Was Adam Insane?

[Gracchus]

If Adam did not know the difference between good and evil until he ate the forbidden fruit, then, clearly he couldn't tell right from wrong. The McNaughton rule states, ``...it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong." So if he didn't know right from wrong he wasn't culpable, and ought not to have been convicted.

He needed a better lawyer.

 

[UnReAL13]

I don't know, perhaps a better question is "Was Adam Real?" Was this just a concept that ancient desert nomads elaborated upon in an attempt to simplify the explanation of abiogenesis?

 

[quatona]

If Adam did not know the difference between good and evil until he ate the forbidden fruit, then, clearly he couldn't tell right from wrong. The McNaughton rule states, ``...it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong." So if he didn't know right from wrong he wasn't culpable, and ought not to have been convicted.

He needed a better lawyer.

Well, one possible explanation:
Adam had a rudimentary understanding of "right and wrong" in that he couldn´t tell right from wrong using his own judgement of actions; all he knew was: "It´s right to be obedient to creator god, and it´s wrong to be disobedient to creator god." In discerning right from wrong actions he was entirely dependent on the command of creator god.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

To argue from the fact that some insane people do not know right from wrong, to the assertion that therefore all who do not know right from wrong are insane, would be to commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Affirming the consequent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Still it might be the case, just not as yet properly proven to be so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If Adam did not know the difference between good and evil until he ate the forbidden fruit, then, clearly he couldn't tell right from wrong. The McNaughton rule states, ``...it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong." So if he didn't know right from wrong he wasn't culpable, and ought not to have been convicted.

He needed a better lawyer.

The context of the Adam and Eve myth is that Adam was made in 'the Image of God.' It seems incongruous that we should infer into the story that he was insane.

 

[Gracchus]

The context of the Adam and Eve myth is that Adam was made in 'the Image of God.' It seems incongruous that we should infer into the story that he was insane.

Perhaps it is incongruous, but it is certainly consistent!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Peerhapos it is incongruous, but it is certainly consistent!

Actually, what is consistent in the entire Old Testament is the portrayal of people who, despite clear empirical evidence, continue to question the purposes and even the existence of God.

Go figure.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Actually, what is consistent in the entire Old Testament is the portrayal of people who, despite clear empirical evidence, continue to question the purposes and even the existence of God.

Go figure.

As an ex-atheist, I admit I have to laugh a little there.

 

[Resha Caner]

As an ex-atheist, I admit I have to laugh a little there.

I agree that comment was good for a laugh. Actually, the idea that Adam needed a better lawyer extracted a chuckle from me as well. If lawyers had existed then, it wouldn't have been Paradise!

Anyway, I go with Bonhoeffer on this. It is not an issue of knowing right and wrong. It is an issue of obeying or disobeying God. If we could perfectly obey God, it wouldn't matter whether we knew what was right. Adam knew he was disobeying God ... but then, what guy hasn't been led astray by a cute chick.

 

[GenericTaoMaster]

If Adam did not know the difference between good and evil until he ate the forbidden fruit, then, clearly he couldn't tell right from wrong. The McNaughton rule states, ``...it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong." So if he didn't know right from wrong he wasn't culpable, and ought not to have been convicted.

He needed a better lawyer.

oh he knew full well what he was getting into and was trying to show off for Eve. It's like us blaming the credit card companies when we knew full well that we had to pay the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing money back! stop blaming the apple! Your subconscious mind should be held just as culpable as your conscious mind.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If Adam did not know the difference between good and evil until he ate the forbidden fruit, then, clearly he couldn't tell right from wrong. The McNaughton rule states, ``...it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong." So if he didn't know right from wrong he wasn't culpable, and ought not to have been convicted.

He needed a better lawyer.

This all stems from the premise that Adam didn't know the difference between good and evil - a premise Genesis doesn't support.

It's implied that Adam gained knowledge when he ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but that knowledge isn't necessarily the knowledge of good and evil.

The phrase 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil' is an emphatic idiom, much in the same way that 'eating they will eat' and 'dying they will die' is used elsewhere in the OT - it's a way of expressing the fact that the tree contained all knowledge, both good and evil.


So Adam wasn't necessarily born ignorant of morality; the Tree contained all knowledge, be it good or evil, not necessarily just knowledge about good and evil.

 

[Resha Caner]

So Adam wasn't necessarily born ignorant of morality; the Tree contained all knowledge, be it good or evil, not necessarily just knowledge about good and evil.

That's an interesting view of it - and one that would seem to have some merit. But, I still think will and obedience are at the root rather than good and evil.

 

[MorkandMindy]

You don't need to prove that Adam was bat [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] insane to show that he should not have been held legally responsible.

All that is necessary to prove is the key component of the insanity defense - of not knowing at the time that it was right to obey what one metaphysical being said rather than listen to the the talking snake, who although actually telling the truth, was nonetheless lying.

 

[solarwave]

I would think Adam and Eve weren't real so it is better to focus on what we can learn from it rather than the problems with it.

But if we assume it actually happened then we could think Adam and Eve knew that there were things they shouldn't do but that they didn't know good and evil in the sense we do now because we have experienced the contrast between good and evil. If this is true the tree could represent anything because any sin of any kind would give this knew knowledge of good and evil.

This would also make sense of why God told them not to have this knowledge.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is this a worthwhile conversation? What good might come of it?

 

[archangel928]

I suppose I am confused, as I thought this was a forum for Christians. I understand it is healthy to question the faith, but there is a fine line between curiosity and blasphemy.
Adam was created perfect. He was also perfectly aware that he was not to eat of the tree of knowledge. They did not know evil because there was no evil in the world to be known before they disobeyed God. Seems pretty simple to me.
Had there been no tree of knowledge, Adam and Eve would have had no choice but to serve God; but by putting the tree in the Garden, He gave man the gift of free will.
Adam was insane only in the sense that he listened to his wife over God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Boom, post explosion.

I suppose I am confused, as I thought this was a forum for Christians.

It's open to anyone, hence the plethora of icons. There are 'Christian Only' sections, if you don't like the smell of us heathens

I understand it is healthy to question the faith, but there is a fine line between curiosity and blasphemy.

I think blasphemy is overrated. I'd hop God has more to worry about than a non-believer bad-mouthing him?

Adam was created perfect.

Is that in the Bible?

He was also perfectly aware that he was not to eat of the tree of knowledge.

Agreed.

They did not know evil because there was no evil in the world to be known before they disobeyed God. Seems pretty simple to me.

Just like how we don't know what a unicorn is because there are no unicorns, right?
Does the Bible actually say Adam did not know evil?

Had there been no tree of knowledge, Adam and Eve would have had no choice but to serve God; but by putting the tree in the Garden, He gave man the gift of free will.

Yes, and boy are we benefiting that gift. Besides, we could still disobey God: it's not like his only command was to not eat of the tree. If he didn't create the tree, we could still choose not to serve and love him. And even if he did create the tree, it seems a tad harsh to punish all humanity for the sins of one man - especially a babe in Africa who's 'gift' of free will makes them die a painful and premature death.

Frankly, I'd rather indentured servitude in bliss and paradise, than having this 'gift' of free will in pain and misery.

Adam was insane only in the sense that he listened to his wife over God.

And his wife listen to the Serpent, and the Serpent was created as the most cunning of creatures - created by God.

 

[dawiyd]

I suppose I am confused, as I thought this was a forum for Christians. I understand it is healthy to question the faith, but there is a fine line between curiosity and blasphemy.
Adam was created perfect. He was also perfectly aware that he was not to eat of the tree of knowledge. They did not know evil because there was no evil in the world to be known before they disobeyed God. Seems pretty simple to me.
Had there been no tree of knowledge, Adam and Eve would have had no choice but to serve God; but by putting the tree in the Garden, He gave man the gift of free will. Adam was insane only in the sense that he listened to his wife over God.

What?!

Let's use an example

If I have a wallet and put in a room of crooks turn of the lights and one of them steals it, wallet is gone, one of them used their free will to take it.

Same situation, this time I don't put my wallet in the room, have I violated the crooks free will? No, I just have not given them the opportunity to take it. This doesn't impinge on their free will at all.

 

[elopez]

If Adam did not know the difference between good and evil until he ate the forbidden fruit, then, clearly he couldn't tell right from wrong. The McNaughton rule states, ``...it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong." So if he didn't know right from wrong he wasn't culpable, and ought not to have been convicted.

He needed a better lawyer.

The consideration that Adam did not have intellectual knowledge of morality and once having eaten of the tree gained this knowledge is only for those Christians who would thus be subscribing to a Gnostic interpretation of God who prohibits knowledge from His creation. It would have only been fair and proper for God to create man with such knowledge, so while I believe Adam may have understood moral distinctions he remained ignorant of evil in the experiential sense.

 

[dana b]

If I could add my understanding to this great disscussion it goes something like this. There are only three laws or types of governance in this world.

1. Survival of the fittest(law of nature)

2. Moses' law of Justice(an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth)

3. Jesus' new covenant of adding Compassion and Mercy to the law of Justice.(what offended the Jews most about Jesus was that he healed on the sabbath.)

Now when Adam and Eve were told not to eat of the tree of knowledge it was because in that day they would die.(Adam did die in that day, 2 Pet.3;8 says a day = 1000 years and Adam died at age 930)

When Adam and Eve ate of the tree they were kicked out of Eden(God's paradise) and into the natural world of survival of the fittest. They followed the Serpent there. He represents the selfish natural attitude because he has only one limb and is therefore "one directional" so selfish.

After living for about 2000 years in the natural world of survival of the fittest God had Moses teach the tribes of Israel about living under the law of justice. When they entered the promised land across the Jordan River they all striclty followed this law and had to expell anyong else not living so because your cannot follow the law in a land where some people are not following the law. Nonetheless their life there was lived in peace and security which was quite different than those who remained on the other side of Jordan(so to speak) in the dangerous and insecure govenment of natures natural selection.

After about 2000 years the time was ripe for the third and last government of the second Christian covenant. This was the final stage of human development where mankind lives much more godlike by adding "compassion and mercy" to justice. This is what we in the Christian countries have today. We in European Christian Israel(as I like to call it) enforce justice but we also have compassion. We may jail murderers but we don't have capital punishment.(except in America)

So it was only after living in the natural world of survival of the fittest for a while that humanity came to the point where they could appreciate living under a strict and secure law of justice. Then it was only after fully experiencing living under the strict and unflexable law of justice that humanity could realize and appreciat the new Christian covenant which added "compassion and mercy" to the law. So this is where we find ourselves today. Adam and Eve were the beginning and enlightened Christians are the result and the end.