Adam & Eve, revisited.

[AtheistArchon]

- Browsing through the threads, I notice a common theme has emerged, that being the reliance upon the fall of man to settle other issues (such as our sinful nature inherited, and so on). I read the previous Adam & Evil thread, and it's interesting, but there's a different question I wanted to ask that doesn't appear to be addressed (or on topic) in that thread.

- Put very simply: why did god put the tree of knowledge in Eden?

- I assume there must have been a good reason for doing so, but it escapes me. For example, one might say it was because god wanted (and planned) for A&E to obtain such knowledge. That's very well and good, but if we assume this, then why go through the trouble of cursing mankind in the process (and eventually necessitating the crucifixion of Jesus)? Why not create mankind with such knowledge in the first place? Free will should not be an issue, since it certainly wasn't an issue before Eve ate the fruit. If she didn't have free will before then, then how could she possibly be responsible for her actions?

- Another possible answer may be because god wanted to test mankind. But this puzzles me... isn't god supposed to be omniscient? What was god testing for if he knew how it would turn out? God shouldn't have to "test"... god is supposed to already know.

- Was it a decoration? It seems to me that Eden was supposed to be a paradise. No bad weather, no man-eating tigers, no dangers. Perhaps this isn't true? The tree certainly presented a danger... why place such a thing in Eden, especially if you did not want your creations eating from it?

[edited for silly spelling mistakes. :) ]

[Jaltus]

If there is no way for man to fall, then the "freedom to do good" is not a freedom at all.

[AtheistArchon]

If there is no way for man to fall, then the "freedom to do good" is not a freedom at all.

- I'm not sure I understand. If god had created A&E with the knowledge of the tree in the first place, would they not have any freedom? They would still have the capacity to to immoral things without the tree.

- So why the tree? Why the curse?

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 05:39 AM
Jaltus:

If there is no way for man to fall, then the "freedom to do good" is not a freedom at all.

Did Adam and Eve have freedom before the fall?

Let us not forget that it is Christian dogma that God has created beings (eg Gabriel, Michael) with free will, knowing in advance that they would never commit evil (as they never have)

God can know in advance that beings with free will will never commit evil in the future. Even Christian philosophers can know that, and they are not omniscient.

Peter Williams in
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/angels3.htm quote Mortimer Adler as follows :-
'Once established in grace and admitted to the Beautific Vision, the Angelic will, no less than the human will, can no longer choose between good and evil. . . In the eternal possession of the Supreme Good they can still choose what they please, but their choice is always. . . a choice between good...'

So Christian philosophers think you can have free will and always choose good, and they know which beings will do that.

It can hardly be beyond God's powers to know that as well.

[spl_cadet]

It was a test designed to see if they would be obedien to God. Obviously they flunked.

[Piebald]

Put very simply: why did god put the tree of knowledge in Eden?

It was put there so that Adam and Eve could experience the pleasure of Obedience to God.

[ACFaith.Com]

From my original sin article:

When taken historically, the Garden story is intrinsically unlikely for several reasons:

1. the punishment or rather, the effects of the fall do not fit the crime. Why would God set up a system where two people eating a piece of fruit against his will would cause so much damage to subsequent civilization (billions and billions of people)? The situation in Genesis seems like it was rigged-like it was a recipe intended to create disaster.

2. The account is somewhat contradictory. Genesis 3: 7 says that "then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked" and v. 22 records God as saying "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil". How does one give a moral command to someone who does not "know good and evil"? This also further intensifies the ethical problem up above. If Adam and Eve did not know "good and evil" how much more do the effects or punishment of the fall not fit the crime?

3. Why would God curse snakes when (presumably) Satan was posessing one? This makes little sense (see the ned of Gen 3 for this). There was no need to curse snakes. Story = myth.

4. Where is the Garden of Eden at anyways? Genesis 3:24 says "After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life." Surely this "cherubium and a flaming sword" is a marvel to behold? It surely would attract hundreds of millions of tourists? Did the Garden of Eden disappear? Was it destroyed in the (global or local depending on who you ask) flood? I take it, paradoxically, the tree of life died somehow and this allowed the cherubium to go on its way? Even if this is so, it would seem silly for God to guard it with a cherubium and a flaming sword rather than just destorying it himself. Or why not have the cherubium destory it rather than sit there and wait until the flood to destory? Not that the Genesis flood ever happened of course.....

5. There is a complete lack of positive historical evidence regarding the details of the Genesis myth.

6. Things like Adam naming all the animals are clearly fictional. Some apologists try to reinterpret these passages (e.g. Hugh Ross Genesis Question) but their eisegesis and back-reading into scripture does not stand on its own merit.

7. Modern science is in direct conflict with the Genesis Myth. Why Should a myth be granted precedence over modern science?

8. There are numerous other creation myths from around the world that all have such mythical stories as the Genesis tales:

1. "The myth of human origins told by the Carabaulo people of Timor, in eastern Indonesia, serves to explain the social order. According to this account, there were originally no humans, just the sea. Two pieces of land emerged from the waters to become the entire island of Timor. Then a huge vagina appeared in the ground, out of which came the ancestors of the present population: the first to emerge became the landowning aristocrats, and those who followed were their commoners and tenants. To climb out of the vagina, the first people hauled themselves up by the creepers of a tree. It is said that the place of emergence is still to be seen today, but no one is allowed to penetrate the tunnel which descends from it." World Mythology, p. 303

2. In some West Africam myths, human beings were first created in heaven and sent down on a spider's web to the earth. [Information from WM p. 267]

3. In some Chinese myths goddess Nu Gua, who had a human head intertwined with a serpent tail for a body was on earth for some time. A sense of loneliness and the feeling that something was missing from the world kicked in and Nu Gua decided to fashion a human out of mud. When she put the creature down it sprang to life immediately. When she saw that her work was good she took more mud and made a host of people who wandered off into the countryside. She never felt lonely again as she could always hear their voices. (Info from WM p. 91)

4. Khnum was one of the four main Egyptian creator deities. He was described as the "father of fathers and the mother of mothers" in his temple at Esna. He shaped animals, humans and gods from clay on his potter's wheel and gave their bodies the breath of life. (info WM p. 39)

5. In Greece the myths of Prometheus and Pandora helped to explain the hardships which beset humanity. This is where the term 'pandora's box' comes from. When it was opened evil and sickness was released into the world. Only hope remained inside. Further, Greek mythology offers a variety of accounts regarding the origins of humanity. The idea of birth from the earth is often encountered. The first man Pelasgus, in one myth, sprang from the soil of Arcadia in the Peloponnese and founded the race of Pelasgians. "Another myth tells how Zeus sent a great flood to destroy humanity as a punishment for the misdeeds of the Titan Prometheus.. Deucalion, son of Prometheus, and his wife Pyrrha, daughter of Epimetheus and Pandora, were warned by the Titan and built an ark in which they survived the deluge. When the waters subsided, Deucalion and Pyrrha went to Delphi to pray to the Titan Themis, who in some accounts is said to be the mother of Prometheus. She told them to throw over their shoulders the bones of the being from whom they were both descended.

Bewildered at first, the couple soon realized that Themis must be referring to Gaia, the earth, whose bones were the stones in the ground. As each stone they hurled behind them landed, it turned into a human being: those thrown by Deucalion became men and those thrown by Pyrrha turned into women. The human race was thus re-created from the soil" (ibid, p. 130)

In a variation of the above account, Deucalion and his wife made a sacrifice to Zeus after the flood and his wrath was placated. Zeus then granted Deucalion one wish and his wish was for humanity to be re-created.

Hesiod in Works and Days wrote that the gods made the first men the Golden Race. They did not suffer old age, sickness or toil but for some reason they all died. It was not clear why. (WM)

6. In Indian thought, Prajapati (lord of progeny) produces children through his power of asceticism, among them a daughter, the Dawn. Prajapati becomes sexually aroused by his daughter and tries to commit incest with her. In shame and terror she turns into a deer, whereupon Prajapati become a stag and spills his seed, which gives rise to the first men. In another version, Prajapati mates with his daughter in one form after another and creates and procreated "all the pairs, even down to the ants." (WM p. 70)

7. Mayan myths tell of a succession of creations. The first people were made of earth but they were destroyed because they were mindless. The second race of people were made out of wood but they were destroyed because they were ungrateful towards their creators and they lacked souls. Legend has it that this wood race died in a flood or were eaten by demons. The last race created was naturally the Maya's ancestors who were made out of white and yellow maize blended together. "Because these maize people had divine understanding, the gods decided to "chip their eyes": this ensured that the people would be fired by the urge to reproduce themselves." (WM p. 249)

8. In the Babylonian creation myth Maduk killed Kingu and mixed his blood with earth to make humans. (WM p. 62)

I could go on but this should suffice. Creation myths and stories of the origins of humanity are very common around the world. There are also explanations that try to understand the hardship humans must endure. The question that naturally arises is: why should we accept the historicity of the Genesis myth and reject all the other accounts? The Genesis myth might be more ordered and structured than some other accounts and even less primitive but this should not be mistaken with historicity. Some apologist might assert that we should be agnostic about the Genesis creation story on strictly historical grounds as we cannot prove single attested events in antiquity did not happen. This us true but people who make comments like this are more to be admired for their devotion to apologetics than for their historical expertise. In the case of the Genesis story it is a fallacy known as 'special pleading' and I would respond to it accordingly: "I will remain agnostic regarding the historicity of the Genesis myth if you remain agnostic regarding the historicity of the Carabaulo myth which tells us that human kind originated on earth when a huge vagina appeared in the ground and the ancient peoples climbed out of it."

Vinnie

[ACFaith.Com]

03-14-2003 @ 02:09 PM
spl_cadet:

It was a test designed to see if they would be obedien to God. Obviously they flunked.

Test? That was temptation. Not a test. And James said God does not tempt us with sin doesn't it?

Vinnie

[Jaltus]

Did Adam and Eve have freedom before the fall?

Yes, and my point is that they had total freedom in that they could choose to obey or not obey. If there was no tree, Adam and Eve would forever be innocent, but also forever be oppressed.

Let us not forget that it is Christian dogma that God has created beings (eg Gabriel, Michael) with free will, knowing in advance that they would never commit evil (as they never have)

God can know in advance that beings with free will will never commit evil in the future. Even Christian philosophers can know that, and they are not omniscient.

Irrelevent. The point was not what they chose, but that they could choose. Angels were created with the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve were not.

So Christian philosophers think you can have free will and always choose good, and they know which beings will do that.

It can hardly be beyond God's powers to know that as well.

So what? The complication is again not what they did, but that they had the choice. You are focusing on the wrong part of the issue.

AA,

God created Adam and Eve (A&E makes me think of the channel or else ANE, Ancient Near East, lol) with perfect innocence so that if they made the right decision, they could keep that perfect innocence. As I said above, angels were created with the knwoledge of good and evil, man without it.

[johnransom]

03-13-2003 @ 11:37 PM
AtheistArchon:

- Put very simply: why did god put the tree of knowledge in Eden?

As noted by others, as a test of obedience.

- I assume there must have been a good reason for doing so, but it escapes me. For example, one might say it was because god wanted (and planned) for A&E to obtain such knowledge. That's very well and good, but if we assume this, then why go through the trouble of cursing mankind in the process (and eventually necessitating the crucifixion of Jesus)? Why not create mankind with such knowledge in the first place? Free will should not be an issue, since it certainly wasn't an issue before Eve ate the fruit. If she didn't have free will before then, then how could she possibly be responsible for her actions?

The knowledge gained was experiential, not abstract. I thought you should have gleaned that from the previous thread. By definition, you cannot be created with experiential knowledge. And how do you conclude that Eve did not possess free will before the Fall? How could she not, since she yielded to temptation?

- Another possible answer may be because god wanted to test mankind. But this puzzles me... isn't god supposed to be omniscient? What was god testing for if he knew how it would turn out? God shouldn't have to "test"... god is supposed to already know.

Why presume that the test was for God's benefit? It was for man's.

- Was it a decoration? It seems to me that Eden was supposed to be a paradise. No bad weather, no man-eating tigers, no dangers. Perhaps this isn't true? The tree certainly presented a danger...why place such a thing in Eden, especially if you did not want your creations eating from it?

In and of itself the tree was no danger whatsoever; it had no special qualities of any kind and was just like any other tree in the Garden. Again, you should have discovered this in the previous thread. The only danger was in the experience of disobedience.

[AtheistArchon]

- There are some pretty good answers thus far. Let me try and understand here...

It was a test designed to see if they would be obedien to God. Obviously they flunked.

- But god is omniscient. When he put the tree there, he already knew they'd flunk. So why put the tree there? There was nothing to test for, unless god did not already know the outcome.

Yes, and my point is that they had total freedom in that they could choose to obey or not obey. If there was no tree, Adam and Eve would forever be innocent, but also forever be oppressed.

- Let me see if I get this right (correct me please if I'm misunderstanding you). If there was no tree, A&E would still have freedom, BUT they would be oppressed. Why?

- I liken this kind of thing to... say... flying. I'd very much like to be able to fly unassisted. You know, flap my arms and fly. It is my will that I should be able to fly. However, I can't do it. Does this make me somehow NOT free?

Irrelevent. The point was not what they chose, but that they could choose. Angels were created with the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve were not.

- Why not? Gong back to my original question, why did it take the tree (and the eventual cursing of mankind and the death of Jesus, etc) to give them this understanding?

So what? The complication is again not what they did, but that they had the choice. You are focusing on the wrong part of the issue.

- If they didn't know good from evil, then I don't think they had much of a choice, did they? After all, how would they have known that it was "evil" to disobey god? They only gained this knowledge AFTER eating the fruit.

God created Adam and Eve (A&E makes me think of the channel or else ANE, Ancient Near East, lol) with perfect innocence so that if they made the right decision, they could keep that perfect innocence. As I said above, angels were created with the knwoledge of good and evil, man without it.

- Yes, I understand, but I'm still confused. Why put the tree in Eden?

- And point taken about "A&E"... I'll stop abbreviating it.

[AtheistArchon]

As noted by others, as a test of obedience.

- Why? Didn't god know what would happen? There's no need for such a test.

- If god put the tree there, then the outcome was certain. If he didn't, another outcome was certain. There should be no testing... god should not need to experiment.

The knowledge gained was experiential, not abstract. I thought you should have gleaned that from the previous thread. By definition, you cannot be created with experiential knowledge.

- God cannot do what again?

- I didn't know that this was an impossibility for god. Besides, experiential knowledge would come either way if god had created Adam and Eve with the knowledge of the tree; it just would not have been necessary to curse them for gaining it.

And how do you conclude that Eve did not possess free will before the Fall? How could she not, since she yielded to temptation?

- I never said she didn't. I said she did. Therefore, the tree was not the granter of free will, and it's still unnecessary.

Why presume that the test was for God's benefit? It was for man's.

- We benefitted from being cursed? How, when it wasn't necessary? We know that god is capable of creating beings with knowledge of good and evil without resorting to fruit.

In and of itself the tree was no danger whatsoever; it had no special qualities of any kind and was just like any other tree in the Garden.

- So... the tree of knowledge wasn't a tree of knowledge.

- Was the tree of life not a tree of life either?

- And let me ask you this. If there had been a loaded gun in Eden, would that have not been a danger as well?

The only danger was in the experience of disobedience.

- That's like saying "the only danger was in the pulling of the trigger". My question, which you have not addressed, is why is such a thing necessary in the first place?

- Again, why did god put the tree in Eden, when he could have created Adam and Eve with such knowledge in the first place, and avoided lots of suffering and bloodshed?

[AtheistArchon]

- Clarifying a small point that I may have confused in the last post:

- When we talk about experiental knowledge, I'm not certain how being the recipient of a curse from god is necessary before you can be free. Is the knowledge of good and evil not enough?

- For example, I have never experienced the act of lighting my hair on fire. Or hammering a nail through my hand. Am I somehow incomplete because I do not have experiential knowledge of these things?

[Jaltus]

Let me see if I get this right (correct me please if I'm misunderstanding you). If there was no tree, A&E would still have freedom, BUT they would be oppressed. Why?

Not quite the nuance I was looking for.

Adam and Eve (feel free to use A&E, I just can't bring myself to do so, hehe, it makes me keep laughing at myself) would have freedom of action if therre was not tree, but no moral responsibility. The tree was there in order to give Adam and Eve moral responsibility for their actions. Let me ask you this, if there was no tree but everything else was the same in the garden, how could Adam and Eve be held morally responsible for ANYTHING they did? Reward and punishment would be useless since they would only be able to do what is right. Introducing the possiblity of evil is what makes good good. If there is no evil, then good really does not mean that much, it is in fact the status quo.

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 06:31 PM
AtheistArchon:

- When we talk about experiental knowledge, I'm not certain how being the recipient of a curse from god is necessary before you can be free. Is the knowledge of good and evil not enough?

- For example, I have never experienced the act of lighting my hair on fire. Or hammering a nail through my hand. Am I somehow incomplete because I do not have experiential knowledge of these things?

And God has no experiential knowledge of torturing babies for fun.