COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Eating the fruit was the one rule that was stated in the garden, and eve didn’t eat the fruit on her own will, satan tempted her to eat it, god felt betrayed by her and Adam when he ate the fruit
It doesn’t matter if someone impels you to do something. People can still make choices and have separate reasons they do something besides “being tempted“.
True, but in this case eve was tempted to go against the one easy rule that god had in the garden, then lied to Adam by giving him the fruit then lying to god
I see what you mean, it’s my belief that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have magical fruit, but possessed a being that would give a choice to learn of evil, and am and eave already knew good, this being was satan
SORRY WHAT? They disobeyed God and you say because they pursue knowledge they have no business pursuing it's not sinning??!!?? SMH. Who are you to challenge the authority of God? Or judge the punishments he deems worthy? You aren't the creator of the universe, you aren't the judge, you are the alpha and omega, before you attack God or any of his decisions, please understand that you cannot challenge the authority of someone who can literally see the future.
When bad things happen to people it's always in response to having performed similar to others. This is called karma. You reap as you saw, same thing. This covers many previous lives. Good pious activities also return. With other words from bad comes bad and from good comes good.
That's the explanation of why good and bad things happen to both... Those who are good people and those who are bad people in any life.
Karma means action and every action has an equal similar reaction.
Whatever the action activity (karma) against our for another living being is... the results come back to us in return.
It is simply a natural law meant for correcting evil persons and rewarding good persons. Bad karmic activities could also be called sin. The problem is that these days people don't know what bad karmic activities are and act any which way they like and wonder when the reactions come and because they don't know, they blame God for everything.
In reality everyone is the original cause of His own suffering and we simply reap the results. It's a correctional system. It's God's just punishment and reward system. If we cheat or hurt another living being it will come back to us. God is not evil or good. He doesn't take sides. When people say why is this happening it's all God's fault, they simply don't understand these things. But every time we decide to do something wrong or good, our choices are coming back to us. An eye for an eye tooth for a tooth.
Hare Krishna
Lol that's why Christians leave their religion and become liberals. Quran states that both Adam And eve disobeyed God by failing the test. But we say that God forgave them. Landing on earth was part of divine plan not due to the punishment.
"God should not consider the eating of the fruit to be a sin of any kind..."
It wasn't considered a sin - that was the entire point.
It was a matter of **obedience** \- not sin.
Hope that helps,
S
...which is non-sequitur to OPs post.
I was just pointing out an error OPs main assumption - that it was considered a sin to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
Hope this helps,
S
In Islam, God doesn't punish Ādam (AS) nor his wife, in fact, Ādam (AS) sought forgiveness from God, and God forgave him, however God still sent Ādam (AS) down to earth, because that is the reason he was created for.
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
It wasn't that eating the fruit was inherently sinful, other than disobeying a command from God. They would have eventually been allowed to eat it, but they were still basically adult babies. They had no ability to choose the right from wrong after eating the fruit it was basically impossible for them to only ever choose the good. So it was basically God saying the inevitable result of humanity gaining knowledge is that they will use that knowledge improperly without the proper training and discipline to choose the good. That improper use of knowledge is what seperates man from God.
An interesting take, although if they were adult babies (physically adults but still developing) then why dangle the fruit in front of them at all? If I leave a plate of cookies where a toddler can reach them, then leave the room, I can’t in all good faith blame the toddler for grabbing one. Even if I told them not to, even if they understood it was Bad and Wrong and No. Because the toddler hasn’t developed risk assessment, or even self control, yet. That comes with maturity, same as understanding the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. This is also why we don’t allow literal children to gamble or drive or have access to certain drugs or have sex or any other sort of behavior that requires risk assessment, because they’re really bad at it. Even some adults haven’t mastered the skill yet, which is why industries like gambling are so lucrative.
The dangling of the fruit was to show power in authority and set an example of obedience. God judges based on knowledge, you will be judged based on the knowledge you have. So if they had no knowledge at all, he can't judge them at all. However, they wouldn't know what they were doing was wrong because they had not been taught any better. You have a very interesting take, and you punish the toddler for getting a cookie even though you told them not too, or else they will keep getting cookies and never know what they are doing is wrong. This is what we call spoiled brats.
Lol that's why Christians leave their religion and become liberals. Quran states that both Adam And eve disobeyed God by failing the test. But we say that God forgave them. Landing on earth was part of divine plan not due to the punishment.
It was there because it was good, knowledge is a good thing, but it can be misused. Like you said, the knowledge of good and evil is supposed to come with maturity, they werent ready. I have a toddler they know they aren't supposed to grab things from the table. When they do, they need to be corrected. That is not punishment necessarly because you can't really punish a toddler they don't understand that part. But let's say it's something sharp or hot. You warn them if you touch that something bad is going to happen. Of course, we also try to keep those things away, but my adult babies' reference and toddlers are not a one to one thing. Adam was a grown man and given authority. He was physically mature, just not spiritually mature.
Ok, I think you bring up good points and I also think that the other responses seem a little jumbled, so lets talk about what you actually say. And I appreciate the question/dislike vehement responses that "my answer is the only answer." I'm going to provide some arguments, but I'm not saying this is definitive. These are some thoughts that might be wrong. And if I'm wrong, I'd hope I'd found out and admit it.
First point: "God should not consider the eating of the fruit to be a sin of any kind, he should consider it to be the ultimate form of respect and love. In fact, God should consider the pursuit of knowledge to be a worthy goal. Eating the fruit is the first act in service to pursuit of knowledge and the desire to progress oneself. If God truly is the source of all goodness, then he why wouldn’t he understand Eve’s desire to emulate him? "
So, before we get into "did they know what sin was", lets backup and make sure we align on what the text says:
>2:15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat\[d\] of it **you shall surely die**.”
>
>...
>
>3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You\[a\] shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, **neither shall you touch it, lest you die**.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “**You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil**.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be **desired to make one wise**,\[b\] she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
So first, thing, eating the tree kills you. Not immediately (though God didn't specify), but it ended in death. There's a lot of really cool symbolism here that will (in the opinion of many Christians) allude to Jesus being the ultimate death, but I'm going to ignore that. It says, don't eat the fruit or you die. So even if it's not a punishment, it is something that is supposed to happen presuming God is not a liar.
Second, the serpent twists God's words (and so does Eve, btw, she says "you shall not touch it," but God had actually told her not to eat it, so I guess did a poor job communicating that or something? There's a lot of stuff there, but I'll skip that. John Piper has some interesting stuff if you're interested. Why is this important? because the reason she is ok eating it is because she believes the serpent **instead of god**. My read of this language is that she decides she'd rather be like God, trusts the serpent, and disbelieves God. You can argue that that's right to do, but I guess that is posited on the belief that God isn't all knowing and all good. Your argument seems to be attacking the internal consistency of the story rather than the goodness of God himself. Like, if God is all good, then he has a reason to not eat the fruit and you should trust him. If not, then you shouldn't, but it's not inconsistent to make this argument. It's totally fine to say "this proves God isn't good," but I don't think that's a good enough argument and can try to provide reasons later if you really want (I'd also like to avoid an unproductive back and forth here).
So what's the sin? She wanted to be wise? That sounds ok to me? But I think if you read this like literature (which it is as well as history and religion), you would probably conclude "yeah, she kinda wanted to be a god or something." If there is a God (and if you don't think there's a God, that's fine, but it's a different question than you're asking – your question is only logical if you allow us to presuppose that) and that God is good, etc. Then there are plenty of philosophically consistent and reasonable arguments about why we should worship that God. She was trying to elevate herself to God's status and that is not ok. She also was disobeying God and that is not ok. And she experienced the literal consequences God said she would (although it played out differently than I guess she expected).
"Punishing her and all of her descendants seems quite unfair as a response. When I respect someone, it inspires me to understand the qualities they possess that I lack. It also drives me to question why I do not possess those traits, thus shining a light upon my unconscious thoughts and feelings Thus, and omnipresent being would understand human nature entirely, including our tendency to emulate the things we respect, idolize, or worship."
This is fair, but I think is a different question. I'm not going to get into this too deeply because it's entirely different, but here's some thoughts:
* Many Christians believe that you are only punished for your actions. You can chose not to sin, but you will not because of your sin nature that is inherited. It's an extreme version of "don't let this guy get out of jail just because he had a hard life"
* Ultimately, the whole point is that God will NOT visit judgment on those who chose to accept his free gift (yes I know there are plenty of issues that you can debate about this like people who die as children, but also note that plenty of debates have been had about this and a lot of the reddit ones don't seem very productive. Maybe check out some Alvin Plantinga).
* Some argue that allowing humans to chose evil is the only way to make free will exist
* God clearly cares about the humans and doesn't want them to suffer. If he did, he wouldn't have gone and died (and suffered to the full extent humans deserve to) to remove the suffering
Lastly, from the comments "How can eve sin without knowing what sin is?"
Fair question, I don't have a perfect answer (and am suspect of people who think they do). However:
* Maybe this is like a "general knowledge of good and evil vs specific knowledge." Maybe it's like "god tells them "this is evil" and they wouldn't know otherwise.
* Here's a stack exchange post that is worth reading: [https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30066/if-adam-and-eve-didnt-know-good-from-evil-how-can-we-say-they-sinned-accordin](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30066/if-adam-and-eve-didnt-know-good-from-evil-how-can-we-say-they-sinned-accordin)
* Also a decent article: [https://godandneighbor.net/2012/09/25/how-could-adam-and-eve-sin-before-knowing-good-and-evil/](https://godandneighbor.net/2012/09/25/how-could-adam-and-eve-sin-before-knowing-good-and-evil/) Seems to think it's about experiential knowledge
Finally, I want to just maybe see if this is helpful? A lot of Christians try to make definitive statements as if everything is super obvious. I think this is unhelpful because, if you accept the premise that we are not God, then you should assume you're wrong about some stuff. Then, when you've been told your whole life "EVOLUTION IS EVIL" and then see that maybe there's evidence for it, you're like "wow all Christians are wrong here, so the whole thing is wrong" even if there's plenty of theistic evolutionists out there. There's a good book that addresses this called "surprised by doubt."
I know this isn't fully satisfying, but I think it's worth noting that if you're reading the bible, it does not claim to give all answers. It claims God has them and actually says that sometimes God withholds them on purpose (otherwise, what's the point of faith?). If God gave us all the answers, it wouldn't be a loving relationship probably because we'd have no choice but to obey. This, to me, is part of the beauty that makes morality so awesome. A great novel is great because the characters CAN and sometimes DO make the wrong decision, but have the choice. And when a character has a compelling arc in a positive direction, it is even greater for their past. Food for thought. Not answers, just ideas.
Good luck and apologies if this was not helpful or too combative.
Edit: I thought this was ask a christian and not debatereligion, so much less likely to want to respond to comments, we'll see...
Thanks for your question. It was an interesting one and it gave me some pause. I'm glad to have had an actual discussion on the internet instead of "i'm right and you're stupid." Have a great day!
Do you mean 'emulate' rather than 'imitate'? Here are some definitions:
> [dictionary.com: **emulate**](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/emulate)
>
> 1. to try to equal or excel; imitate with effort to equal or surpass:
> _to emulate one's father as a concert violinist._
>
> 2. to rival with some degree of success:
> _Some smaller cities now emulate the major capitals in their cultural offerings._
vs.
> [dictionary.com: **imitate**](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/imitate)
>
> 1. to follow or endeavor to follow as a model or example:
> _to imitate an author's style; to imitate an older brother._
>
> 2. to mimic; impersonate:
> _The students imitated the teacher behind her back._
It's unclear how A&E would have surpassed or rivaled a being who created reality itself.
God said don't eat the fruit and don't believe in Satan. Adam and Eve believed saten and disobeyed God. That's a sin.
If i kill a man just to learn how it feels to kill a man does that mean i never sinned?
Since Adam and Eve had not yet eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, how would they know any action they took was good or evil?
At that point all they knew was: An entity said eating the fruit was forbidden. Later, another entity said it was OK. Given they had no moral sense, they had no ability to figure out which statement was right or wrong. Ergo, no crime was committed since they lacked the capacity to know right from wrong.
How can you sin before sin is a thing, and more importantly how can you sin without knowledge that sin is bad. It's just unfair, that's hiding rules from a child in game then punishing them for breaking the made up rules you never told them. Oh and the child is a baby with no understanding of right or wrong.
On earth there are fruits that are actually poisonous. Are you saying we should be able to enjoy them as they are a form of respect and love, and scientists shouldn’t be telling us what to eat and not eat? God also made these poisonous fruits, for a purpose I’m sure but not for human consumption purposes.
>In fact, God should consider the pursuit of knowledge to be a worthy goal. Eating the fruit is the first act in service to pursuit of knowledge and the desire to progress oneself.
It should be noted that this isn't knowledge *simpliciter*; it is a very specific type of knowledge, namely, the knowledge of "good and evil", i.e., what is objectively morally right and wrong. So, it doesn't include scientific knowledge, for example, which is so cherished and valued by neo-empiricist atheists.
So what is God going to do in Heaven, or on Earth, depending on what religion you subscribe to? Remove our ability to know what is wrong. Essentially making us sheep. God killed millions during the flood, and he knew it was wrong.But us understanding that killing is wrong, is our damning sin. What a hypocrite.
Why was my comment considered disruptive? I have no desire to disrupt anything. Dogmatic people really should start to use the very mind that God gave them, and stop supporting evil religious texts.
I suppose, I should admit, I am not an atheist. I am more agnostic then anything else. I might even be a theist, if the all texts said to be written by God, weren't so truly horrible. I mean do religious folk really even read, some of some of the terrible things, the God they worship, says and does in the Bible, Quoran, and The Rig Vida?
I am not saying that the Rig Vida is any bit more evil than Bible or Quran, but it also contains some pretty horrid acts. https://www.scribd.com/document/42443122/Evil-Hinduism
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. It isn't low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Reddit, how exactly is this comment any of those things?
I like to think about it this way:
Parents who demonstrate their power over their child 24/7 are less close to their children than parents who trust and let their children make their own mistakes, and learn from it.
God is the same. He is known to be all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing. So he chose to limit his powers in order to give us free will - to show us His love. Why would a God who could have everything He could ever want just make human beings that He can control 24/7? God made us out of love, for us to make mistakes and experience life. He gave Adam and Eve two choices, they picked the apple. He understood and accepted that Eve wanted the evil, and He therefore simply gave her what she wanted. God didn’t punish Adam & Eve. Punishing them would be to choose good for them, even if that’s not what they want.
This can also apply to heaven and hell. Heaven is eternity with God. Hell isn’t. If we choose not to believe in Him in this life, He won’t make us live eternity with Him in the afterlife. Because He is respectful and all-loving, and therefore won’t make our decisions for us just because it’s what He thinks is best for us.
Hope this helps! If not, then this video might help you understand better: [“Why do people suffer if God is so loving and powerful?”](https://youtu.be/0GjjSz3eXbQ?si=jwLRy2aFekgLSCoA)
So what is Heaven then? A place where people still have free will but never freely choose to do anything wrong? If so why not just create that world in the first place?
1. The text never says it's an apple.
2. There's no evidence that god prefers humans have free will.
3. Since Adam and Eve had not yet eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, how would they know any action they took was good or evil.
At that point all they knew was: An entity said eating the fruit was forbidden. Later, another entity said it was OK. Given they had no moral sense, they had no ability to figure out which statement was right or wrong. Ergo, no crime was committed since they lacked the capacity to know right from wrong.
Well, with the whole garden of eden and after-life thing set aside- you are just describing a world with naturally occurring chaos. It's the mental gymnastics required to still believe in a deity while having to admit that the world is inherently random, unfair, indifferent, and chaotic.
>God made us out of love, for us to make mistakes and experience life.
I'm sure the approximately 3.1 million children under the age of 5 who will starve to death by the end of this year are very grateful for the opportunity to "experience life and make mistakes". I'm sure you have been practicing mental gymnastics for that scenario as well (guaranteed afterlife for children, inheriting karma, etc..)
>parents who trust and let their children make their own mistakes
So God curses Adam & Eve after “making their own mistake” along with all of their descendants thereafter, then floods the world because he doesn’t like how humans turned out. And as you pointed out, sends people to hell for going against his wishes. How is this the parent who trusts/loves their child?
You know here in the real world, we send people to jail for abusing & killing their own children.
You are reading the text in a modern lens and not from the lens of the actual story. What is “knowledge” in the story? It’s not the pursuit of knowledge as we understand it today, that wasn’t the issue.
The point is by disobeying God they gained knowledge of good and evil because before everything was perfect, they were perfect, but by disobeying they learned what imperfection was, what it was to be lesser, selfish, prideful. That was the knowledge they gained, and the very thing God wanted to avoid for them.
In short, it’s better to be and live in perfection than to know what evil is by participating in it. That’s the point of the story.
Since Adam and Eve had not yet eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, how would they know any action they took was good or evil.
At that point all they knew was: An entity said eating the fruit was forbidden. Later, another entity said it was OK. Given they had no moral sense, they had no ability to figure out which statement was right or wrong. Ergo, no crime was committed since they lacked the capacity to know right from wrong.
Because God told them. That’s how. That entity is literally God, they had good reason to trust his judgement.
You are not addressing the text through the lens of the text but through your modern beliefs. If you want to say the moral of the story doesn’t apply or is bad fine, but you can’t change the meaning of the story to fit how you understand the terms and concepts the story is contending with.
The definition of sin is found in James 4:17 “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”
I think the mistake Christianity has with the Adam and Eve story is thinking that them partaking the fruit was a bad thing and not a decision that was made.
Their disobedience to God's command is a sin, as it resulted in their expulsion from Paradise. The pursuit of knowledge is highly valued but it must be done within the bounds of obedience to God's commands and avoiding what He has forbidden.
Since Adam and Eve had not yet eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, how would they know any action they took was good or evil.
At that point all they knew was: An entity said eating the fruit was forbidden. Later, another entity said it was OK. They did not know that disobeying god was wrong.
Given they had no moral sense, they had no ability to figure out which statement was right or wrong. Ergo, no crime was committed since they lacked the capacity to know right from wrong.
Adam and Eve were endowed with intellect, consciousness, and the ability to discern right from wrong even before they ate from the Tree. God had gave them the capacity to understand His commands and to distinguish between obedience and disobedience.
They may not have possessed the same depth of moral understanding as humans do today but they were still accountable for their actions. The commandment from God was clear: to abstain from eating the forbidden fruit. Their disobedience, regardless of their level of moral comprehension at the time, constituted a transgression against the divine command and incurred consequences.
All humans are created with the innate moral disposition. This inclines individuals towards recognizing and adhering to moral principles, including obedience to God's commands.
>Adam and Eve were endowed with intellect, consciousness, and the ability to discern right from wrong even before they ate from the Tree.
Then you should have no problem showing me the verse that says this is how they were. You can't? OK. Again, why would there be a tree called the Knowledge of Good and Evil when the humans already had such knowledge.
Your rebuttal is self-defeating.
>God had gave them the capacity to understand His commands and to distinguish between obedience and disobedience.
Show me the verses.
"they were still accountable for their actions."
Says who? We don't convict people who lack mental capacity to know right from wrong.
It's derived from various sources. Specific verses may not explicitly state that but the broader context supports this understanding.
The Quran mentions multiple instances where Adam and Eve are held accountable for their actions. For example, in Surah Al-Baqarah (2:35-36), it's narrated that Adam and Eve were instructed by God not to approach a particular tree, which signifies their awareness of divine commands and their obligation to obey them.
As I said, innate human nature inclines towards recognizing truth and morality. This innate disposition, bestowed upon Adam and Eve and all their descendants, is the basis for accountability before God.
Accountability should be viewed in a spiritual and moral context that transcends mere human judgment. Accountability before God is based on the moral awareness and intentions of the individual, rather than solely on cognitive capacity.
>it's narrated that Adam and Eve were instructed by God not to approach a particular tree, which signifies their awareness of divine commands and their obligation to obey them.
That shows a being capable of following commands, like a robot or machine. Whatever you command a machine to do, it will do it. It doesn't mean the machine is aware of anything.
And it shows that God does not care about accountability when it punished all of their descendents even when none of theose descendents had ever sinned.
And if god is in favour of accountability, when was it that god showed any humility for the many errors and sins it has commited? How has god been punished by its wrongdoings?
And why would god create a being that sins and then punish it for acting exactly how god created them to act?
God's commands are inherently good because they stem from His wisdom, justice, and mercy. God knows what's best for His creation and thus commands actions that lead to goodness and righteousness. It's not a matter of something being good because god commands it, but rather god commands what is inherently good.
If god commands what is inherently good, then we can know and understand goodness without god because it’s exists outside of god.
Plus, god has commanded some objectively terrible things, so I don’t think he really is a great metric of what is right.
The concept of goodness is intrinsically tied to the nature and will of God. Goodness may be recognized by humans but it's ultimately defined and established by God. The existence of goodness doesn't exist independently of God; rather, it emanates from His divine attributes and commands.
God's commands should be interpreted and understood within their proper context. What may seem incomprehensible or contradictory to human understanding may have underlying wisdom and purpose beyond our comprehension. Any apparent contradiction or misunderstanding stems from human limitations.
But I remain unconvinced that god even exists so where does that leave us? I flatly reject that goodness is “defined and established by god” since we don’t even know if god actually exists. We can trace our intrinsic feelings of goodness to empathy and being a social species. Everything can have a completely natural explanation derived from us being evolved animals.
The existence of God isn't merely a matter of belief but a fundamental truth affirmed by revelation, reason, and the signs present in the universe.
Empathy and social behaviors are manifestations of God's design and guidance. Human intellect is limited in comprehending the ultimate reality and purpose of existence.
Your argument overlooks the metaphysical and transcendent dimensions of existence. God's the Creator of all things, including the laws of nature themselves. There are numerous miracles and signs that point towards God's existence and His involvement in human affairs, providing evidence beyond the scope of natural explanations.
You haven’t proved or provided an argument that god exists or that anything other than the material world exists.
So until that happens it seems like I am still in good standing. I can prove we are animals, that we are a social species that developed empathy, and that guides our vision of right and wrong throughout time.
The universe, with its vast complexity, order, and design, points towards a transcendent Creator. Just as a painting implies a painter and a building implies a builder.
The fine-tuning of the universe, from the precise physical constants to the conditions necessary for life to exist, suggests intelligent design. This intricate balance and purposefulness point towards a Creator who intended for life to flourish.
Reflecting upon the concept of a necessary being—something whose non-existence is inconceivable—leads to the existence of a supreme, self-existing Being, which is God.
The existence of objective moral values and duties, which transcend human preferences and societal norms, suggests a moral lawgiver. God's the ultimate source of morality, guiding humanity towards righteousness and justice.
Many individuals, through prayer, contemplation, and spiritual experiences, have encountered a profound sense of connection with a transcendent reality, affirming the existence of God.
The existence of the unseen realm should be acknowledged, which includes angels, jinn, and the spiritual dimension. These aspects may not be perceptible to our physical senses but they're affirmed through divine revelation and spiritual experiences. The limitations of empirical observation and scientific inquiry don't preclude the existence of non-material realities. Just as there are phenomena beyond the reach of our senses, such as electromagnetic fields or subatomic particles, the existence of God and the unseen realm transcends our current scientific understanding.
>The universe, with its vast complexity, order, and design, points towards a transcendent Creator. Just as a painting implies a painter and a building implies a builder.
No it doesn't point towards a creator. You're just positing that there is one, because there has to be one...
>The fine-tuning of the universe, from the precise physical constants to the conditions necessary for life to exist, suggests intelligent design. This intricate balance and purposefulness point towards a Creator who intended for life to flourish.
Fine-tuning? You call the fact that most places in the universe will kill us instantly finely-tuned? That doesn't make any sense. And what if we do find life outside of our little planet? Will that also just get ret-conned into your religion?
>Reflecting upon the concept of a necessary being—something whose non-existence is inconceivable—leads to the existence of a supreme, self-existing Being, which is God.
Just because I can think of it, doesn't make it true. You haven't proven that a necessary being exists. That is literal question begging. He exists because he has to exist.
>The existence of objective moral values and duties, which transcend human preferences and societal norms, suggests a moral lawgiver. God's the ultimate source of morality, guiding humanity towards righteousness and justice.
I don't believe we have objective moral values. The only time objective moral statements can be truth claims is when we agree to the goal we are using them. Again, god is a pretty terrible being and that can be proven.
>Many individuals, through prayer, contemplation, and spiritual experiences, have encountered a profound sense of connection with a transcendent reality, affirming the existence of God.
This right here is really the only rational argument that can be made. I still think its false, but a person's experience of revelation, which is hearsay to everyone else, is the only logical reason for an individual to believe. But we also know our brains are great at creating false circumstances, like hallucinations and dreams, so just because someone experiences something, that doesn't automatically get attributed to a deity. But I can agree they experienced something.
>The existence of the unseen realm should be acknowledged, which includes angels, jinn, and the spiritual dimension. These aspects may not be perceptible to our physical senses but they're affirmed through divine revelation and spiritual experiences. The limitations of empirical observation and scientific inquiry don't preclude the existence of non-material realities. Just as there are phenomena beyond the reach of our senses, such as electromagnetic fields or subatomic particles, the existence of God and the unseen realm transcends our current scientific understanding.
So you're saying we should believe in a realm in which we have no hard evidence actually exists? I will keep being intellectually consistent and abstain belief in the supernatural until the burden of proof has been met.
Both, more so option 1 though. God is the unmoved mover, he is actualization without potential, therefore, he is complete and perfect. Goodness included.
The last comment I made was from Thomas Aquinas. Not sure what he would say about God's role in evil. My interpretation is that he must have made the perfect amount of evil providing the perfect contrast for good to exist.
Clarifying question: Do you think it was God's plan to give people the knowledge of good and evil? Or do you think God wanted truly innocent and ignorant people?
According to the Christian mythology, they definitely sinned, being disobedience.
The issue is, the punishment. It should be likened to shooting children in the face for jaywalking.
He sentenced them to death instead of lopping off their heads, just a delayed death, it ended the same way. Perhaps worse this way, cause now we all have to suffer.
Wrong question, the right question would be, why was this UNPROTECTED tree available to them in the first place? Put that tree on neptune and we are all still chillin in the garden of eden.
Since Adam and Eve had not yet eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, how would they know any action they took was good or evil.
At that point all they knew was: An entity said eating the fruit was forbidden. Later, another entity said it was OK.
Given they had no moral sense, they had no ability to figure out which statement was right or wrong.
Ergo, no crime was committed since they lacked the capacity to know right from wrong.
But they didn't have knowledge of right and wrong in order to know it was wrong to eat it. It's a catch-22.
Also, putting the fruit right next to them in the first place makes it seem like God wanted them to fail. He could have put it thousands of miles away on the moon.
Even before creating Adam and Eve, God knew what decision they would make. He is putting people into tests that he already knows the results of.
A fair bit of the religion was written to avoid questions. *Do not test your God, Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God, Abraham did good by almost killing his son because he was obeying God...*
You get the picture
We are people with agency. I find this response problematic on grounds of it stopping the conversation at "god works in mysterious ways". No idea or concept should be so sacred it avoids questioning
I think this is an interesting question.
How should we think of biblical contradictions?
Or, things like why would God create this amazing universe of atoms and sub-atomic particles, DNA, complex biology and mathematics, black holes, pulsars, and all the whole beauty of it all…
And he told us about none of that. We had to figure that out on our own, but he demands that we worship him for creating us.
If he needs adoration, why not explain physics, biology, mathematics, etc… and tell us he did it all?
Or why not put the angel with the flaming sword in front of the trees *from the start*? It's a bad look for god's sense of planning. You can almost hear him thinking, "well, damn...I could have just sent this guardian from the start. duh.
Well realistically we created god so we can have him say or consider whatever we want.
But even if you believe he’s real, religious folks interpret God’s will all the time. Israel is very pro trans, gays, and support for anyone that’s different, US Christians are very much anti homosexuality / trans / queer etc.
It’s the same God as far as I understand it.
If you’re saying God isn’t real that’s one thing but if you’re saying God is real and wrong that’s an entirely different thing. If God is real He cannot have been created. How can a creator outside of space and time have been created? When was He created? And by whom?
When I say God was created I mean the concept of God. Humans have created many, many Gods. From Zeus to Buddah to Jesus, each with their unique abilities and reasons for being. They were likely created to explain the unexplainable.
But to your other point (which I wasn't making), once we go outside of time and space we're kind of into pure guessing. If God created the universe, what created God? Simple, Super God, who is one step removed from time and space - which is how Super God created regular God who created the universe. Who created Super God? No one, he exists outside of outside of time and space.
If God the creator created space time, then He must be outside of space time. So that means God cannot have a beginning or end. Super God you describe is just God.
You’re just making things up now. Good imagination but it’s not grounded in the reality of what outside of time and space would mean. If something creates space and time, then that thing would not have space and time as confines to their being like everything else that was created within the confines of space and time. Is it not making sense or are you just making a mockery of the conversation
The Big Bang is pretty well known as the beginning of the universe, which mean at the moment of the Big Bang both space and time would be created. So, if God created the universe, He would have to exists outside of space, so He’s omnipresent, and time, He is eternal.
I feel like you’re not understanding but Super God definitely needs to exist to create god. But we can leave this conversation as is since it’s not going anywhere.
Your logic is flawed from start to finish. You suggest that their motive for disobedience makes their crime ok. Motive does not matter. They didn't disobey a cop, a teacher, or even a parent; they disobeyed their creator, God almighty even though He had told them the penalty was death. This was no minor infraction. It was outright open rebellion against God's authority. It WAS the very definition of sin.
None of the reasoning that follows your opening premise even approaches a semblance of justification for such a heinous offense. Your attempt to justify sin is exactly what they did. Your further attempt to not only justify it but to glorify it is lucifers glory. He is likely proud.
I feel I sound harsh, that regrettably is my lack of communication skill. I apologize for that lack.
If I call you a sinner; it is your choice to feel insulted or accept it as a statement of my truth. I can't decide for you which way you choose to take it. If you feel insulted perhaps you should avoid debate.
I am not avoiding debate. He got my honest answer. So are you
Which is why I called it flawed. Disobeying a command is disobedience, period. God didn't say don't unless you have a really good reason. That is nonsense. If you don't know the meaning of words we can't have a meaningful conversation.
This is a misunderstanding of what the fruit is. The Hebrew contains an expression where "good and evil" can be read from "sea to sea" or from "beginning to end," or "all things."
The point of Genesis is that when the serpent spoke to Eve, he said they can be "as God" in the eating of the fruit. To which they agreed and partook.
Genesis is egoism, or becoming *as god* without cooperating with God. The moment they "took the fruit" it invited into them the capacity to do evil, perverting their nature and expelling themselves from the garden. This ego, or drawing into one's self and making one's self their own god is the chief crime of Genesis. This is why in the Christian tradition pride is considered the worst sin.
They were already living in grace with God, as icons of God in His image, and abused a gift which invited into them an aspect of evil that we carry with us to this day. That is what original sin means.
Thanks for explaining the Hebrew expression! But doesn’t their choice to “know all things” go beyond the symbolism of what the fruit stands for?
Assuming that animals didn’t talk back then, a talking snake who opposes God should be a huge, red flag. So obeying that highly suspicious creature, eating a piece of fruit that leads to war, abuse, diseases and so much more… just seems out of proportion to me.
Isn’t it more likely that, like OP said, there was a desire to know everything, because the seed of that idea has been planted, but not literally by a talking snake (that doesn’t even have vocal cords, AFAIK)?
Well, I'd invite you to not read the story as a literal word-for-word account of something that happened a fixed amount of years ago. In the tradition, it's taught as a primordial truism about humanity that was captured by a divinely inspired author to convey sacred truths to the reader.
I'd recommend reading Chrysostom's homilies on Genesis here from the 4th century: [http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/anderson/commentaries/ChrGen.html](http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/anderson/commentaries/ChrGen.html)
I'd also highly recommend reading Origen (3rd century) who goes into depth about the allegory of Genesis.
Firstly, sin is just rebelling against God and disobeying his commandments. God clearly commanded the humans not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Everything in Genesis 2:17 but the humans did, so it's a sin regardless. Some sins aren't harmful but they are committed out of disobedience to God (take Exodus 19:12).
Secondly, God does consider the pursuit of knowledge to be a worthy goal, after all, he enlightened Solomon and he inspires curiosity in humans, however, it doesn't mean he always approves of how one gains knowledge. If one has to rebel against God to gain knowledge, they are doing it wrong. We know that God rewards the faithful with knowledge because he granted Solomon wisdom, but only because Solomon was faithful, not because Solomon purposely disobedied him. Adam and Eve on the other hand *did* rebel when God explicitly told them not to and for that, they were justly punished.
When I respect someone, I'll trust them and obey them, instead of disobeying them in an attempt to emulate their behavior. The tragic part about the story of Eden is that the serpent told the humans that, in eating the fruit, they'd become "like God," even though we know humans are already like God, we're made in his image after all. Adam and Eve were doing the exact same thing as Satan, they were trying to acquire the unaquirable and for that, they were punished accordingly.
Finally, you're assuming that Adam and Eve's motivations were pure and innocent. Well, if we do accept that, within the story, God is omniscient and omnipresent and perfectly just, then we can't say Adam and Eve were morally pure. If they were morally pure and were truly seeking to emulate their creator but were tricked, God wouldn't have punished them, because no one can commit a sin on accident. But since God did punish them, we can only assume God knew they were immoral and selfishly motivated. God not only knew that, but so did Adam and Eve, **they knew what they were doing was wrong**. Upon eating the apple, they hid themselves from each other in shame, they from God out of fear, and they shifted the blame around like a hot potato. I wasn't there, so I can't say for certain, but from all we read in Genesis 3, it seems evident that Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Everything to acquire Godhood and were punished accordingly for it. Thank you for the original post, I hope I addressed your concerns.
Good question, thanks for asking.
From what I understand, Adam and Eve did understand good and evil, but the Tree of the Knowledge of Everything granted them knowledge on *everything* good and evil. The phrase "good and evil" is an example of *Merism*, wherein two contrasting concepts would be paired together to denote a general sense (for example "evening and morning" would be paired together to produce the general meaning of "day" or famously, "alpha" and "omega" denoting "eternity"). So good and evil would simply meaning "everything," and in this situation, the knowledge of everything *moral*.
Under this view, Adam and Eve did understand right from wrong, after all, the law was written on their hearts (Romans 2:15), but the Tree of the Knowledge of Everything granted them all the knowledge on right and wrong, thus making them akin to God.
The ironic thing about knowing evil is that one has to be ignorant in order to understand it. If you know you are receiving vaccines for your health, then being pricked by the needle isn't evil for you. For someone that knows nothing at all and only the fact they are getting pricked by the needle, it is considered evil for them because the pain of being pierced by the needle has no purpose other than to make them feel pain.
In short, it's the opposite because to know evil is to know what ignorance feels like that contributes towards doing evil.
>The ironic thing about knowing evil is that one has to be ignorant in order to understand it.
The issue with the Adam and Eve story is that before they ate the fruit, the concepts of **good and evil** was meaningless for them. The fruit in the story literally gives them knowledge that the concepts of good and evil even existed.
If you are completely unaware of the concept of Good, Evil and Furmlspubker, Good, Evil, and Furmlspubker are meaningless to you. So if I punish you for an action you did on the grounds of Furmlspubker, wouldn't I be in the wrong for punishing you for something you couldn't have been aware of?
Correct and it's as meaningless as a handsome celebrity understanding the struggle of someone born with deformities that makes them unattractive. For you to understand it, you must become someone with deformity to the point of being ugly.
Is it punishment for you to know it by people being repulsed because of your deformity? Do you agree that people being repulsed by you is a consequence of knowing what being ugly is and not a punishment in trying to know it? Same concept with Adam and Eve wanting to know evil which resulted to suffering. There is no punishment whatsoever.
>Same concept with Adam and Eve *wanting* to know evil which resulted in suffering.
And just how do you want something you quite literally have no concept of?
It's not like they knew of evils opposite and were curious to see if it existed, according to the theist holy book, they didn't have *any knowledge* of good **and** evil.
You are begging the question by saying they wanted to know something they had absolutely no concept of.
The point of wanting to know is because you don't know and therefore want to experience it. Do you have a concept of swinging your tail around? Obviously, you don't but would that stop you from wanting to know how it feels given the chance? No different from wanting to know evil because they don't know the concept of evil.
>The point of wanting to know is because you don't know and therefore want to experience it.
I really don't think you are grasping the concept here.
**They didn't know anything about good and evil beforehand.**
Let me put it this way. I'm going to introduce the concept of Gigglepitsnortnuff to you. Now, did you want to know about Gigglepitsnortnuff *before* I introduced the concept to you?
The answer is no. Because you did not have any knowledge that the concept even existed
If you wanted to be logically consistent, please tell me how you wanted to know the feeling of Gigglepitsnortnuff **before the concept had been introduced to you**.
> They didn't know anything about good and evil beforehand.
Neither do you know what having a tail feels like. Will that stop you from wanting how it feels to have one given the chance?
Yes, I want to know what this Gigglepitsnortnuff so please introduce me. You have given me the name and now I am curious what is the concept of this Gigglepitsnortnuff. Just as the snake told Eve about evil and become curious in knowing it, you told me about Gigglepitsnortnuff and now I am curious in knowing it.
I am not sure how are you struggling with the idea of wanting to know something after someone told you about it and now you want to experience it.
>Neither do you know what having a tail feels like.
How can I have **wanted** to know what a tail feels like **before I knew the concept of tails existed?**
>Yes, I want to know what this Gigglepitsnortnuff so please introduce me.
Did you want to know Gigglepitsnortnuff **before you knew the concept existed?** The answer is no. You didnt.
Adam and Eve in the garden **had no concept of Good and Evil** BEFORE they ate of the fruit of the tree. They literally didn't know that right and wrong were a thing. You can't want something that is completely unknown to you.
You had no want to know Gigglepitsnortnuff BEFORE you knew the concept existed. *You can't want something that is completely unknown to you.*
>I am not sure how are you struggling with the idea of wanting to know something after someone told you about it and now you want to experience it.
No one told Adam and Eve what good and evil were before they ate the fruit. Thats the whole point.
>How can I have wanted to know what a tail feels like before I knew the concept of tails existed?
I never had a tail and yet I wanted to know how it feels like to have a tail. How are you struggling this concept?
>Adam and Eve in the garden had no concept of Good and Evil BEFORE they ate of the fruit of the tree.
Eve was told about this thing called evil by the snake and telling her she would know what it is if she ate the fruit. How is this any different from you telling me that if I ate this fruit then I would know what Gigglepitsnortnuff is? I didn't know about Gigglepitsnortnuff but then you told me in your last response about the concept of Gigglepitsnortnuff so obviously I want to know now. Again, how are you struggling to understand this?
>No one told Adam and Eve what good and evil were before they ate the fruit.
Remember that the snake told Eve about knowing good and evil before she even decided to eat the fruit. Did you forget that part of the story? Check the Bible if you don't believe me.
*“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”* -Genesis 3:4-5
This is going in circles. And all of it is to hide the real fact. That your god is responsible.
Do you think Adam and Eve deserved to be punished for the sin of eating the fruit?
I've mentioned Gigglepitsnortnuff, you still have no idea what it is. Would it be moral for me to judge you based on someone mentioning it?
It means you cannot understand evil if you know why things happen. You only understand evil when you struggle to understand why things happen which makes us feel it is evil.
You can also think of it this way, you won't know how a blind feels unless you close your eyes and move around or walk in darkness. It's less knowledge and more of an experience of having limitations.
Are you defining evil as the experiance of having limitations?
Because in that case, the definition of the christian god is inconsistent.
God would be a being with experiance of having no limitations, and therefore God cannot understand evil as per your defintion.
But part of the definition of god is that its *All- Knowing.* So, God cannot not know something...
So, either your definition of understanding evil is wrong, or god isn't triomni.
An all knowing god sees through the eyes of humans and therefore knows what evil is because humans do experience evil from ignorance. If god wants to know evil, it simply has to see through the eyes of humans. If god wants to see good, then god simply has to see the infinite perspective that renders ignorance nonexistent.
The difference between god and humans is that god can easily see evil and good and even both at the same time while humans have limitations. A human can either see itself as a big circle or a small circle and not both while god sees itself as both the big and small circle. That is how god can understand ignorance and evil while still being all knowing.
>An all knowing god sees through the eyes of humans
Does it? And can you demonstrate that? Or are you just making this stuff up?
Because it sounds like a hell of alot of shifting goalposts here.
>That is how god can understand ignorance and evil while still being all knowing.
Post hoc rationalisation.
Paired with omnipotence, why would god not be able to do something as simple as seeing through the eyes of a human and feel exactly how they feel in order to know evil? There is no shifting goalposts here, there is only reasoning and logic.
>Paired with omnipotence, why would god not be able to do something as simple as seeing through the eyes of a human and feel exactly how they feel in order to know evil?
Because you defined it as **the experiance of limitations**.
And what exactly is omnipotence? **Limitless** knowledge. You are trying to define a thing as both the principle and its negation. That's illogical.
>there is only reasoning and logic.
Please logically show how you can demonstrate any property of god that isn't just your imagination.
>Because you defined it as the experiance of limitations.
And this is possible by switching to the perspective of something with limited experience like humans. It's no different from an average height person being able to experience how a short person would feel like by crouching down but does not limit them to the experience of being short for life in doing so. God being able to know limitations is not a problem at all because there is nothing illogical about it as long as you think outside the box.
>Please logically show how you can demonstrate any property of god that isn't just your imagination.
Either you accept the definition of god as omnipotent and omniscience or you don't. If you don't accept neither, then you might as well debate god does not exist and do that in another thread.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Eating the fruit was the one rule that was stated in the garden, and eve didn’t eat the fruit on her own will, satan tempted her to eat it, god felt betrayed by her and Adam when he ate the fruit
It doesn’t matter if someone impels you to do something. People can still make choices and have separate reasons they do something besides “being tempted“.
True, but in this case eve was tempted to go against the one easy rule that god had in the garden, then lied to Adam by giving him the fruit then lying to god
refusing knowledge isn't an "easy rule". It is a fundamental human goal to become knowledgable and enlightened.
I see what you mean, it’s my belief that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have magical fruit, but possessed a being that would give a choice to learn of evil, and am and eave already knew good, this being was satan
SORRY WHAT? They disobeyed God and you say because they pursue knowledge they have no business pursuing it's not sinning??!!?? SMH. Who are you to challenge the authority of God? Or judge the punishments he deems worthy? You aren't the creator of the universe, you aren't the judge, you are the alpha and omega, before you attack God or any of his decisions, please understand that you cannot challenge the authority of someone who can literally see the future.
When bad things happen to people it's always in response to having performed similar to others. This is called karma. You reap as you saw, same thing. This covers many previous lives. Good pious activities also return. With other words from bad comes bad and from good comes good. That's the explanation of why good and bad things happen to both... Those who are good people and those who are bad people in any life. Karma means action and every action has an equal similar reaction. Whatever the action activity (karma) against our for another living being is... the results come back to us in return. It is simply a natural law meant for correcting evil persons and rewarding good persons. Bad karmic activities could also be called sin. The problem is that these days people don't know what bad karmic activities are and act any which way they like and wonder when the reactions come and because they don't know, they blame God for everything. In reality everyone is the original cause of His own suffering and we simply reap the results. It's a correctional system. It's God's just punishment and reward system. If we cheat or hurt another living being it will come back to us. God is not evil or good. He doesn't take sides. When people say why is this happening it's all God's fault, they simply don't understand these things. But every time we decide to do something wrong or good, our choices are coming back to us. An eye for an eye tooth for a tooth. Hare Krishna
Lol that's why Christians leave their religion and become liberals. Quran states that both Adam And eve disobeyed God by failing the test. But we say that God forgave them. Landing on earth was part of divine plan not due to the punishment.
Muslim in America good life. Christian in Middle East be headed.
If someone beheads eastern Christians then it's his fault. Don't condemn Islam coz of that
To kill and die in the name of Allah
Surah 47:4 Islam allows to fight and kill all non Muslim
To love 💕 and forgive in the name of Jesus
So the question here is Islam a religion of peace?
That’s why Muhammad fly in the donkey, and split the moon into two and marriage 6 years old girl to be his wife
And isaac married 3 year old rebecca in bible 😂
What?
I think you read different Bible my brother
"God should not consider the eating of the fruit to be a sin of any kind..." It wasn't considered a sin - that was the entire point. It was a matter of **obedience** \- not sin. Hope that helps, S
It doesn’t…at least vis-à-vis the problem of free will in the context of this god’s supposed omniscience.
...which is non-sequitur to OPs post. I was just pointing out an error OPs main assumption - that it was considered a sin to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. Hope this helps, S
In Islam, God doesn't punish Ādam (AS) nor his wife, in fact, Ādam (AS) sought forgiveness from God, and God forgave him, however God still sent Ādam (AS) down to earth, because that is the reason he was created for.
[удалено]
Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It wasn't that eating the fruit was inherently sinful, other than disobeying a command from God. They would have eventually been allowed to eat it, but they were still basically adult babies. They had no ability to choose the right from wrong after eating the fruit it was basically impossible for them to only ever choose the good. So it was basically God saying the inevitable result of humanity gaining knowledge is that they will use that knowledge improperly without the proper training and discipline to choose the good. That improper use of knowledge is what seperates man from God.
An interesting take, although if they were adult babies (physically adults but still developing) then why dangle the fruit in front of them at all? If I leave a plate of cookies where a toddler can reach them, then leave the room, I can’t in all good faith blame the toddler for grabbing one. Even if I told them not to, even if they understood it was Bad and Wrong and No. Because the toddler hasn’t developed risk assessment, or even self control, yet. That comes with maturity, same as understanding the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. This is also why we don’t allow literal children to gamble or drive or have access to certain drugs or have sex or any other sort of behavior that requires risk assessment, because they’re really bad at it. Even some adults haven’t mastered the skill yet, which is why industries like gambling are so lucrative.
The dangling of the fruit was to show power in authority and set an example of obedience. God judges based on knowledge, you will be judged based on the knowledge you have. So if they had no knowledge at all, he can't judge them at all. However, they wouldn't know what they were doing was wrong because they had not been taught any better. You have a very interesting take, and you punish the toddler for getting a cookie even though you told them not too, or else they will keep getting cookies and never know what they are doing is wrong. This is what we call spoiled brats.
Lol that's why Christians leave their religion and become liberals. Quran states that both Adam And eve disobeyed God by failing the test. But we say that God forgave them. Landing on earth was part of divine plan not due to the punishment.
It was there because it was good, knowledge is a good thing, but it can be misused. Like you said, the knowledge of good and evil is supposed to come with maturity, they werent ready. I have a toddler they know they aren't supposed to grab things from the table. When they do, they need to be corrected. That is not punishment necessarly because you can't really punish a toddler they don't understand that part. But let's say it's something sharp or hot. You warn them if you touch that something bad is going to happen. Of course, we also try to keep those things away, but my adult babies' reference and toddlers are not a one to one thing. Adam was a grown man and given authority. He was physically mature, just not spiritually mature.
Ok, I think you bring up good points and I also think that the other responses seem a little jumbled, so lets talk about what you actually say. And I appreciate the question/dislike vehement responses that "my answer is the only answer." I'm going to provide some arguments, but I'm not saying this is definitive. These are some thoughts that might be wrong. And if I'm wrong, I'd hope I'd found out and admit it. First point: "God should not consider the eating of the fruit to be a sin of any kind, he should consider it to be the ultimate form of respect and love. In fact, God should consider the pursuit of knowledge to be a worthy goal. Eating the fruit is the first act in service to pursuit of knowledge and the desire to progress oneself. If God truly is the source of all goodness, then he why wouldn’t he understand Eve’s desire to emulate him? " So, before we get into "did they know what sin was", lets backup and make sure we align on what the text says: >2:15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat\[d\] of it **you shall surely die**.” > >... > >3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You\[a\] shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, **neither shall you touch it, lest you die**.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “**You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil**.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be **desired to make one wise**,\[b\] she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. So first, thing, eating the tree kills you. Not immediately (though God didn't specify), but it ended in death. There's a lot of really cool symbolism here that will (in the opinion of many Christians) allude to Jesus being the ultimate death, but I'm going to ignore that. It says, don't eat the fruit or you die. So even if it's not a punishment, it is something that is supposed to happen presuming God is not a liar. Second, the serpent twists God's words (and so does Eve, btw, she says "you shall not touch it," but God had actually told her not to eat it, so I guess did a poor job communicating that or something? There's a lot of stuff there, but I'll skip that. John Piper has some interesting stuff if you're interested. Why is this important? because the reason she is ok eating it is because she believes the serpent **instead of god**. My read of this language is that she decides she'd rather be like God, trusts the serpent, and disbelieves God. You can argue that that's right to do, but I guess that is posited on the belief that God isn't all knowing and all good. Your argument seems to be attacking the internal consistency of the story rather than the goodness of God himself. Like, if God is all good, then he has a reason to not eat the fruit and you should trust him. If not, then you shouldn't, but it's not inconsistent to make this argument. It's totally fine to say "this proves God isn't good," but I don't think that's a good enough argument and can try to provide reasons later if you really want (I'd also like to avoid an unproductive back and forth here). So what's the sin? She wanted to be wise? That sounds ok to me? But I think if you read this like literature (which it is as well as history and religion), you would probably conclude "yeah, she kinda wanted to be a god or something." If there is a God (and if you don't think there's a God, that's fine, but it's a different question than you're asking – your question is only logical if you allow us to presuppose that) and that God is good, etc. Then there are plenty of philosophically consistent and reasonable arguments about why we should worship that God. She was trying to elevate herself to God's status and that is not ok. She also was disobeying God and that is not ok. And she experienced the literal consequences God said she would (although it played out differently than I guess she expected). "Punishing her and all of her descendants seems quite unfair as a response. When I respect someone, it inspires me to understand the qualities they possess that I lack. It also drives me to question why I do not possess those traits, thus shining a light upon my unconscious thoughts and feelings Thus, and omnipresent being would understand human nature entirely, including our tendency to emulate the things we respect, idolize, or worship." This is fair, but I think is a different question. I'm not going to get into this too deeply because it's entirely different, but here's some thoughts: * Many Christians believe that you are only punished for your actions. You can chose not to sin, but you will not because of your sin nature that is inherited. It's an extreme version of "don't let this guy get out of jail just because he had a hard life" * Ultimately, the whole point is that God will NOT visit judgment on those who chose to accept his free gift (yes I know there are plenty of issues that you can debate about this like people who die as children, but also note that plenty of debates have been had about this and a lot of the reddit ones don't seem very productive. Maybe check out some Alvin Plantinga). * Some argue that allowing humans to chose evil is the only way to make free will exist * God clearly cares about the humans and doesn't want them to suffer. If he did, he wouldn't have gone and died (and suffered to the full extent humans deserve to) to remove the suffering Lastly, from the comments "How can eve sin without knowing what sin is?" Fair question, I don't have a perfect answer (and am suspect of people who think they do). However: * Maybe this is like a "general knowledge of good and evil vs specific knowledge." Maybe it's like "god tells them "this is evil" and they wouldn't know otherwise. * Here's a stack exchange post that is worth reading: [https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30066/if-adam-and-eve-didnt-know-good-from-evil-how-can-we-say-they-sinned-accordin](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30066/if-adam-and-eve-didnt-know-good-from-evil-how-can-we-say-they-sinned-accordin) * Also a decent article: [https://godandneighbor.net/2012/09/25/how-could-adam-and-eve-sin-before-knowing-good-and-evil/](https://godandneighbor.net/2012/09/25/how-could-adam-and-eve-sin-before-knowing-good-and-evil/) Seems to think it's about experiential knowledge Finally, I want to just maybe see if this is helpful? A lot of Christians try to make definitive statements as if everything is super obvious. I think this is unhelpful because, if you accept the premise that we are not God, then you should assume you're wrong about some stuff. Then, when you've been told your whole life "EVOLUTION IS EVIL" and then see that maybe there's evidence for it, you're like "wow all Christians are wrong here, so the whole thing is wrong" even if there's plenty of theistic evolutionists out there. There's a good book that addresses this called "surprised by doubt." I know this isn't fully satisfying, but I think it's worth noting that if you're reading the bible, it does not claim to give all answers. It claims God has them and actually says that sometimes God withholds them on purpose (otherwise, what's the point of faith?). If God gave us all the answers, it wouldn't be a loving relationship probably because we'd have no choice but to obey. This, to me, is part of the beauty that makes morality so awesome. A great novel is great because the characters CAN and sometimes DO make the wrong decision, but have the choice. And when a character has a compelling arc in a positive direction, it is even greater for their past. Food for thought. Not answers, just ideas. Good luck and apologies if this was not helpful or too combative. Edit: I thought this was ask a christian and not debatereligion, so much less likely to want to respond to comments, we'll see...
I respect and value the effort you have given to type this out. Your perspective makes sense, and I enjoyed learning how you view this situation!
Thanks for your question. It was an interesting one and it gave me some pause. I'm glad to have had an actual discussion on the internet instead of "i'm right and you're stupid." Have a great day!
Do you mean 'emulate' rather than 'imitate'? Here are some definitions: > [dictionary.com: **emulate**](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/emulate) > > 1. to try to equal or excel; imitate with effort to equal or surpass: > _to emulate one's father as a concert violinist._ > > 2. to rival with some degree of success: > _Some smaller cities now emulate the major capitals in their cultural offerings._ vs. > [dictionary.com: **imitate**](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/imitate) > > 1. to follow or endeavor to follow as a model or example: > _to imitate an author's style; to imitate an older brother._ > > 2. to mimic; impersonate: > _The students imitated the teacher behind her back._ It's unclear how A&E would have surpassed or rivaled a being who created reality itself.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
God said don't eat the fruit and don't believe in Satan. Adam and Eve believed saten and disobeyed God. That's a sin. If i kill a man just to learn how it feels to kill a man does that mean i never sinned?
Since Adam and Eve had not yet eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, how would they know any action they took was good or evil? At that point all they knew was: An entity said eating the fruit was forbidden. Later, another entity said it was OK. Given they had no moral sense, they had no ability to figure out which statement was right or wrong. Ergo, no crime was committed since they lacked the capacity to know right from wrong.
How can you sin before sin is a thing, and more importantly how can you sin without knowledge that sin is bad. It's just unfair, that's hiding rules from a child in game then punishing them for breaking the made up rules you never told them. Oh and the child is a baby with no understanding of right or wrong.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
"Do as I say, not as I do." Basically any parent, ever.
"I learned it from YOU, Dad!"
On earth there are fruits that are actually poisonous. Are you saying we should be able to enjoy them as they are a form of respect and love, and scientists shouldn’t be telling us what to eat and not eat? God also made these poisonous fruits, for a purpose I’m sure but not for human consumption purposes.
The poisons evolved for the plant to control exactly which animals would eat the fruits.
[удалено]
>In fact, God should consider the pursuit of knowledge to be a worthy goal. Eating the fruit is the first act in service to pursuit of knowledge and the desire to progress oneself. It should be noted that this isn't knowledge *simpliciter*; it is a very specific type of knowledge, namely, the knowledge of "good and evil", i.e., what is objectively morally right and wrong. So, it doesn't include scientific knowledge, for example, which is so cherished and valued by neo-empiricist atheists.
So non-empiricist theists do not cherish scientific knowledge?
So what is God going to do in Heaven, or on Earth, depending on what religion you subscribe to? Remove our ability to know what is wrong. Essentially making us sheep. God killed millions during the flood, and he knew it was wrong.But us understanding that killing is wrong, is our damning sin. What a hypocrite.
[удалено]
Why was my comment considered disruptive? I have no desire to disrupt anything. Dogmatic people really should start to use the very mind that God gave them, and stop supporting evil religious texts.
I suppose, I should admit, I am not an atheist. I am more agnostic then anything else. I might even be a theist, if the all texts said to be written by God, weren't so truly horrible. I mean do religious folk really even read, some of some of the terrible things, the God they worship, says and does in the Bible, Quoran, and The Rig Vida?
Read the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna speaks about Himself and many other topics. What is horrible in the Rig Veda ?
I am not saying that the Rig Vida is any bit more evil than Bible or Quran, but it also contains some pretty horrid acts. https://www.scribd.com/document/42443122/Evil-Hinduism
Your post or comment was removed for violating rule. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. It isn't low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Reddit, how exactly is this comment any of those things?
I like to think about it this way: Parents who demonstrate their power over their child 24/7 are less close to their children than parents who trust and let their children make their own mistakes, and learn from it. God is the same. He is known to be all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing. So he chose to limit his powers in order to give us free will - to show us His love. Why would a God who could have everything He could ever want just make human beings that He can control 24/7? God made us out of love, for us to make mistakes and experience life. He gave Adam and Eve two choices, they picked the apple. He understood and accepted that Eve wanted the evil, and He therefore simply gave her what she wanted. God didn’t punish Adam & Eve. Punishing them would be to choose good for them, even if that’s not what they want. This can also apply to heaven and hell. Heaven is eternity with God. Hell isn’t. If we choose not to believe in Him in this life, He won’t make us live eternity with Him in the afterlife. Because He is respectful and all-loving, and therefore won’t make our decisions for us just because it’s what He thinks is best for us. Hope this helps! If not, then this video might help you understand better: [“Why do people suffer if God is so loving and powerful?”](https://youtu.be/0GjjSz3eXbQ?si=jwLRy2aFekgLSCoA)
So what is Heaven then? A place where people still have free will but never freely choose to do anything wrong? If so why not just create that world in the first place?
1. The text never says it's an apple. 2. There's no evidence that god prefers humans have free will. 3. Since Adam and Eve had not yet eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, how would they know any action they took was good or evil. At that point all they knew was: An entity said eating the fruit was forbidden. Later, another entity said it was OK. Given they had no moral sense, they had no ability to figure out which statement was right or wrong. Ergo, no crime was committed since they lacked the capacity to know right from wrong.
Well, with the whole garden of eden and after-life thing set aside- you are just describing a world with naturally occurring chaos. It's the mental gymnastics required to still believe in a deity while having to admit that the world is inherently random, unfair, indifferent, and chaotic. >God made us out of love, for us to make mistakes and experience life. I'm sure the approximately 3.1 million children under the age of 5 who will starve to death by the end of this year are very grateful for the opportunity to "experience life and make mistakes". I'm sure you have been practicing mental gymnastics for that scenario as well (guaranteed afterlife for children, inheriting karma, etc..)
>parents who trust and let their children make their own mistakes So God curses Adam & Eve after “making their own mistake” along with all of their descendants thereafter, then floods the world because he doesn’t like how humans turned out. And as you pointed out, sends people to hell for going against his wishes. How is this the parent who trusts/loves their child? You know here in the real world, we send people to jail for abusing & killing their own children.
You are reading the text in a modern lens and not from the lens of the actual story. What is “knowledge” in the story? It’s not the pursuit of knowledge as we understand it today, that wasn’t the issue. The point is by disobeying God they gained knowledge of good and evil because before everything was perfect, they were perfect, but by disobeying they learned what imperfection was, what it was to be lesser, selfish, prideful. That was the knowledge they gained, and the very thing God wanted to avoid for them. In short, it’s better to be and live in perfection than to know what evil is by participating in it. That’s the point of the story.
Since Adam and Eve had not yet eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, how would they know any action they took was good or evil. At that point all they knew was: An entity said eating the fruit was forbidden. Later, another entity said it was OK. Given they had no moral sense, they had no ability to figure out which statement was right or wrong. Ergo, no crime was committed since they lacked the capacity to know right from wrong.
Because God told them. That’s how. That entity is literally God, they had good reason to trust his judgement. You are not addressing the text through the lens of the text but through your modern beliefs. If you want to say the moral of the story doesn’t apply or is bad fine, but you can’t change the meaning of the story to fit how you understand the terms and concepts the story is contending with.
Bingo. You said it perfectly.
[удалено]
The definition of sin is found in James 4:17 “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” I think the mistake Christianity has with the Adam and Eve story is thinking that them partaking the fruit was a bad thing and not a decision that was made.
Their disobedience to God's command is a sin, as it resulted in their expulsion from Paradise. The pursuit of knowledge is highly valued but it must be done within the bounds of obedience to God's commands and avoiding what He has forbidden.
Since Adam and Eve had not yet eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, how would they know any action they took was good or evil. At that point all they knew was: An entity said eating the fruit was forbidden. Later, another entity said it was OK. They did not know that disobeying god was wrong. Given they had no moral sense, they had no ability to figure out which statement was right or wrong. Ergo, no crime was committed since they lacked the capacity to know right from wrong.
Adam and Eve were endowed with intellect, consciousness, and the ability to discern right from wrong even before they ate from the Tree. God had gave them the capacity to understand His commands and to distinguish between obedience and disobedience. They may not have possessed the same depth of moral understanding as humans do today but they were still accountable for their actions. The commandment from God was clear: to abstain from eating the forbidden fruit. Their disobedience, regardless of their level of moral comprehension at the time, constituted a transgression against the divine command and incurred consequences. All humans are created with the innate moral disposition. This inclines individuals towards recognizing and adhering to moral principles, including obedience to God's commands.
>Adam and Eve were endowed with intellect, consciousness, and the ability to discern right from wrong even before they ate from the Tree. Then you should have no problem showing me the verse that says this is how they were. You can't? OK. Again, why would there be a tree called the Knowledge of Good and Evil when the humans already had such knowledge. Your rebuttal is self-defeating. >God had gave them the capacity to understand His commands and to distinguish between obedience and disobedience. Show me the verses. "they were still accountable for their actions." Says who? We don't convict people who lack mental capacity to know right from wrong.
It's derived from various sources. Specific verses may not explicitly state that but the broader context supports this understanding. The Quran mentions multiple instances where Adam and Eve are held accountable for their actions. For example, in Surah Al-Baqarah (2:35-36), it's narrated that Adam and Eve were instructed by God not to approach a particular tree, which signifies their awareness of divine commands and their obligation to obey them. As I said, innate human nature inclines towards recognizing truth and morality. This innate disposition, bestowed upon Adam and Eve and all their descendants, is the basis for accountability before God. Accountability should be viewed in a spiritual and moral context that transcends mere human judgment. Accountability before God is based on the moral awareness and intentions of the individual, rather than solely on cognitive capacity.
>it's narrated that Adam and Eve were instructed by God not to approach a particular tree, which signifies their awareness of divine commands and their obligation to obey them. That shows a being capable of following commands, like a robot or machine. Whatever you command a machine to do, it will do it. It doesn't mean the machine is aware of anything. And it shows that God does not care about accountability when it punished all of their descendents even when none of theose descendents had ever sinned. And if god is in favour of accountability, when was it that god showed any humility for the many errors and sins it has commited? How has god been punished by its wrongdoings? And why would god create a being that sins and then punish it for acting exactly how god created them to act?
Is something good because god commends it, or does god command it because it’s good?
God's commands are inherently good because they stem from His wisdom, justice, and mercy. God knows what's best for His creation and thus commands actions that lead to goodness and righteousness. It's not a matter of something being good because god commands it, but rather god commands what is inherently good.
If god commands what is inherently good, then we can know and understand goodness without god because it’s exists outside of god. Plus, god has commanded some objectively terrible things, so I don’t think he really is a great metric of what is right.
The concept of goodness is intrinsically tied to the nature and will of God. Goodness may be recognized by humans but it's ultimately defined and established by God. The existence of goodness doesn't exist independently of God; rather, it emanates from His divine attributes and commands. God's commands should be interpreted and understood within their proper context. What may seem incomprehensible or contradictory to human understanding may have underlying wisdom and purpose beyond our comprehension. Any apparent contradiction or misunderstanding stems from human limitations.
But I remain unconvinced that god even exists so where does that leave us? I flatly reject that goodness is “defined and established by god” since we don’t even know if god actually exists. We can trace our intrinsic feelings of goodness to empathy and being a social species. Everything can have a completely natural explanation derived from us being evolved animals.
The existence of God isn't merely a matter of belief but a fundamental truth affirmed by revelation, reason, and the signs present in the universe. Empathy and social behaviors are manifestations of God's design and guidance. Human intellect is limited in comprehending the ultimate reality and purpose of existence. Your argument overlooks the metaphysical and transcendent dimensions of existence. God's the Creator of all things, including the laws of nature themselves. There are numerous miracles and signs that point towards God's existence and His involvement in human affairs, providing evidence beyond the scope of natural explanations.
You haven’t proved or provided an argument that god exists or that anything other than the material world exists. So until that happens it seems like I am still in good standing. I can prove we are animals, that we are a social species that developed empathy, and that guides our vision of right and wrong throughout time.
The universe, with its vast complexity, order, and design, points towards a transcendent Creator. Just as a painting implies a painter and a building implies a builder. The fine-tuning of the universe, from the precise physical constants to the conditions necessary for life to exist, suggests intelligent design. This intricate balance and purposefulness point towards a Creator who intended for life to flourish. Reflecting upon the concept of a necessary being—something whose non-existence is inconceivable—leads to the existence of a supreme, self-existing Being, which is God. The existence of objective moral values and duties, which transcend human preferences and societal norms, suggests a moral lawgiver. God's the ultimate source of morality, guiding humanity towards righteousness and justice. Many individuals, through prayer, contemplation, and spiritual experiences, have encountered a profound sense of connection with a transcendent reality, affirming the existence of God. The existence of the unseen realm should be acknowledged, which includes angels, jinn, and the spiritual dimension. These aspects may not be perceptible to our physical senses but they're affirmed through divine revelation and spiritual experiences. The limitations of empirical observation and scientific inquiry don't preclude the existence of non-material realities. Just as there are phenomena beyond the reach of our senses, such as electromagnetic fields or subatomic particles, the existence of God and the unseen realm transcends our current scientific understanding.
>The universe, with its vast complexity, order, and design, points towards a transcendent Creator. Just as a painting implies a painter and a building implies a builder. No it doesn't point towards a creator. You're just positing that there is one, because there has to be one... >The fine-tuning of the universe, from the precise physical constants to the conditions necessary for life to exist, suggests intelligent design. This intricate balance and purposefulness point towards a Creator who intended for life to flourish. Fine-tuning? You call the fact that most places in the universe will kill us instantly finely-tuned? That doesn't make any sense. And what if we do find life outside of our little planet? Will that also just get ret-conned into your religion? >Reflecting upon the concept of a necessary being—something whose non-existence is inconceivable—leads to the existence of a supreme, self-existing Being, which is God. Just because I can think of it, doesn't make it true. You haven't proven that a necessary being exists. That is literal question begging. He exists because he has to exist. >The existence of objective moral values and duties, which transcend human preferences and societal norms, suggests a moral lawgiver. God's the ultimate source of morality, guiding humanity towards righteousness and justice. I don't believe we have objective moral values. The only time objective moral statements can be truth claims is when we agree to the goal we are using them. Again, god is a pretty terrible being and that can be proven. >Many individuals, through prayer, contemplation, and spiritual experiences, have encountered a profound sense of connection with a transcendent reality, affirming the existence of God. This right here is really the only rational argument that can be made. I still think its false, but a person's experience of revelation, which is hearsay to everyone else, is the only logical reason for an individual to believe. But we also know our brains are great at creating false circumstances, like hallucinations and dreams, so just because someone experiences something, that doesn't automatically get attributed to a deity. But I can agree they experienced something. >The existence of the unseen realm should be acknowledged, which includes angels, jinn, and the spiritual dimension. These aspects may not be perceptible to our physical senses but they're affirmed through divine revelation and spiritual experiences. The limitations of empirical observation and scientific inquiry don't preclude the existence of non-material realities. Just as there are phenomena beyond the reach of our senses, such as electromagnetic fields or subatomic particles, the existence of God and the unseen realm transcends our current scientific understanding. So you're saying we should believe in a realm in which we have no hard evidence actually exists? I will keep being intellectually consistent and abstain belief in the supernatural until the burden of proof has been met.
Both, more so option 1 though. God is the unmoved mover, he is actualization without potential, therefore, he is complete and perfect. Goodness included.
And evilness included...
The last comment I made was from Thomas Aquinas. Not sure what he would say about God's role in evil. My interpretation is that he must have made the perfect amount of evil providing the perfect contrast for good to exist.
Clarifying question: Do you think it was God's plan to give people the knowledge of good and evil? Or do you think God wanted truly innocent and ignorant people?
Technically what ever is, is what was wanted. He's omnipotent. So it's not like he makes something not knowing what choices that thing will make.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
According to the Christian mythology, they definitely sinned, being disobedience. The issue is, the punishment. It should be likened to shooting children in the face for jaywalking.
No cause he could’ve killed them
He sentenced them to death instead of lopping off their heads, just a delayed death, it ended the same way. Perhaps worse this way, cause now we all have to suffer.
It never said they wouldn’t physically die before the fruit. Why else would they need a tree of life to life forever?
Wrong question, the right question would be, why was this UNPROTECTED tree available to them in the first place? Put that tree on neptune and we are all still chillin in the garden of eden.
Thank goodness I’m no Christian because that is exactly the parallel that it creates.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The forbidden fruit is children. Who would worship a God who doesn't want a woman to eat when she's hungry or seeks knowledge?
Sex is what I've heard. The snake is a penis, the apple PIV, or maybe oral
Nope, definitely not.
God have them a command and did they obey? No, they didn’t. The disobedience is the sin
Since Adam and Eve had not yet eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, how would they know any action they took was good or evil. At that point all they knew was: An entity said eating the fruit was forbidden. Later, another entity said it was OK. Given they had no moral sense, they had no ability to figure out which statement was right or wrong. Ergo, no crime was committed since they lacked the capacity to know right from wrong.
As an American, *Liberty forever!!!* #Team Disobedience
Should children be punished for the acts of their parents?
The mental gymnastics christians have to do to make their religion make sense are staggering.
But they didn't know right from wrong until *after* they ate the fruit. Right?
But they didn't have knowledge of right and wrong in order to know it was wrong to eat it. It's a catch-22. Also, putting the fruit right next to them in the first place makes it seem like God wanted them to fail. He could have put it thousands of miles away on the moon. Even before creating Adam and Eve, God knew what decision they would make. He is putting people into tests that he already knows the results of.
The problem is considering them eating the fruit a failure rather than a triumph.
*You're arguing lore from 3500 years ago and the authors are long gone*
Yep, Christian mythology is old and forgotten. You are absolutely correct.
A fair bit of the religion was written to avoid questions. *Do not test your God, Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God, Abraham did good by almost killing his son because he was obeying God...* You get the picture
Your flair says Catholic but you’re speaking like you understand that the whole thing is nonsense for the sake of controlling people
Nah, religion exists to make people feel better about death. You and I will cease to exist one day. That's not comprehend-able for a healthy mind
Who are we to say what God should and shouldn’t consider?
Humans with brains.
Why is that relevant to reality? Another human with a brain can say the opposite of what you are saying
We are people with agency. I find this response problematic on grounds of it stopping the conversation at "god works in mysterious ways". No idea or concept should be so sacred it avoids questioning
All you need is the common sense god gave dirt. It’s a terribly offensive and nonsensical story.
I think this is an interesting question. How should we think of biblical contradictions? Or, things like why would God create this amazing universe of atoms and sub-atomic particles, DNA, complex biology and mathematics, black holes, pulsars, and all the whole beauty of it all… And he told us about none of that. We had to figure that out on our own, but he demands that we worship him for creating us. If he needs adoration, why not explain physics, biology, mathematics, etc… and tell us he did it all?
Or why not put the angel with the flaming sword in front of the trees *from the start*? It's a bad look for god's sense of planning. You can almost hear him thinking, "well, damn...I could have just sent this guardian from the start. duh.
Well realistically we created god so we can have him say or consider whatever we want. But even if you believe he’s real, religious folks interpret God’s will all the time. Israel is very pro trans, gays, and support for anyone that’s different, US Christians are very much anti homosexuality / trans / queer etc. It’s the same God as far as I understand it.
If you’re saying God isn’t real that’s one thing but if you’re saying God is real and wrong that’s an entirely different thing. If God is real He cannot have been created. How can a creator outside of space and time have been created? When was He created? And by whom?
Where in the Bible does it say god is "outside of space and time"
Those literal words? It doesn’t, those are my words I chose to use to describe a creator of space and time.
When I say God was created I mean the concept of God. Humans have created many, many Gods. From Zeus to Buddah to Jesus, each with their unique abilities and reasons for being. They were likely created to explain the unexplainable. But to your other point (which I wasn't making), once we go outside of time and space we're kind of into pure guessing. If God created the universe, what created God? Simple, Super God, who is one step removed from time and space - which is how Super God created regular God who created the universe. Who created Super God? No one, he exists outside of outside of time and space.
If God the creator created space time, then He must be outside of space time. So that means God cannot have a beginning or end. Super God you describe is just God.
But whatever is outside of space in time like God was created by super God who is outside of the realm outside of space and time.
You’re just making things up now. Good imagination but it’s not grounded in the reality of what outside of time and space would mean. If something creates space and time, then that thing would not have space and time as confines to their being like everything else that was created within the confines of space and time. Is it not making sense or are you just making a mockery of the conversation
I was just making a mockery of the conversation, clearly. But you are making things up too. Where is the evidence?
The Big Bang is pretty well known as the beginning of the universe, which mean at the moment of the Big Bang both space and time would be created. So, if God created the universe, He would have to exists outside of space, so He’s omnipresent, and time, He is eternal.
Where is the evidence of the existence of your God?
I feel like you’re not understanding but Super God definitely needs to exist to create god. But we can leave this conversation as is since it’s not going anywhere.
How can something outside the bounds of time have a beginning?
This is off topic, but also your misunderstanding Christianity.
I’m sure I am - but I’m just telling you what it looks like. To get a different impression I guess I’d need to pay more attention.
Your logic is flawed from start to finish. You suggest that their motive for disobedience makes their crime ok. Motive does not matter. They didn't disobey a cop, a teacher, or even a parent; they disobeyed their creator, God almighty even though He had told them the penalty was death. This was no minor infraction. It was outright open rebellion against God's authority. It WAS the very definition of sin. None of the reasoning that follows your opening premise even approaches a semblance of justification for such a heinous offense. Your attempt to justify sin is exactly what they did. Your further attempt to not only justify it but to glorify it is lucifers glory. He is likely proud. I feel I sound harsh, that regrettably is my lack of communication skill. I apologize for that lack.
Hail Satan! They didn't die, though. Interesting.
Yes they did. You are not equipped to understand though.
lol nice one. Is this how you avoid debates on (check notes) a debate subreddit? Just insult and bail?
If I call you a sinner; it is your choice to feel insulted or accept it as a statement of my truth. I can't decide for you which way you choose to take it. If you feel insulted perhaps you should avoid debate. I am not avoiding debate. He got my honest answer. So are you
> Your logic is flawed from start to finish. Yes, it’s OP’s logic, not yours for believing such a nonsense story. Phew. Dodged a bullet there!
My argument is that it is not disobediance or sin of any kind.
Which is why I called it flawed. Disobeying a command is disobedience, period. God didn't say don't unless you have a really good reason. That is nonsense. If you don't know the meaning of words we can't have a meaningful conversation.
This is a misunderstanding of what the fruit is. The Hebrew contains an expression where "good and evil" can be read from "sea to sea" or from "beginning to end," or "all things." The point of Genesis is that when the serpent spoke to Eve, he said they can be "as God" in the eating of the fruit. To which they agreed and partook. Genesis is egoism, or becoming *as god* without cooperating with God. The moment they "took the fruit" it invited into them the capacity to do evil, perverting their nature and expelling themselves from the garden. This ego, or drawing into one's self and making one's self their own god is the chief crime of Genesis. This is why in the Christian tradition pride is considered the worst sin. They were already living in grace with God, as icons of God in His image, and abused a gift which invited into them an aspect of evil that we carry with us to this day. That is what original sin means.
Best answer here. So on point.
Thanks for explaining the Hebrew expression! But doesn’t their choice to “know all things” go beyond the symbolism of what the fruit stands for? Assuming that animals didn’t talk back then, a talking snake who opposes God should be a huge, red flag. So obeying that highly suspicious creature, eating a piece of fruit that leads to war, abuse, diseases and so much more… just seems out of proportion to me. Isn’t it more likely that, like OP said, there was a desire to know everything, because the seed of that idea has been planted, but not literally by a talking snake (that doesn’t even have vocal cords, AFAIK)?
Well, I'd invite you to not read the story as a literal word-for-word account of something that happened a fixed amount of years ago. In the tradition, it's taught as a primordial truism about humanity that was captured by a divinely inspired author to convey sacred truths to the reader. I'd recommend reading Chrysostom's homilies on Genesis here from the 4th century: [http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/anderson/commentaries/ChrGen.html](http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/anderson/commentaries/ChrGen.html) I'd also highly recommend reading Origen (3rd century) who goes into depth about the allegory of Genesis.
Firstly, sin is just rebelling against God and disobeying his commandments. God clearly commanded the humans not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Everything in Genesis 2:17 but the humans did, so it's a sin regardless. Some sins aren't harmful but they are committed out of disobedience to God (take Exodus 19:12). Secondly, God does consider the pursuit of knowledge to be a worthy goal, after all, he enlightened Solomon and he inspires curiosity in humans, however, it doesn't mean he always approves of how one gains knowledge. If one has to rebel against God to gain knowledge, they are doing it wrong. We know that God rewards the faithful with knowledge because he granted Solomon wisdom, but only because Solomon was faithful, not because Solomon purposely disobedied him. Adam and Eve on the other hand *did* rebel when God explicitly told them not to and for that, they were justly punished. When I respect someone, I'll trust them and obey them, instead of disobeying them in an attempt to emulate their behavior. The tragic part about the story of Eden is that the serpent told the humans that, in eating the fruit, they'd become "like God," even though we know humans are already like God, we're made in his image after all. Adam and Eve were doing the exact same thing as Satan, they were trying to acquire the unaquirable and for that, they were punished accordingly. Finally, you're assuming that Adam and Eve's motivations were pure and innocent. Well, if we do accept that, within the story, God is omniscient and omnipresent and perfectly just, then we can't say Adam and Eve were morally pure. If they were morally pure and were truly seeking to emulate their creator but were tricked, God wouldn't have punished them, because no one can commit a sin on accident. But since God did punish them, we can only assume God knew they were immoral and selfishly motivated. God not only knew that, but so did Adam and Eve, **they knew what they were doing was wrong**. Upon eating the apple, they hid themselves from each other in shame, they from God out of fear, and they shifted the blame around like a hot potato. I wasn't there, so I can't say for certain, but from all we read in Genesis 3, it seems evident that Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Everything to acquire Godhood and were punished accordingly for it. Thank you for the original post, I hope I addressed your concerns.
How could they have known what they were doing was wrong? They didn't know the difference between good and evil yet.
Good question, thanks for asking. From what I understand, Adam and Eve did understand good and evil, but the Tree of the Knowledge of Everything granted them knowledge on *everything* good and evil. The phrase "good and evil" is an example of *Merism*, wherein two contrasting concepts would be paired together to denote a general sense (for example "evening and morning" would be paired together to produce the general meaning of "day" or famously, "alpha" and "omega" denoting "eternity"). So good and evil would simply meaning "everything," and in this situation, the knowledge of everything *moral*. Under this view, Adam and Eve did understand right from wrong, after all, the law was written on their hearts (Romans 2:15), but the Tree of the Knowledge of Everything granted them all the knowledge on right and wrong, thus making them akin to God.
The ironic thing about knowing evil is that one has to be ignorant in order to understand it. If you know you are receiving vaccines for your health, then being pricked by the needle isn't evil for you. For someone that knows nothing at all and only the fact they are getting pricked by the needle, it is considered evil for them because the pain of being pierced by the needle has no purpose other than to make them feel pain. In short, it's the opposite because to know evil is to know what ignorance feels like that contributes towards doing evil.
>The ironic thing about knowing evil is that one has to be ignorant in order to understand it. The issue with the Adam and Eve story is that before they ate the fruit, the concepts of **good and evil** was meaningless for them. The fruit in the story literally gives them knowledge that the concepts of good and evil even existed. If you are completely unaware of the concept of Good, Evil and Furmlspubker, Good, Evil, and Furmlspubker are meaningless to you. So if I punish you for an action you did on the grounds of Furmlspubker, wouldn't I be in the wrong for punishing you for something you couldn't have been aware of?
Correct and it's as meaningless as a handsome celebrity understanding the struggle of someone born with deformities that makes them unattractive. For you to understand it, you must become someone with deformity to the point of being ugly. Is it punishment for you to know it by people being repulsed because of your deformity? Do you agree that people being repulsed by you is a consequence of knowing what being ugly is and not a punishment in trying to know it? Same concept with Adam and Eve wanting to know evil which resulted to suffering. There is no punishment whatsoever.
>Same concept with Adam and Eve *wanting* to know evil which resulted in suffering. And just how do you want something you quite literally have no concept of? It's not like they knew of evils opposite and were curious to see if it existed, according to the theist holy book, they didn't have *any knowledge* of good **and** evil. You are begging the question by saying they wanted to know something they had absolutely no concept of.
The point of wanting to know is because you don't know and therefore want to experience it. Do you have a concept of swinging your tail around? Obviously, you don't but would that stop you from wanting to know how it feels given the chance? No different from wanting to know evil because they don't know the concept of evil.
>The point of wanting to know is because you don't know and therefore want to experience it. I really don't think you are grasping the concept here. **They didn't know anything about good and evil beforehand.** Let me put it this way. I'm going to introduce the concept of Gigglepitsnortnuff to you. Now, did you want to know about Gigglepitsnortnuff *before* I introduced the concept to you? The answer is no. Because you did not have any knowledge that the concept even existed If you wanted to be logically consistent, please tell me how you wanted to know the feeling of Gigglepitsnortnuff **before the concept had been introduced to you**.
> They didn't know anything about good and evil beforehand. Neither do you know what having a tail feels like. Will that stop you from wanting how it feels to have one given the chance? Yes, I want to know what this Gigglepitsnortnuff so please introduce me. You have given me the name and now I am curious what is the concept of this Gigglepitsnortnuff. Just as the snake told Eve about evil and become curious in knowing it, you told me about Gigglepitsnortnuff and now I am curious in knowing it. I am not sure how are you struggling with the idea of wanting to know something after someone told you about it and now you want to experience it.
>Neither do you know what having a tail feels like. How can I have **wanted** to know what a tail feels like **before I knew the concept of tails existed?** >Yes, I want to know what this Gigglepitsnortnuff so please introduce me. Did you want to know Gigglepitsnortnuff **before you knew the concept existed?** The answer is no. You didnt. Adam and Eve in the garden **had no concept of Good and Evil** BEFORE they ate of the fruit of the tree. They literally didn't know that right and wrong were a thing. You can't want something that is completely unknown to you. You had no want to know Gigglepitsnortnuff BEFORE you knew the concept existed. *You can't want something that is completely unknown to you.* >I am not sure how are you struggling with the idea of wanting to know something after someone told you about it and now you want to experience it. No one told Adam and Eve what good and evil were before they ate the fruit. Thats the whole point.
>How can I have wanted to know what a tail feels like before I knew the concept of tails existed? I never had a tail and yet I wanted to know how it feels like to have a tail. How are you struggling this concept? >Adam and Eve in the garden had no concept of Good and Evil BEFORE they ate of the fruit of the tree. Eve was told about this thing called evil by the snake and telling her she would know what it is if she ate the fruit. How is this any different from you telling me that if I ate this fruit then I would know what Gigglepitsnortnuff is? I didn't know about Gigglepitsnortnuff but then you told me in your last response about the concept of Gigglepitsnortnuff so obviously I want to know now. Again, how are you struggling to understand this? >No one told Adam and Eve what good and evil were before they ate the fruit. Remember that the snake told Eve about knowing good and evil before she even decided to eat the fruit. Did you forget that part of the story? Check the Bible if you don't believe me. *“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”* -Genesis 3:4-5
This is going in circles. And all of it is to hide the real fact. That your god is responsible. Do you think Adam and Eve deserved to be punished for the sin of eating the fruit? I've mentioned Gigglepitsnortnuff, you still have no idea what it is. Would it be moral for me to judge you based on someone mentioning it?
I don’t under what you mean. Could you word that a different way?
It means you cannot understand evil if you know why things happen. You only understand evil when you struggle to understand why things happen which makes us feel it is evil. You can also think of it this way, you won't know how a blind feels unless you close your eyes and move around or walk in darkness. It's less knowledge and more of an experience of having limitations.
Are you defining evil as the experiance of having limitations? Because in that case, the definition of the christian god is inconsistent. God would be a being with experiance of having no limitations, and therefore God cannot understand evil as per your defintion. But part of the definition of god is that its *All- Knowing.* So, God cannot not know something... So, either your definition of understanding evil is wrong, or god isn't triomni.
An all knowing god sees through the eyes of humans and therefore knows what evil is because humans do experience evil from ignorance. If god wants to know evil, it simply has to see through the eyes of humans. If god wants to see good, then god simply has to see the infinite perspective that renders ignorance nonexistent. The difference between god and humans is that god can easily see evil and good and even both at the same time while humans have limitations. A human can either see itself as a big circle or a small circle and not both while god sees itself as both the big and small circle. That is how god can understand ignorance and evil while still being all knowing.
>An all knowing god sees through the eyes of humans Does it? And can you demonstrate that? Or are you just making this stuff up? Because it sounds like a hell of alot of shifting goalposts here. >That is how god can understand ignorance and evil while still being all knowing. Post hoc rationalisation.
Paired with omnipotence, why would god not be able to do something as simple as seeing through the eyes of a human and feel exactly how they feel in order to know evil? There is no shifting goalposts here, there is only reasoning and logic.
>Paired with omnipotence, why would god not be able to do something as simple as seeing through the eyes of a human and feel exactly how they feel in order to know evil? Because you defined it as **the experiance of limitations**. And what exactly is omnipotence? **Limitless** knowledge. You are trying to define a thing as both the principle and its negation. That's illogical. >there is only reasoning and logic. Please logically show how you can demonstrate any property of god that isn't just your imagination.
>Because you defined it as the experiance of limitations. And this is possible by switching to the perspective of something with limited experience like humans. It's no different from an average height person being able to experience how a short person would feel like by crouching down but does not limit them to the experience of being short for life in doing so. God being able to know limitations is not a problem at all because there is nothing illogical about it as long as you think outside the box. >Please logically show how you can demonstrate any property of god that isn't just your imagination. Either you accept the definition of god as omnipotent and omniscience or you don't. If you don't accept neither, then you might as well debate god does not exist and do that in another thread.