The origin of sin

[durangodawood]

The FAll of man is the result of Adam's choice. What we get from the Fall is a fallen nature; an internal war basically between what we know we aught to do (or not do) and a desire to do the opposite. Usually represented as a conflict between body and soul.

But its not just should vs shouldnt do, for Adam.
.
"Shouldnt do" was not disobedience for its own sake. It opened Adam up to the "knowledge of good and evil", and permitted man to be "like God", which is a good thing, in itself.
.
If it wasnt for Adam we would have the moral conscience of animals, basically.
.

 

[ephraimanesti]

But its not just should vs shouldnt do, for Adam.
.
"Shouldnt do" was not disobedience for its own sake. It opened Adam up to the "knowledge of good and evil", and permitted man to be "like God", which is a good thing, in itself.
.
If it wasnt for Adam we would have the moral conscience of animals, basically.
.

The problem is, of course, that our society, with its much touted "knowledge of good and evil" does, in point of fact, have the "moral conscience of animals" calling that which is evil "good"--for example murdering millions of unborn children in their mothers' wombs and calling that heinous act "a social good"--and, conversly, calling that which is good "evil"--for example making it "illegal" to pray in schools, to mention God in the public square, and to reference the Ten Commandments in courts.

Because of Adam, we have lost our way morally, committing acts no animal would commit. Only God's willing sacrifice of His Son could remedy our situation, with the indwelling Holy Spirit replacing the so-called "knowledge of good and evil" as our moral compass.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[DrBubbaLove]

But its not just should vs shouldnt do, for Adam.
.
"Shouldnt do" was not disobedience for its own sake. It opened Adam up to the "knowledge of good and evil", and permitted man to be "like God", which is a good thing, in itself.
.
If it wasnt for Adam we would have the moral conscience of animals, basically.

I guess that is one understanding but not mine or what I have been taught. I do not think in this case that "knowing" means they did not know right or wrong before they ate - were essentially dumb beasts as you put it in that regard. And for most Catholics ate, tree, apples or whatever is all part of a story, we do not literally know what the act was. In fact we generally do not take it word for word literally in many ways.

The story has deeper meanings. It is the act of setting their will against God's Will in doing the one thing He forbid, it is in deciding to perform that act that they then "knew" evil. Knew in this sense means being intimatly familar with, as opposed to gaining knowledge of something previously unknown. True they did not "know" evil before, but not from ignorance. They had just never chosen evil before, doing that was unfamiliar to them.

Also I think implied in the command to not do this one thing is implicit knowledge that there is right and wrong - wrong in this case being to do the one thing God said not to do. It was not that they could not do it (as in lacked the ability) but that they should not do it - as in it would be wrong to do so.

For clarification to help understand our view, two traditional understandings of vs 3.22 ("become as one of US") is one a statement of compassion the other God using irony to humble Adam. Compassion- as in look what sin of trying to be as one of us has brought on man - the man He had just created and said was All Good. Irony - as in behold man now (fallen)!, a "god" like one of us (what they wanted in committing the act). Neither of these understandings involve either man acquiring knowledge or abilities he did not have before the fall.
Either way the point is that Adam not only did NOT become what he coveted (which is not what Satan told Eve would happen - you will be like gods - in keeping with his being the lier he is ) but Adam became less than what he had been made (the Fall).

 

[durangodawood]

I guess that is one understanding but not mine or what I have been taught. I do not think in this case that "knowing" means they did not know right or wrong before they ate - were essentially dumb beasts as you put it in that regard. And for most Catholics ate, tree, apples or whatever is all part of a story, we do not literally know what the act was. In fact we generally do not take it word for word literally in many ways.

It doesnt have to be an apple, or a tree, or a serpent, or even eating. But it does have to unveil "the knowledge of good and evil", or else you and I are not discussing the same fundamental story.
.
And prior to the disobedience, humans lacking a moral conscience (the knowledge of good and evil) really were much like animals. In fact I think this is an explanatory myth, which tries to reconcile the fact that physically we are animals, yet morally, consciously, we are something else, something more.
.

The story has deeper meanings. It is the act of setting their will against God's Will in doing the one thing He forbid, it is in deciding to perform that act that they then "knew" evil. Knew in this sense means being intimatly familar with, as opposed to gaining knowledge of something previously unknown. True they did not "know" evil before, but not from ignorance. They had just never chosen evil before, doing that was unfamiliar to them.

Why do you ignore "good"? Its mentioned alongside evil in the text. Why do you fail to consider that by their disobedience thay also came to know good? In your analysis, only by eathing of the fruit have we become "intimately familiar" with good, as well as evil.
.

Also I think implied in the command to not do this one thing is implicit knowledge that there is right and wrong - wrong in this case being to do the one thing God said not to do. It was not that they could not do it (as in lacked the ability) but that they should not do it - as in it would be wrong to do so.

Well, that is a puzzle. Perhaps Adam and Eve were expected to be obedient like dogs, like pets, yet unconscous of actual good and evil.
.

For clarification to help understand our view, two traditional understandings of vs 3.22 ("become as one of US") is one a statement of compassion the other God using irony to humble Adam. Compassion- as in look what sin of trying to be as one of us has brought on man - the man He had just created and said was All Good. Irony - as in behold man now (fallen)!, a "god" like one of us (what they wanted in committing the act). Neither of these understandings involve either man acquiring knowledge or abilities he did not have before the fall.
Either way the point is that Adam not only did NOT become what he coveted (which is not what Satan told Eve would happen - you will be like gods - in keeping with his being the lier he is ) but Adam became less than what he had been made (the Fall).

Honestly, I find this "ironic" interpretation to be strained. After all, the tree was called the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" prior to the "fall", prior to the serpent, prior to Gods "ironic" judgement on Adam.
.
The knowledge of good and evil is essentially: wisdom.
.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Am only relaying what I believe and what has traditionally been taught for thousands of years about these verses. If some wish to see it another way and reject what Christians have understood for something new, what can I say?

Am just saying that there are more (and older)understandings than just Adam and Eve being originally made blissfully ignorant of good and evil before the Fall.

As to the name of the Tree, if we both agree this is a myth containing truths, then the sequence of events and naming of the tree do not have the significance it would have in a strictly literal rendering of these verses. Sorry can't have it both ways. In our understanding of this story we do not really know what the tree was or the fruit, for the purpose of the story am not sure that really matters. It does make the story interesting for children as well as adults, but as adults it is the deeper meaning we should focus on.

As a story btw, the whole good and evil theme including the naming of tree (knowledge of good and evil) is in keeping with the idea that this is the story of how evil came into the world, a struggle between good and evil ...etc and not a literal word for word historical account of exactly what went down. And technically Good left the world, as evil is really just the relative absence of Good. Like light and dark - only light really exists, total darkness is just the complete absence of light.

I spoke of only "knowing evil" because it highlights the traditional view of this story, that Adam and Eve were made pure, Good with perfect unity of soul and body. In that state they are not blissfully ignorant of right and wrong. They have the same reason and intellictual abiliities we do now. Being able to walk with God means thier wills were in perfect alignment with His Will. The Fall is a departure from that state, not a gaining of new abilities which results in a fall. Speaking only of evil was my attempt to highlight that not "knowing evil" was not being about prior ignorance but about having never done evil before Adam's decision to go against God's Will.

Am also not sure what logical sense it makes to claim humans were originally created/given intellects and reason but yet someone blissfully ignorant of the difference between right and wrong. No, the desire was not for knowledge they lacked but for being like God. Pride.

They are Good in the Beginning because they do no wrong because they know what is right and always do that, not because (as some claim now) that everything was permissable. IOW saying there was nothing they could do that would be wrong except that one thing. No. They were Good because they had never done anything wrong, not because it was impossible for them to do wrong.

They do not "know" evil because they have never done anything wrong. The lie was by doing what God told you not to do, you could become like God. It was a lie, but they wanted to be like God so Adam tried. He not only did "not become like God" his disobediance cost him the position God had created Him in - a little lower than angels, the level God had placed Man on. He Fell from that position and so the race fell with him.

 

[durangodawood]

Christain teachers emphasize the disobedience to strengthen the need for a redeemer.
.
Christian teachers diminish "the knowledge of good and evil" because it mitigates somewhat the crime of disobedience. We appreciate our moral conscience, our capacity to remain righteous like Job in the face of horrible injustice. We appreciate that we when we do evil we can know it. Even if we suppress the knowledge... it rears up eventually.
.
The tree is not an empty arbitrary symbol. Were it a mere tree, we would still have to investigate why a tree? What is the myth telling us by using that particular symbol. Frankly, its childish to ignore that, to view it as mere decoration.
.
But there's more: its the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Its screaming at us that this is not an arbitrary symbol. The tree is a symbol, and we are told plainly what it stands for. It is pregnant with meaning, yet you find it childish to investigate. I find it childish to ignore this because just maybe it threatens a particular aspect of ones personal theological committment, a commitment to a highly constrained and engineered reading of the myth.
.

 

[durangodawood]

The problem is, of course, that our society, with its much touted "knowledge of good and evil" does, in point of fact, have the "moral conscience of animals" calling that which is evil "good"--for example murdering millions of unborn children in their mothers' wombs and calling that heinous act "a social good"--and, conversly, calling that which is good "evil"--for example making it "illegal" to pray in schools, to mention God in the public square, and to reference the Ten Commandments in courts.

Because of Adam, we have lost our way morally, committing acts no animal would commit. Only God's willing sacrifice of His Son could remedy our situation, with the indwelling Holy Spirit replacing the so-called "knowledge of good and evil" as our moral compass.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

We do evil that no animal can consider. We also do good beyond the capacity of any animal consciousness.
.
The so called "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" was pronounced such by God himself in the myth. And while disobedience severed man form intimacy with God, it made man more like God. This is made plain in the text.
.
Honestly, I dont find the elevated state of Adam and Eve as "walking with God" prior to the fall to be supported in Genesis.
.

 

[ephraimanesti]

We do evil that no animal can consider. We also do good beyond the capacity of any animal consciousness.

Unfortunately, looking at the history of mankind, the evil far outweighs the good.
.

The so called "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" was pronounced such by God himself in the myth. And while disobedience severed man form intimacy with God, it made man more like God. This is made plain in the text.
.

Nothing could ever possibly make up for mankind's severing itself from intimacy with God. Without this intimacy, nothing else has any meaning or purpose because if was for this intimacy that man was created.

Honestly, I dont find the elevated state of Adam and Eve as "walking with God" prior to the fall to be supported in Genesis.

God created man/woman in His own image and likeness.(Genesis 1:27) That is about as "elevated a state" as i can image!

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OR OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[durangodawood]

God created man/woman in His own image and likeness.(Genesis 1:27) That is about as "elevated a state" as i can image!

Image and likeness? An image can be enticing, even beautiful.... but it falls so, so short of the real thing. Like a photograph.
.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Image and likeness? An image can be enticing, even beautiful.... but it falls so, so short of the real thing. Like a photograph.

Not so, my brother, NOT SO! Jesus, Himself, was the image of the Father, and we are called upon to become the same reflection of God as Jesus was through His Power as mediated through the indwelling Holy Spirit, whose Temple Christians become upon their surrender to Him.

Our Lord stated, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father."(John 14:9) And St. Paul added, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."(Colossians 1:15)

In no way does Jesus "fall short of the real thing" as the exact image and likeness of the Father, and we are called upon to become this exact same image, regaining that which has been lost to sin.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Christain teachers emphasize the disobedience to strengthen the need for a redeemer.
.
Christian teachers diminish "the knowledge of good and evil" because it mitigates somewhat the crime of disobedience. We appreciate our moral conscience, our capacity to remain righteous like Job in the face of horrible injustice. We appreciate that we when we do evil we can know it. Even if we suppress the knowledge... it rears up eventually.
.
The tree is not an empty arbitrary symbol. Were it a mere tree, we would still have to investigate why a tree? What is the myth telling us by using that particular symbol. Frankly, its childish to ignore that, to view it as mere decoration.
.
But there's more: its the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." Its screaming at us that this is not an arbitrary symbol. The tree is a symbol, and we are told plainly what it stands for. It is pregnant with meaning, yet you find it childish to investigate. I find it childish to ignore this because just maybe it threatens a particular aspect of ones personal theological committment, a commitment to a highly constrained and engineered reading of the myth.
.

My reference to the tree was in response to a prior comment regarding it having that name in the beginning of the story before there was "evil" in the world. Addressing whether that is a problem for my view – (it isn’t).

Did not say we have to ignore the tree or it's name. In fact I said it's name is significant. My point was that in our view of the story it does not have to concern us that the tree had this name before the Fall as that is in keeping with the way one tells such stories. The wicked witch is often called the wicked witch before one knows why. Yet usually in such stories or at least in the moral lesson she represents something other than there being a real wicked witch (as well as things she tempts with not being really real). Those items are part of the story but do not necessarily represent exactly what the story says they are – tree/fruit in this case.


Sorry I guess I thought our views of the story were closer than they are. Am familiar with the relatively modern view of Adam and Eve being morally ignorant before biting the magic apple. I just favor the traditional and much older view, the same one held by early Chrisitans.

In spite of the objection to the contrary, my view does have the "knowledge of good and evil". They "know" only Good before the Fall because they are in and stay in alignment with God's Will. Eve is tricked/deceived by Satan. Adam takes that all in, then he "knows” evil by leaving that alignment with God's Will when deciding to do what she did. He did it because he wanted to "be like God" and acting on that desire was Adam's sin – not actually becoming like God. In his pride he did something God had told him not to do. So it cannot be said there is no "knowledge of good and evil" in this version of the story. Of course there is. There is also a tree and the fruit of it which Adam was told not to eat. Whatever those things really were, it was a forbidden act. And the whole get them out of the garden before they eat of another tree finishes that line of thinking for children – in explaining why people do not live forever, but were originally created to (and in the Christian view will have bodies that do live forever again one day). So it is not like the trees and what those represent is discarded in this view. Also explains our having clothes and hiding our nakedness for children.

In my view there is no magic apple that when eaten makes one like God. It is sin, the direct violation of God's will (do not do this one thing) that results in the Fall - not eating an apple and turning himself into something more than a Man. And verse 22 becomes either God lamenting what a mess the Man, whom He had made ALL GOOD, has now done in attempting to become like Him or a humbling admonition using irony – “look at the man now who wanted to become like God”.

And it is not like I am making this up or following some new craze. It is in keeping with thousands of years of teaching on this matter. It also fits much better with general teachings and philosophical discussions about sin and what it does with our relationship with God.

While lots of bad stuff happens because of it, it is hard to see this being described as a "Fall" if in the process Adam has elevated the status of Man by actually becoming like God ore even only more like God in eating a magical fruit that so transforms him. The "it will make you like God" was the lie of Satan.