Unorthodox views of the Creation story - did Adam and Eve know right from wrong?

[DrBubbaLove]

Our genetic spectrum shows too much familiarity between animals and us for the single pair of humans, Adam and Eve, being our parents and having been created "from mud" apart from the other lifeforms here on Earth. That is why I think Adam and Eve were two tribes that had friendship with each other. And the scene with the rib has to do with the Eve tribe having split from the Adam tribe and being what was dearest to them. It's all from a time when we were mostly nomadic people and then settling down to build cities and living from agriculture and herding.

Will try to move this back on topic.

So you would go with the evolving crowd, which actually the Church allows as long as there is acknowledgement that evolution cannot explain the creation of a human spirit to go along with that body. Allowed because it is a theory like creationism is another theory. So we can move past how we got our bodies for the sake of this discussion. If you want to continue discussing the theories behind how we got this body, please feel free to start your own thread.

Which assuming you did agree God intervened and created man by giving life with a human soul, there would then be some point prior to where you see these two "tribes" meeting where God must be said to have intervened with that biological process by replacing an animal type spirit with a human soul. For purposes of this discussion, that would be the point where one would need to talk about whether the resulting human God made is all good, or part good and part evil.

 

[lutherangerman]

Hi DrBubba,

first off please do not think that I am hostile to you or your views, I am tolerant and do not require anyone to believe in my stuff.

About humans being good or not, that depends on God to say and in Genesis he made no such judgment. We know that God is love and loves men, so I think by this love we are considered good by God, even when we have made mistakes. Because it does not depend on us but on God's view.

However, this does not mean that humans act out of their created and God-given goodness, St Paul argues that we have a divine spirit in us and acting on that spirit make us do good things, and we have a carnal nature acting out of which makes us do evil. God sees us as good because we have spirit in us, but when we do not act on that spirit's impulses we naturally fall on doing evil.

So man has a double nature of being BOTH good and evil, his spiritual side and his fleshly side. Does that anwer your question?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Hi DrBubba,

first off please do not think that I am hostile to you or your views, I am tolerant and do not require anyone to believe in my stuff.

About humans being good or not, that depends on God to say and in Genesis he made no such judgment. We know that God is love and loves men, so I think by this love we are considered good by God, even when we have made mistakes. Because it does not depend on us but on God's view.

However, this does not mean that humans act out of their created and God-given goodness, St Paul argues that we have a divine spirit in us and acting on that spirit make us do good things, and we have a carnal nature acting out of which makes us do evil. God sees us as good because we have spirit in us, but when we do not act on that spirit's impulses we naturally fall on doing evil.

So man has a double nature of being BOTH good and evil, his spiritual side and his fleshly side. Does that anwer your question?

Partially.
If our "carnal nature" were attributed to and so inherited from your idea of what happened AFTER your "two tribes" came together and then those "two" choose to act against their nature (against what is right and Good) as you would have the Creation story symbolically depict, then yes we would be closer to agreement in regards to this thread. Not clear to me that you have said that yet.
Otherwise your biological solution to our existence either does not address how we got this "carnal nature" or one assumes it impossible to have flesh and not be carnal. That last thought being the driver behind some early objections to Whom the Church said Jesus is - which produces both the idea that Jesus was really NOT a man (He did not have real flesh) or alternatively not God because He could NOT associate Himself with real flesh.

 

[lutherangerman]

Adam stands for man in general and you do not have to belief in an original one-man-Adam to have existed for there being a carnal side to man. It is just the normal situation for any being on this world, including animals, to have this carnal side to themselves. We have it in our setup, we go by it. I do not view it as inherited so much but instead as "appearing" as we grow up and become older.

We fight it by the spirit but because the flesh promises "powers" and enjoyment through the vices, many give in to carnality at least for a time. Normally the spirit is supposed to reign in the flesh and he is normally capable of doing so, but when we have given too much leeway to our carnal and ungodly side, this is getting harder to avoid. It's a matter of habits really. Being spiritual is supposed to make you kind, gentle, patient, longsuffering, joyous and peaceful. Being carnal is having nothing of that kind and being prone to all kinds of wicked attitudes and behaviors.

With the aid of the Holy Spirit and Christ's assistance and the blessing of the Father we can "do" a spiritual walk through life. That way our good side, our spiritual side, would win over the carnal side and we live in peace and joy. Theoretically anyway, but I have also, momentarily, enjoyed such peace sometimes.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Adam stands for man in general and you do not have to belief in an original one-man-Adam to have existed for there being a carnal side to man. It is just the normal situation for any being on this world, including animals, to have this carnal side to themselves. We have it in our setup, we go by it. I do not view it as inherited so much but instead as "appearing" as we grow up and become older.

We fight it by the spirit but because the flesh promises "powers" and enjoyment through the vices, many give in to carnality at least for a time. Normally the spirit is supposed to reign in the flesh and he is normally capable of doing so, but when we have given too much leeway to our carnal and ungodly side, this is getting harder to avoid. It's a matter of habits really. Being spiritual is supposed to make you kind, gentle, patient, longsuffering, joyous and peaceful. Being carnal is having nothing of that kind and being prone to all kinds of wicked attitudes and behaviors.

With the aid of the Holy Spirit and Christ's assistance and the blessing of the Father we can "do" a spiritual walk through life. That way our good side, our spiritual side, would win over the carnal side and we live in peace and joy. Theoretically anyway, but I have also, momentarily, enjoyed such peace sometimes.

So our carnal nature is not inherited part of the flesh, but something we each create in our flesh as we "grow up". So before that point where you say we "grow up" you must then be saying the carnal nature does not exist in us even though we still have the same flesh, and that "carnal nature" eventually MUST become a part of the flesh, but is still something from which we can by Grace obtain temporary freedom from. Is that correct so far?

 

[lutherangerman]

We always have a carnal side to us, I just would not say that we actually inherit it through our reproduction as humans. Instead we all discover the ways of making use of the good and the evil, to our own benefit over that of God or other men. But it shouldn't make a difference whether you say inherited or chosen or created, what matters is that we all have a carnal side to us that we should not give leeway in order to remain spiritual. But through God and His grace and forgiveness we have ways of obtaining a new spirit so that a spiritual walk through life can be renewed.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

We always have a carnal side to us, I just would not say that we actually inherit it through our reproduction as humans. Instead we all discover the ways of making use of the good and the evil, to our own benefit over that of God or other men. But it shouldn't make a difference whether you say inherited or chosen or created, what matters is that we all have a carnal side to us that we should not give leeway in order to remain spiritual. But through God and His grace and forgiveness we have ways of obtaining a new spirit so that a spiritual walk through life can be renewed.

well it makes a difference in this thread as the topic is whether God made Adam and Eve knowing right from wrong, which is why pressed you on your view of the "two tribes". So in your construct of how we got these bodies and by your comment about all animals, am assuming you agree with the crowd which would say being "carnal" is a necessity for anything with flesh. IOW if a creature has flesh, it will have a "carnal" nature. Is that correct?

 

[lutherangerman]

Yes, I would say so. It's the natural setup of a living creature to have a carnal nature and a spiritual nature. Except for Jesus who had a sanctified flesh which He gives to us in the Eucharist to help us have it easier living spiritually over living carnally.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Well, as the story goes .. the concept of right or wrong didn't appear to them until they ate the forbidden fruit, we should probably take note of this when teaching.

 

[RDKirk]

It's pretty clear from science that mankind did not have one single pair of humans as their common ancestor. We have blacks, whites, asians, aborigines, reds, and our genetic spectrum is too diverse to be the result of only one pair of humans. That is why we must reject the assumption that Adam und Eve were our parents in the literal sense.

An interesting outcome of the human genome project is that "racial" definitions are a much newer phenomenon than earlier thought--actually only about 8,000 years. Even in the terms of people believing in evolutionary theory, that would make racial distinctions cultural--a product of migration and subsequent inbreeding--rather than evolutionary. That also puts the point of distinction almost within historical times and certainly within the reach of oral history such as Genesis. [/QUOTE]

 

[RDKirk]

Well, as the story goes .. the concept of right or wrong didn't appear to them until they ate the forbidden fruit, we should probably take note of this when teaching.

Not the concept of right and wrong, but rather that man could decide for himself what was right and wrong.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Not the concept of right and wrong, but rather that man could decide for himself what was right and wrong.

The concept didn't exist, the premise of the question has no basis at that stage of development, kind of like that passage in Isaiah that speaks of a child and when he can know "right from wrong"

Adam and Eve (who was not named yet) were in the harmony of God's love, the idea of wrong and right didn't exist until there was consequences for doing wrong. Until then everything was permissible.

 

[RDKirk]

The concept didn't exist, the premise of the question has no basis at that stage of development, kind of like that passage in Isaiah that speaks of a child and when he can know "right from wrong"

Adam and Eve (who was not named yet) were in the harmony of God's love, the idea of wrong and right didn't exist until there was consequences for doing wrong. Until then everything was permissible.

The utterance of a command--"Thou shalt not"--created right and wrong. See Romans 7. No "right and wrong" existed prior to the statement of the command, but once the command was given, right and wrong came into existence.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The utterance of a command--"Thou shalt not"--created right and wrong. See Romans 7. No "right and wrong" existed prior to the statement of the command, but once the command was given, right and wrong came into existence.

Now you're talking about something else. Until "the law" death reigned, the law was redemptive from the order of death, some countries still exist under the order of death.

But the beginning of right and wrong was the eating of fruit on the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil, without this basic building block, the idea of right and wrong or the law would be impossible to dream up or understand.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The concept didn't exist, the premise of the question has no basis at that stage of development, kind of like that passage in Isaiah that speaks of a child and when he can know "right from wrong"

Adam and Eve (who was not named yet) were in the harmony of God's love, the idea of wrong and right didn't exist until there was consequences for doing wrong. Until then everything was permissible.

But is a fallacy that being in harmony with God's Love requires ignorance of the idea of right and wrong. The idea of innocent ignorance also goes against the idea of God making mankind with "His Law" (another way of saying natural order - natural law) is written on our hearts.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

But is a fallacy that being in harmony with God's Love requires ignorance of the idea of right and wrong. The idea of innocent ignorance also goes against the idea of God making mankind with "His Law" (another way of saying natural order - natural law) is written on our hearts.

The "perfect law of liberty" is a living law like the sin that works within the members of the body. Written laws are dead, what Adam and Eve had before sin was better than any thing written . the knowledge of good and evil was a step down so to speak .

 

[Colter]

In defense of a belief in Universal Reconciliation (UR) and my attempt to point out troubling implications of that belief anonymouswho and others defending UR attacked some of what I would consider traditional views of the Creation Story. Specifically - for purposes of this thread and to avoid continuing the discussion in a UR thread - Before the Fall of mankind did Adam and Eve know right from wrong?

I will begin with this defense of a traditional view of the Creation Story:
If we say God is All Good and that He made Adam to love, serve and know Him, then we cannot also say Adam would not know how to love, serve and know All Good. And God could not create them to do that without also giving them the ability to FULLY do so. So whatever else we believe/understand about the Creation story, those beliefs/understandings cannot conflict with that ability He Gave them or His being All Good. So claim Adam and Eve lacked that knowledge (how to love, serve and know Him) must mean either that God is NOT All Good or that the stated purpose for making man (Adam) is not to love, serve and know Him.

Hopefully it should be obvious that someone who is FULLY loving, serving and knowing All Good, would not only NOT do the opposite, they would LACK the DESIRE to do anything opposed to that. Lacking the desire does not mean one is blissfully unaware - Eve clearly indicated she knew there was one thing they were told not to do. Knowledge that something was wrong and willful intent to do it are also requirements for being able to Justly hold a person accountable for doing wrong.

So whatever that one says the Tree of "knowledge" represents, the "knowledge" gained by that act must relate to the realization they were free to desire (and then justify in their own mind), wanting something they knew to be wrong. Eve even says she knew it was wrong before she does it.

Satan's lie is just that, a lie and a clever one at that. Yes, Eve was tricked but Adam has no such excuse, which is why he alone is credited with the Fall of the human race. In the sense Satan meant it, knowledge is more than desire, it is actually doing - and to the point doing evil. God cannot "know" the lack of what He is, (All Good vs lack of it-evil). That does not mean God does not know right from wrong, anymore than Adam and Eve lacking such a desire means they did not know what they were doing was wrong before they did it. And certainly God cannot be seen as Just to hold accountable someone who did not know better.

In my theology Adam and Eve preexisted in another place before materializing on a world that was previously populated and already fallen into darkness. (The crafty beast was already fallen, knew Gods purported will for the pair and was working against it). Eve chose her own plan for world saving egged on by the beast.