jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (24 posts)

The Fall

  1. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    Conservative theology claims that Adam and Eve were having a wonderful time in the Garden of Eden, and then suddenly, a talking snake (which is NOT identified as Satan until far later) appeared and persuaded Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which then she subsequently persuaded Adam to eat, violating the one commandment God laid down.

    Unfortunately, this story is incoherent.

    Allegedly, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before taking a bite of the tree, so how could they possibly understand instructions NOT to disobey God?  Understanding presupposes knowledge of good and evil, however rudimentary.

    Furthermore, in order for Adam and Eve to "disobey" God, they would need the POTENTIAL to disobey God.  Potentiality is not actuality, so it doesn't necessarily mean they would actually disobey God.  But, if Adam and Eve already possessed the potential to disobey God, this also presupposes a knowledge of good and evil.  I need the potential to do evil in order to be able to do evil; I need the potential to learn how to read to learn how to read.

    Thus, the conservative Christian story, taken literally, is incoherent.

    1. profile image58
      Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      What is the liberal Christian story.....Bush did it?

      1. tirelesstraveler profile image84
        tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this
    2. Quilligrapher profile image89
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Sooner. How are you doing.

      Sorry, but I think you need to take this biblical fantasy back to the drawing board. lol

      If Adam and Eve already possessed the potential to follow or not to follow Gods instructions, they certainly would know they had a choice, but it does not follow that they would know one choice was good and the other evil.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If morality is based on God's commands, and they understood that God prohibited a certain behavior, then they would have to understand it was wrong to disobey God.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image89
          Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Sooner.

          “If morality is based on God’s commands…then they would have to understand it was wrong to disobey God.” Egad, Igor! Sooner is changing the narrative by introducing another false assumption not stated in his original biblical fable.

          In the OP statement you falsely equated the “potential to disobey God”= “knowledge of good and evil.” Having the ability to disobey is not the same as understanding the consequences of the act.

          Now you say, “morality is based on God’s commands”= “knowledge of good and evil.” Wrong again, my friend. Defining morality in your second post does not mean they understood the concept in your first post.

          While Adam and Eve were enjoying Eden and each other, they knew nothing about morality or immorality. They had no concept of good or evil. They did comprehend that God told them not to mess with this one tree but they could NOT comprehend that following his instructions was “good” and not following his instructions was “evil.” Not until after they finished their fresh-off-the-branch desert did this distinction became clear.

          Finally, Sooner, please do not try to argue these points with me. You see, I prayed to Adam and he filled me in with the facts as they really happened. He told me you have it all wrong.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hello Quil,

            “If morality is based on God’s commands…then they would have to understand it was wrong to disobey God.” Egad, Igor! Sooner is changing the narrative by introducing another false assumption not stated in his original biblical fable."

            In the OP statement you falsely equated the “potential to disobey God”= “knowledge of good and evil.” Having the ability to disobey is not the same as understanding the consequences of the act."


            I agree that having the ability to disobey is not the same as understanding the consequences of the act.  But, under divine command theory, that isn't required!  All the divine command theorist requires is that God command something, or prohibit something, and that is the only moral question we should ask.  http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/

            Here the theist Christian philosopher William Lane Craig sums it up by using God's commands to justify the slaughter of the Canaanites. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughte … canaanites

            Your objection to divine command theory is a good one!  That's why I don't believe it.   I didn't mean to imply I was using my own moral philosophy to evaluate Adam and Eve.  I stuck with the DCT.

            I guess there is a question of whether the story itself advocates DTC.  But the vast majority of Christians who believe in the literal Genesis story also believe in DTC.

            "While Adam and Eve were enjoying Eden and each other, they knew nothing about morality or immorality. They had no concept of good or evil. They did comprehend that God told them not to mess with this one tree but they could NOT comprehend that following his instructions was “good” and not following his instructions was “evil.” Not until after they finished their fresh-off-the-branch desert did this distinction became clear."

            This isn't really an argument.  You are just summarizing your position on the issue.  I think this is a summary of what you asserted at the beginning though, so I'm going to interpret it that way.

            "Finally, Sooner, please do not try to argue these points with me. You see, I prayed to Adam and he filled me in with the facts as they really happened. He told me you have it all wrong."

            I'm sure he did tongue.

    3. tirelesstraveler profile image84
      tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Could be the story is about obedience and not good and evil.

    4. Disappearinghead profile image86
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Considering the orthodox Christian view:

      1 John 2:16
      For everything in the world – the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life – comes not from the Father but from the world.

      OK so comparing John's statement to Eve's actions, she saw the fruit and wanted it big time (lust of the eyes), and desired to have knowledge of good and evil when God said no (pride of life). So it looks like she already had sin in her heart BEFORE eating the fruit.

      However, this supposes that we are to take the story as a literal account. I think more likely it is folklore, a way in which an ancient people explained why there was evil in the World. But even on a folklore level it looks more to me a lesson in two people growing up from a dependant child mentality to adulthood where they take responsibility for their own actions and make their own way in life. Much like I I'll kick my own kids out of the family home one day to make their own way in the World.

  2. profile image0
    Beth37posted 4 years ago

    Do and don't, yes and no... these are words.
    They tended the garden, they named the animals, they knew how to follow instruction. If they had language skills and could follow instruction, they were good to go.
    I don't have to drive 200 mph on the freeway *first to comprehend that Im not supposed to. I only have to understand my own language. The law tells me not to drive over 70. If I have a license, I have no excuse when the cop pulls me over.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There are plenty of believers who have language skills, sort of, and can tend gardens but when it comes to following instructions are lost.



      Yet every day, believers are ticketed for speeding. Curious behavior, isn't it? lol

      1. profile image0
        Beth37posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And you call *me illogical.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Actually, your post above was contradictory. smile

        2. SwordofManticorE profile image73
          SwordofManticorEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          How is it going Beth? I hope you are doing fine. Hard to have a nice day with so much troubled foolishness hounding you continually.

  3. SwordofManticorE profile image73
    SwordofManticorEposted 4 years ago

    Has anyone concidered the possibility that the readings of Adam and Eve may just be an anology?

    1. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes. Anyone with a working brain has, indeed, immediately identified the story as allegorical.

      1. profile image0
        Beth37posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        When you meet God, face to foot, you can tell Him your theories.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          When I meet God, he will probably be one of the Sumerian or Babylonian deities that were written of thousands of years before monotheism was even a concept. Or an Egyptian deity who was likewise written of hundreds of years before then.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Ooh! Ooh! Or maybe the Norse gods are the real ones! That would be freakin' awesome.

          2. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If I were a believer, I would really, really, really wish Zeus were the real god. Really, really. lol

            1. Zelkiiro profile image84
              Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Women everywhere are probably happy that Zeus isn't real. Because otherwise, ancient Greece must have been the stuff of nightmares for them.

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "face to foot" lol Good one.

  4. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    This is an argument against a conservative, literal interpretation of Genesis.  Nothing more, nothing less.

    There are a sizable number of people who claim to believe it, so the issue is still important to debate.

    1. kess profile image60
      kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And the argument is just good for debates, nothing more nothing less...

      For there is just as much incoherent theories from the sizeable amount of those who do not believe it.

 
working