Original Sin

If you quote the passage in context you see that after Eve made that statement, the serpent made a counter argument, "You will not surely die." One could conclude this was the first time Eve was ever presented with a moral choice from the point of view of the benefits of eating the fruit. She then saw it as desireable for gaining wisdom.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Phatboy writes:

quote:

---

I always was taught and assumed that Adam was disobedient rather than deceived. He listened to Eve instead of God.

---

Well I don't much like that explanation but it must have been a clever man who came up with it: "Well, yeah, I reckon I shud'na dun it, but 'is Eve's fault fer comin up wif the idear."I always thought that one the reasons Shakespeare's character Macbeth was so intriguing was because he never blamed Lady Macbeth for his own failings, even though he might have had more cause to do so than did Adam for blaming Eve.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

actually, adam doesn't blame eve. he blames god for putting eve there in the first place. probably, yes. lady macbeth, to use modern terminology, was quite the bitch.

curiously, that's not right.the commandment not to eat of the tree is issued before she's created. but when the serpent confronts her, she seems to know about it, and quotes god. so she's presented with a moral choice. if she gets off, well, so i can if i say "devil made me do it."however, there is no indication that adam knew what he's doing. it simply says eve gave him the fruit, not that she told him what it was. maybe she put it in his dinner, and he had no idea. but the text never has adam being present with a choice. he just does what his wife tells him.you have to remember, adam is kind of stupid. he does afterall blame god for his sin. well, we've been debating the whole immanuel prophesy in another thread. but that passage seems to indicate that according to tradition, there is an age at which kids know what the difference between right and wrong.however -- adam and eve wouldn't have until they ate from the tree. it is afterall called "knowledge of good and evil." they wouldn't have been able to make a moral choice until AFTER they ate. so by that definition, eating of the tree itself could not have been sin, because they wouldn't have known any better.

those two don't line up. paul indicates that eve sinned, being decieved. you're saying the opposite.however, paul cannot be right either. adam and eve did the same thing, and had the same information. eve was "deceived" by the serpent, and adam by eve. paul is a sexist, please remember that.

how could she, or adam for that matter, make a moral choice without first knowing good and evil? the tree is the basis for morality.also, what's adam's excuse? we don't have him being presented any kind of argument at all. he just does what his wife tells him to, and eats. no fights, no discussion, no moral reasoning.maybe eve getting adam to eat was the sin, since she knew what she was doing after she ate. but then again, what about the serpent. isn't the first sin in the book his?

The Tree is Ashtorah in Canaan, Ishtar in Babylonia, and to eat her fruit is to worship or have reverence for another deity.This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-08-2005 09:16 AM

Arachnophilia Why is god exempt from the responsability issue?After all it was an obviously premeditated situation as this verse indicates. What purpose could the tree of the knowledge of good and evil serve in Eden?From this verse come questions.If Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before eating of the fruit then she is innocent of doing so.Now having eaten of the fruit why did she not realize that it would not be good to have Adam eat of the fruit?Did the fruit not give her knowledge of good in equal amounts as well?The serpent was created by god therefore the question comes forth how did the serpent acquire knowledge of good and evil? This situation is further complicated by the tree of life. Why is there a problem with the tree of life? There was no injuction against eating it so what was it doing in Eden? What if Adam or Eve had partaken of the tree of life since it was not denied them? This also raises the question of what was the point of threatening Adam and Eve with death since this must have been the case anyway? Why were they not informed of the existence of the tree of life?God and whoever us is also posses knowledge of good and evil.Why are they not aware that it is just as evil to set up the conditions to tempt innocents{Adam and Eve before eating of the fruit} into commiting evil{which they were only aware of after the fact} using entities of their own device{the serpent who must have gained the knowledge of good and evil from them} to persuade the innocents to partake in something they could not know the consequences of beforehand?

Well, in the Jewish tradition, there is no original sin.One of the typical interpretations is that Adam and Eve were set up. God created them innocent, and therefore were not responsible for their actions. However, God set them up, so they would know the difference between good and evil, and therefore learn to grow, and learn to be closer than god. Without the understanding of good and evil, Man would be no different than any other of the beasts in the garden.Not all Christians agree with the concept of Original Sin either. The concept was introduced into Christianity by St Augustine, based on his readings of Paul. An essay by Edward Oaks can be seen at this link
November 1998 | Print Edition | First Things

ramoss How could they be set up to know the difference between good and evil if,in order to do so,they need to disobey god? Whether it is original sin is not the point.You cannot inflict a punishment upon those who are innocent before commiting the crime that allows them to know that they are indeed doing so.It is also immoral on the part of god to set the conditions in place that would permit such actions to take place at all.

Actually, God is the basis for morality. The tree was merely an exercise in choice. Adam walked with God. He may not have known much, or he may have been imparted with a lot of wisdom. One does not just walk with the Creator of the Universe without some impartation of some effect. Part of the problem is that he listens to his wife rather than the original command not to mess with the tree. We do not know what Adam did and did not know. OK. three choices. Blame Eve.(She had the fruit!) Blame Adam.(head of the family) Blame the serpant.(The devil made me do it.) Of course, we can always blame God for starting it all, but you can never win an argument against an absolute. Better to give in to that one...trying to win is showing the symptoms of original sin within yourself anyway..(ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil...) We as humans never will be as gods. We as humans never will figure out the answers to lifes deepest questions.
Deny God as a reality if you wish....but your freedom is empty. Omnipotance is beyond our reach. The serpant had the spirit of rebellion which he passed on as a choice...the tree was the object of the choice. God may have allowed a freewill Lucifer to rebel and become Satan, but God never created Satan as rebellious. God may have allowed a freewill A&E the opportunity...the option of rebellion.. but God never made them decide. This clause in the contract cannot be argued by anyone except Adam or Eve. If any of us had a similar contract, we would have an opt out clause. Consider if no choice was ever allowed. No possibility of freedom to disobey could ever have been granted. God may have set up the whole scenario..yet He did allow an option out of it. How can we have the authority to judge God? What moral source do we have that trumps a Creator? We do not know if the tree had any real power in and of itself or if it was a focal point and symbol of the choice between God and the serpant. There was Godwill, but it was not forced...it was merely the only known choice. The serpant allowed mind expansion into treewill, which represented a conscious choice of an unknown. One would think that Eve, having met God previously, would have some impartation
of good. We do not know how well Gods personality was known by Adam and Eve prior to the tree incident. The similar choice exists today. Belief in a Creator, supported only by personal experience and an individual choice vs belief in human wisdom, freedom of thought, and an unknown result...(make your own minds up) Lets speculate. The serpant knew only that God was in charge until he chose to rebel. Rebellion created an alternative reality...evil by definition is the absence of Godwill. Evil is the other cola. Evil is the reality that God need not exist within ones freethought realm. Evil is evil because nothing can compare to the original.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-08-2005 23:39 AM

You could almost write another chapter of the Bible with the stuff you've made up in this post. I mean, it's fascinating, but entirely non-Biblical.

I like to wing it. Biblical literalism is sooo predictable!

that's an interesting take on it. some of genesis does seem to be slinging mud at other cultures' mythology. the bab-el story is evidence of that. maybe this bears relation the king adapa (of sumeria?), the origin of the name adam?

because adam blames god and still gets punished. don't piss off god. lol. to be eaten of, obviously. i agree. i think the story is about the origin of morality, not sin. maybe she realized that it would be good for adam to eat as well. or that god really intended for them to eat. we never have the command being given to the serpent. maybe he ate of the tree. because it would allow men to become gods. because without morality and choice, man would just live for ever. kind of like the idea of angels. immortal, but subject to the will of god. then they would be gods. to scare them into not doing it, or at least taking it with grave consideration. before they ate,.there was no way god could have explained to them the intricacies of responsible moral freedom. dunno. who said it's evil? don't trust christian dogma, it's usually wrong.