Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here in alt.atheism (aa) one of those perennials has emerged again: Adam & Eve: were they guilty? Ok, why post this to alt.atheism where this question is completely hypthetical since they don’t believe Adam and Eve to be anything but Myth? And why of all the Christian groups to the Roman Catholic Group which is among the least likely to interpret the story of Adam and Eve literally? That question revolves around the issue of whether without a "knowledge of good and evil" A & E could be legitimately held culpable for the apple business. Its a bit of a red herring; if you take the story on its terms of course they can be held culpable, God gets to set the standards. If you take the story on your own terms then there is no clear answer to the question. That raises a wider issue, and the one I’d like to explore here … if anyone is interested. I have a feeling that "without a knowledge of good and evil" means, amongst other things, no moral sense, which in turn means no capacity for empathy (yes, a bit of a leap, but that’s what we’re here for?!). It means no moral sense in the sense that they were not endowed with an intrinsic understanding of what was right and what was wrong; however it was not really needed since they had but one command from God. They would have lacked empathy as we know it by simple virtue that had Adam and Eve been real, they would not have experienced any of the things that brings empathy too us; you can’t understand the pain of the other unless you can experience pain yourself. If that’s the case, then I think it’s not going too far to regard A & E as what were once called psychopaths though these days "Antisocial personality disorder" (APD) seems to be the term. No Society to be anti-social against. Think a better way to view them would be small children. What are the characteristics of someone who exhibits APD? "Essentially, they violate social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret in order to take what they want and do as they please." What social norms? There were only 2 of them in the story. They were allowed to do as they please except eat fruit from that one tree. http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=292 So the question: if A & E had no moral sense, from a Christian perspective I wonder if they could be considered human. Only if you don’t consider small children human either. — Bill If the knowledge of good and evil was imparted by an act of magic, isn’t it legitimate to assume that A & E were incapable of it until the magic act? Without it, would experience have imparted the ability to empathize? Without it, why would obedience be of importance?
Were they incapable of reasoning out what was good or evil on their own prior to the event? Sure that is a reasonable position to take. Prior to eating of the Tree Adam and Eve could not reason out the morality of an individual event on their own, but the story clearly shows that they knew that there were negative consequences to disobeying a specific command. Essentially Adam and Eve could be treated as a 3 year old. A 3 year old does not know why something is good or bad and may not be able to predict what their parents would consider good or bad, but on certain issues that their parents have instructed them on, they have no doubt that an action is good or bad. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – To illustrate, we once had an Australian shepherd that was normally quite obedient, but I found that when she got far enough away, she would look back when I called a command, and if I stood completely still, she would often ignore the command. If I moved when she looked back, she would obey. I think her eyesight was such that she was unable to see me at a distance unless I moved, and her reasoning, if such it can be called, was that if she couldn’t see me, I couldn’t see her. It wasn’t a question of right or wrong for her, just one of satisfying the current impulse. I didn’t create her, but I recognized it would be futile to punish her for something that was a part of her nature. It would be far worse to train her to behave in a particular way, then punish her for doing so. Wouldn’t it be doubly ridiculous for her to be punished for behavior she had been created to display by the very being who had created her?
Ah but the point here is that your dog might have been confused by the fact it ocould not see you; it might have not been sure you issued the command or whatever. However if your Dog saw you and received a command it would obey, not because it understood the command but because you gave it. That was sort of what Adam and Eve were like; they could obey or disobey commands and they knew they should obey, they just didn’t fully understand why. — Bill
Response:
on 18 Oct 2004 in alt.atheism, Therion Ware dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted: Here in alt.atheism (aa) one of those perennials has emerged again: Adam & Eve: were they guilty? I’m quite convinced they never existed, which means the basis for most western religion is a metaphor.
"Adam" means "a human being" (Gen. 2.5) or mankind collectively (Gen. 1.26). Only for the purposes of myth does it become a proper name. In order words, Adam is Everyman. A & E are in themselves representative figures of the whole human race. The mythic Adam and Eve serve as mirrors in which we may see our own reflection, what we are like and what we have become. If you have any imagination at all, it’s not difficult to identify with the leading man or lady in the story. Methodios (Denny) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Vic Sagerquist aa#2011 Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree? Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. "You eat this apple, you’re going to be as smart as God. We can’t have that." [Frank Zappa]
Response:
alt.atheism on 18 Oct 2004 in alt.atheism, Therion Ware dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted: Here in alt.atheism (aa) one of those perennials has emerged again: Adam & Eve: were they guilty? I’m quite convinced they never existed, which means the basis for most western religion is a metaphor.
Sure. Of course they didn’t exist. But I’ve never let something like that stand between me and an argument, ah, free and frank exchange of views…. — "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." – Attrib: Pauline Reage. Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion? See: <http://www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD. all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read. ** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
Response:
alt.atheism Here in alt.atheism (aa) one of those perennials has emerged again: Adam & Eve: were they guilty? Ok, why post this to alt.atheism where this question is completely hypthetical since they don’t believe Adam and Eve to be anything but Myth?
There’s something wrong with hypothetical questions? Not having a life, I thought it was quite interesting… And why of all the Christian groups to the Roman Catholic Group which is among the least likely to interpret the story of Adam and Eve literally?
Precisely. More likely to get an intelligent answer from a Christian perspective which one could compare and contrast with any answer from alt.bible. That question revolves around the issue of whether without a "knowledge of good and evil" A & E could be legitimately held culpable for the apple business. Its a bit of a red herring; if you take the story on its terms of course they can be held culpable, God gets to set the standards.
Well, it’s a frequently stated position, but one I can’t recall seeing a half-way decent justification for in as much as while God may set the standards culpability does in many instances depend upon not only knowing, but understanding, the law. In some circumstances, for instance, under UK law one cannot be found guilty if one does not know the difference between right and wrong. I suppose one might argue the prohibition against eating of the fruit of the tree was what many systems of law call a "strict liability offence" – but even if one does, it still seems If you take the story on your own terms then there is no clear answer to the question.
Which is, as you might imagine, the way I like it! That raises a wider issue, and the one I’d like to explore here … if anyone is interested. I have a feeling that "without a knowledge of good and evil" means, amongst other things, no moral sense, which in turn means no capacity for empathy (yes, a bit of a leap, but that’s what we’re here for?!). It means no moral sense in the sense that they were not endowed with an intrinsic understanding of what was right and what was wrong; however it was not really needed since they had but one command from God.
The point is frequently made, and well taken. However, it seems to me that without a sense of right and wrong God giving a command to A & E is not too different from me giving my cats a command not to touch the chicken on the table. This is to say that without a sense of right and wrong and all that implies A & E had no way of evaluating that command and in fact any prohibition would be meaningless to them. They would have lacked empathy as we know it by simple virtue that had Adam and Eve been real, they would not have experienced any of the things that brings empathy too us; you can’t understand the pain of the other unless you can experience pain yourself.
I’d tend to agree, but for different reasons. If that’s the case, then I think it’s not going too far to regard A & E as what were once called psychopaths though these days "Antisocial personality disorder" (APD) seems to be the term. No Society to be anti-social against.
Which is why I’d prefer the term psychopath in this instance. Think a better way to view them would be small children.
Which raises another issue! What an adult is, and their capacities are determined by their genetics, upbringing and environment. If, for example, you don’t teach a child any form of language by a certain age, they will never master language (see instances of "wolf children" for instance). If you blindfold a child from birth to age 7, and then un blindfold them, they will never make sense of what they see[1]. Now, A & E were created adults. They had no cultural background in the sense we understand it, and they had no upbringing in the normally understood sense of the term. Yet the Genesis account depicts them as, apart from the good and evil capacity, as more or less fully functional human beings. QED a cultural background and "environmental history" (if only in the sense of the sum of what they were) were implanted into them at the moment of their creation and this was a false, if necessary, history. I think that, and the lack of a knowledge of good and evil makes a convincing case that they could not in any rational sense be held culpable for the apple problem. What are the characteristics of someone who exhibits APD? "Essentially, they violate social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret in order to take what they want and do as they please." What social norms? There were only 2 of them in the story. They were allowed to do as they please except eat fruit from that one tree.
But again, how were they supposed to evaluate this prohibition given that they saw no difference between right and wrong, and that any cultural/environmental/genetic sum – that which made them what they were – upon which they might base that decision was created along with them? http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=292 So the question: if A & E had no moral sense, from a Christian perspective I wonder if they could be considered human. Only if you don’t consider small children human either.
Opinions differ, particularly amongst parents around bedtime, I understand. More seriously, this raises the question: "what is a human?". It’s a very tricky issue. I’d be willing to bet I could find a hole that you wouldn’t be happy with, in any definition you’d could come up with. Which I suppose brings us to abortion and euthanasia. **** [1]. There’s quite a famous case on this. A woman had been blind since just after birth. In the 80s they came up with a surgical cure, and, lo, her sight was restored. *But* it turned out she couldn’t recognise many things *unless* she touched them. I think the main example was a teapot. She could look at one but not identify it unless she could feel it. — "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." – Attrib: Pauline Reage. Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion? See: <http://www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD. all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read. ** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s not my religion, so I don’t have to rationalise it based on the presumption that it’s the truth and then throw a hissy fit at those who don’t. I don’t see why the religious can’t see it as just a story without it challenging their faith. I’m pretty sure that even 3,000 years ago they saw it as just a story. All cultures had creation myths: I doubt the ancient Greeks _really_ believed the Earth emerged from the sea on the back of a giant turtle. Most probably didn’t give it a thought, and that was a just-so story they told the kids. ===Most Jews I am aware of do not believe the story, but the Pauline salvationist mystery cult was tied to it as if it were a historical event. — L. Only the fundamentalists. Normal Christians treat it as a just-so story. Like "Why the Leopard got his Spots". The first time I met anybody who took it seriously, I thought they were joking (two colleagues I had lunch with maybe 10 years ago). Theyw ere mortally offended.
===I said the Pauline salvationist mystery cult. Not all Christians take it seriously, but it is founded on a literal belief in the sin and fall of "Adam & Eve". — L.
Response:
===Before any intelligent discussion is possible, it should be settled whether this Is just a critique of a story, of its Christian interpretation, or is it stipulated that the story is the account of the real life of a real couple produced by a real supernatural being? I’m puzzled by your assertion. You seem to be saying a matter can be discussed intelligently only among individuals who have a similar viewpoint. I’m obviously mistaken, as that would be nonsense, so I’ll ask for a clarification.
===Not at all. The viewpoints may differ. Put the subject of discussion ought to be the same, understood by each. – L.
Response:
alt.atheism Here in alt.atheism (aa) one of those perennials has emerged again: Adam & Eve: were they guilty? That question revolves around the issue of whether without a "knowledge of good and evil" A & E could be legitimately held culpable for the apple business. Apples were not known in the Middle East.
An inaccuracy in the Bible?! For shame!!! Given the standard iconography of the religion of El and Yah (pagan deities long before the Israelites merged them in to a single god), the fruit was most likely a pomegranite, which was the symbol for sex, fertility and wisdom. In European symbolism, the apple has the association of birth, death and wisdom, which is probably how the apple can be associated with Eden.
Yes. The Persephone and Hades myth, and the pomegranate seeds, for instance. That raises a wider issue, and the one I’d like to explore here … if anyone is interested. I have a feeling that "without a knowledge of good and evil" means, amongst other things, no moral sense, which in turn means no capacity for empathy (yes, a bit of a leap, but that’s what we’re here for?!). I’ve seen this discussed academically. The real iconography of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil has nothing to do with moral principle; it has to do with sex. You will notice that the first mention of sexuality occurs *after* the Fall, and the "sin" of the Fall is propigated by virtue of sexual reproduction.
That’s true. But then again, moral principle and sex have always been combined in Christian thinking. Augustine’s "Inter faeces et urinam nascimur ridemus" for instance. In the worldview that gave rise to the Genesis story, sex and divine wisdom were closely related; the pleasure of the sex act and the bliss of orgasm were tools given by the gods for gaining knowledge from the gods. That is why sex was such an important part of the early Middle Eastern religions, from the hierogamos of king and goddess to the temple prostitutes. The ultimate symbol of this divine intercourse — specifically, the intercourse of mortal male and divine female — was the ripe pomegranite.
I’m becoming rather sympathetic to "that old time religion"…. Only after they ceased being virgins did Adam and Eve realize that they were naked. Interesting that they would have chosen fig leaves to hid behind; most species of figs have leaves covered in sharp, very fine hairs that tend to embed in the skin and break off, giving rise to a very itchy rash (think stinging nettle here.) Penance for violating the "no fucking allowed" rule? God only knows.
And He rarely splits on a mate! — "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." – Attrib: Pauline Reage. Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion? See: <http://www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD. all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read. ** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
Response:
===Before any intelligent discussion is possible, it should be settled whether this Is just a critique of a story, of its Christian
interpretation, or is it stipulated that the story is the account of the real life of a real couple produced by a real supernatural being?
I’m puzzled by your assertion. You seem to be saying a matter can be discussed intelligently only among individuals who have a similar viewpoint. I’m obviously mistaken, as that would be nonsense, so I’ll ask for a clarification. — Marvin To reply, burn off fog.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here in alt.atheism (aa) one of those perennials has emerged again: Adam & Eve: were they guilty? That question revolves around the issue of whether without a "knowledge of good and evil" A & E could be legitimately held culpable for the apple business. That raises a wider issue, and the one I’d like to explore here … if anyone is interested. I have a feeling that "without a knowledge of good and evil" means, amongst other things, no moral sense, which in turn means no capacity for empathy (yes, a bit of a leap, but that’s what we’re here for?!). If that’s the case, then I think it’s not going too far to regard A & E as what were once called psychopaths though these days "Antisocial personality disorder" (APD) seems to be the term.
Can one be antisocial if there is no society? What are the characteristics of someone who exhibits APD? "Essentially, they violate social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret in order to take what they want and do as they please."
Since A & E were supposedly the only two humans in existence, I am hard pressed to imagine how they *could violate social norms. Everything they did was the norm. Who were they taking what from? http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=292 So the question: if A & E had no moral sense, from a Christian perspective I wonder if they could be considered human.
Even if you grant that A & E had a mental disorder, which I don’t think has been proven given the above definition and lack of society, I don’t consider people with mental disorders non-human. Weird, maybe, but human nonetheless.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.