What did humanity get out of the whole episode with Adam and Eve and the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge? Why were they forbidden to eat of it? Why was it put there in the first place? I don't think it was necessary, was it? What was the purpose of the tree if not specifically to enlighten those who ate from it? Who else was that fruit meant for? What is the Christian take on this? Can someone answer that? Because it seems to me that everything stems from this act. Why would it shame Adam and Eve to be naked in front of their maker, certainly He had seen them nude before, so why would this be any different? What would make them suddenly believe that being naked was bad? The knowledge they gained? This is only the beginning of this line of questioning, but we have to start somewhere, so why not at the beginning?
He created it in order to allow free will, see if they'd stay loyal to them. Why were they ashamed? The revelance of sin made them aware of sexual sin. The Glory of God, when they disobeyed him, fell off them.
So was it the fact that the tree existed that gave them free will or was it eating from the tree? Had the tree not existed, then you are saying that there would have been no free will? If they were unaware of sexual sin before they ate from the tree, mightn't they have committed other sexual sins prior to being aware of them? Before Eve came along, for instance, how did Adam deal with his hormonal sexual urges? Was he committing sexual sin without being aware of it? This concept of the Glory of God... Did that protect them from sin? The only thing forbidden them was to eat from this one tree, right? I don't remember reading about any other rules (including not eating from the Tree of Life). Is that the case? Would eating the forbidden fruit be the Judeo-Christian equivalent of the opening of Pandora's Box, then? Is the knowledge the tree granted of good and evil basically just a list of rules which they now had to follow, but which weren't applicable to them prior to that act?
More than the existence of the tree, it was the command that they were not to eat of it that was essential. Well, Adam would still have free will but without having an actual choice to make, having the ability to choose is superfluous. Without the ability to exercise his free will, simply having free will is meaningless. We don't know how Adam dealt with sexual urges before Eve. However, whatever he did to deal with them (if he even had them), was fully in accordance with the will of God and therefore not a sin. Nothing "protected them" from sin. They were in an environment where only one thing could POSSIBLY be sinful. Only one command was issued. Only one act would stand against God's holiness. By releasing evil into the world? In that both stories tell why sin and suffering are in the world, yes they are similar, but they are not at all equivalent. The purpose for the creation of woman is different, and in the Bible, it is man who CAUSES the fall from grace (not God, as in the Pandora story). More than that, the concept of evil in the Pandora story is based on the idea that the gods created evil and that evil exists independently of both man and the gods. In the Bible, God does not create evil. Evil isn't a force in and of itself, thoughts and actions are categorized as evil through their relationship to God and His nature. If it is contradictory to His nature and character it is evil, if it is non-moral, then it is neither good nor evil, and if it is parallel to God's character or nature, then it is good. This concept of evil is radically different from the idea presented in Pandora's box. No, it is simply what it says, we now know good and evil. We know what it is to rebel against God.
The other "choices" made prior to that ("Do I want to swim in the stream or climb the mountain?") were without meaning? Why is that? Is an action only meaningful if there is some kind of arbitrary valuation (moral judgement) to it? Is appears as if a moral choice was made prior to eating the fruit (the choice to disobey) - is that not already demonstrating knowledge of good and evil? How could they know it was wrong to disobey if they didn't know good from evil?
They have meaning in the sense that they have impact on the decision maker and the surrounding world, but in terms of excercising the free will to choose obedience over disobedience (conformity over rebellion), having the ability to choose is only meaningful if an actual choice could be made. For example, you may have the free will to choose to eat or not eat, but if there is no food available, your ability to choose is essentially non-existent. You would be incapable of excercising your free will. You can make other choices, but in regards to this specific instance, your free will is superfluosly useless. The same is true in Adam's case. The issue of obedience didn't hinge on other choices (even though they might have been meaningful choices). The issue of obedience could only be decided if the possibility of disobedience was made actual. They were given the option to disobey. I don't think that they knew that it was wrong to disobey. They did understand, however, that God would punish disobedience and that the punishment would be severe. They chose to act in spite of consequences.
I believe its a fable used to teach people to avoid temptation. It never actually happened, thats a fact that no one can ever dispute (without me making fun of them)
Whether or not it actually happened has little relevence on the discussion. All of humanity's spiritual well-being (at least from the Judeo-Christian point of view) hinges on what this story means... What is the nature of free will and what is it's relationship to "sin?" What does it mean, spiritually, to be born with the stain of "original sin" on our souls? Why does the Judeo-Christian belief system force humanity into a covenant with their God in order to find salvation (in whatever form that might take)? The journey toward answering these questions begins with the examination of the symbols transmitted in this story. It seems that the creator of Adam was far more interested in his obedience than in his love. He created a test for Adam and Eve, a test which, given enough time and the simple fact of human curiosity, they would eventually fail. Why? For what purpose would an all powerful, all loving deity do such a thing? Humanity must have gotten SOMETHING from this test. We learn from our mistakes (if we are wise) - that which doesn't kill us makes us stronger. What are we to learn from this one? How are we stronger for this experience? That is what I wish to learn. What "good" does the existance of sin do for humanity? Why was such a concept ever brought into being?
I would guess that it was brought into being to maintain order and control. I think its pointless....for instance, I don't attack people because I don't want to hurt them..not because its a sin, I don't steal things because I don't think its right to do to another person, not because it is a sin. You could say, you shouldn't have pre-marital sex because someone might get pregnant and not be able to care for the child, not because its a sin. As for original sin, beats me, the last thining I think when looking at a little baby is that they have sinned.....that concept seems evil.
It simply means that we are imperfect. Our very nature misses the mark of perfection. Because humans are completely incapable of saving ourselves. We cannot do anything to satisfy the requirements of justice. Agreed. I am not sure that it follows. God does not force us to comply with His laws, though He does provide punishment for those who break said laws. This is the way that law works. We obey the law for one of two reasons, fear or love (or both). We might fear the reprocussions (I know that's why I don't speed... fear of tickets...), but we might also obey out of love and respect (I obey rules set by my wife because I love her, not because I fear what she might do to me if I violate them). Christ Himself said "If you love me, keep my commandments." We obey the law of God not because we have to, but because we *want* to out of an expression for communion, intimate relationship, respect, and love. When Adam disobeyed, it was a sign that he placed Himself over His love and respect for God. That was the sin. I don't think that it could be said with certainty that humanity would eventually fail. The reality is that humanity did fail. He created a test that we *could* fail, and He knew that we *would.* However, that did not prevent His actions. It would be unjust to refuse to test an individual simply because you knew they would fail. What is your basis for saying with absolute certainty that humanity would eventually fail? You seem to assume that eventually we would wonder "what would happen if..." But that wasn't Adam or Eve's motivation. They KNEW what would happen. They did it out of a desire to be like God. That is pride, not curiousity. I am not sure that we can say that we ARE stronger. What do you get from failing a test in life? Wiser? Yeah, I would hope so... but there are still a lot of prideful people out there so I am not sure that we have actually learned from our mistakes. In fact, history is replete with examples of people who have not. It still allows us a choice. This is a very complex and deep question, and I am unfortunately limited on time. I will try and continue on this later.
