…well…just made up?

38

Excellent questions. Your answers are up to you to decide, and change your mind later if you wish. That really bugs some folks.

39

I read the argument as being that he was stupid: lots of information at his fingertips and he lacks the wherewithal to connect the dots.

40

I didn’t say God couldn’t tell them what to do, I’m saying it wasn’t “wrong” for them disobey. You can tell a dog what to do, that doesn’t mean the dog is committing a sin if it disobeys.

Also, God was lying. That means he was the only one of the four principle characters who was doing anything morally wrong.

But this is a story that goes right to the core of the theology. It’s more than just an inconsistency in the story, it’s giant gaping hole in the theology itself.