A more charitable reading of the Adam and Eve story?

[mVitus]

My guess is he was replying to oldnskeptical. When you reply to a person and are the following post, it doesn’t show who you replied to. (I hit the reply button to your post for example, but there’s no circle with a W.)

 

[WileyC1949]

Ahh… thank you. I was not aware that sometimes happened.

(Like it just did with this post).

 

[PetraG]

Perhaps the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is free will…that might answer you question.

No, it took free will to choose to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, yet there can be no definition of the fullness of humanity that does not hold up Our Lord and Our Lady as the norms. They had free will and by their free will God’s plan of salvation came to its fullness.

Whatever Adam and Eve chose to do, it was the antithesis of the choices in these two statements:
“How can this be?..I am the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to your word.” (Luke 1:26-38)
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done.” (Luke 22:42)
Our Lord and Our Lady did not just say these things they said, but always acted according to them.

That is, it is not a sin to use reason to consider whether a course of action really is according to the will of God nor to hope that the will of God and one’s own personal desires can find a happy reconciliation.

Contrast the decision-making of Adam and Eve:
The woman saw that the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. (Gen. 3:6)

In the former cases, Our Lord and Our Lady considered what their own desires might be, but set those aside in favor of the will of God–they understood what the plan asked of them, but did not understand fully how it would come about even as they acted in obedience with it because they chose to put their faith in God. In the latter example, in contrast, Adam and Eve considered what their own desires were and used those as a reason to set aside the will of God. They chose to doubt the goodness of God.

Eating of the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is to use one’s faculty of choosing right from wrong to find a reason to prefer one’s own will as wiser than the will of God.

St Paul explained this conflict between the wisdom of God and the false “wisdom” that stands ready to put aside the will of God:
The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the learning of the learned I will set aside.”
Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?
For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith. For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
(1 Cor. 1:18-25)

 

[PetraG]

It begins with something like this, that the “Tree of knowledge of good and evil” symbolizes the human capacity to reject any part of life or creation. When we reject, we experience a separation from the whole of the universe, that there are consequences both known and unknown for such rejection…

When we hold onto this non-acceptance, we suffer, just as Adam and Eve suffered.

What we cannot afford to reject is trust in the right judgment of Almighty God.
God didn’t reject the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. He made the fruit; the tree and the fruit were good. He told Adam and Eve that if they chose to eat of that fruit instead of all the life-giving fruit they could have had, they would die.

Our free will is a good thing. It is a good thing that we have the capacity to choose. We don’t know that Adam and Eve were to be forbidden to eat of that tree for all of time. We know they were forbidden to eat of it at the time and in the way they chose to eat it. They chose not to trust God would make God’s use of that fruit in God’s time and according to God’s plan. That was the original sin–that is, their lack of faith and their failure to act to choose the good as faith (trust in God’s will) prompted them to act.

 

[OneSheep]

Like other animals they lived their life by the status quo, whatever that was at the given moment. They had no drive to find something better to build or change their environment, those drives only came with the conscience which created the search for the greater good

Your interpretation makes sense, but is “the search for greater good” really a function of the conscience? It seems to me that the conscience is more involved with modulating behavior between individuals in the tribal setting, and within the individual to modulate his own behavior. Searching for more stable resources would seem to be a function of desire for territory, wealth, and the maturing of sibling rivalry that we call jealousy.

I think that the story, in this type of interpretation, also touches on human desire for autonomy, our blindness (compromise) of the conscience when overcome with desire, our natural testing of authority and resistance to rules that seem unnecessary by such authority. Also, God in the story having hesitation, warning Adam and Eve about eating from the tree (conscience) could be symbolic of the fact that the conscience itself has only a “net” gain for the human, the price for having a conscience in which internally and externally the helpful is rewarded and the harmful condemned is that condemnation leads to desire to punish, and punishment can be deadly.

Like I said, the symbolism of tree as conscience has made sense to me, but this different way proposed in my OP may actually be more in tune with Christian theology, and may not compromise a more evolutionary approach.

 

[OneSheep]

On the contrary, [Augustine] said that “nothing else than his own will makes man’s mind the slave of his desire.” Now man does not become a slave to his desires, except through sin. Therefore the cause of sin cannot be the devil, but man’s own will alone.

• St. Thomas Aquinas

So, since man’s will alone is the cause, does the serpent represent the notion that something which appears to be good is good (even though it causes suffering)? Once it appears good, man becomes a slave to his desires.

edwest211:

That’s not accurate. Romans 5:12:

New International Version
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned–

Which is not accurate? I don’t know which thing I wrote you are referring to.

 

[OneSheep]

They simply were guilty-of acting outside of/not in accord with nature-and their sense of shame was the unavoidable consequence, because theIr own natures attested to this anomaly. They knew , without necessarily knowing how they knew, that they were guilty. Their guilt would remain …

Good morning!

If the proposal is that the tree symbolizes rejection itself, though, then the feeling of guilt would be part of what was eaten. Is that what you are saying? The feelings of guilt/ shame/ condemnation are all examples of rejection.

Why would they do so though? In my understanding the essence of their sin could be seen as “pride”, placing themselves equal to or above their Creator. The desire to be like God, not at all a bad desire in itself, would be the motivating factor, but the idea that they could be like Him without Him, that creation doesn’t need their Creator, making themselves His equal, is essentially the sin of pride.

Well, we “eat of rejection”, we reject, because rejection helps us modulate our own behaviors (guilt, self condemnation) and those of others (condemnation) it is not really a voluntary emotional response, but bringing it into awareness is key to transcending it. I think the Gospel is more about transcending rejection (through forgiveness).

The extremes are shame and self-hatred on the one hand, and pride and self-righteousness on the other, both being two sides of the same coin IMO. Pride sets an inordinately high standard for who we should be, while shame hates itself for not living up to that standard. At least that’s the origin of shame IMO.

This is a very interesting approach. I find the flip side of shame/self hatred to be acceptance/self awareness(love).

A priest once told us that there is nothing wrong with the literal “self-righteousness”, that is, the conscience of the person saying what is right and wrong for oneself (when accurately developed).

Pride sets an inordinately high standard for who we should be

Dictionary : PRIDE

PRIDE An inordinate esteem of oneself. It is inordinate because it is contrary to the truth. It is essentially an act or disposition of the will desiring to be considered better than a person really is. Pride may be expressed in different ways: by taking personal credit for gifts or possessions...

www.catholicculture.org

So, if a person rejects such “inordinate esteem” in oneself and others, then that would be eating of the tree in this proposal. On the other hand, if one can accept that people make errors in thinking, that we are all moving from ignorance to awareness, then we would not be eating of such fruit. I’m not sure if that was what my friend was thinking, but perhaps that works?

while it should be obvious in our world that pride and self-righteousness cause great deals of harm objectively speaking to ourselves and neighbor on a continuous basis… Pride and the self-righteousness it engenders is the basis for all wrong behavior, because it makes us the god of our motives; it compels and allows us to justify anything.

Wow, this speaks volumes about your position, fhansen. Can you elaborate on the harm done by pride and self-righteousness? Give an example?

 

[OneSheep]

Unfortunately, too many people reject the concepts of pride and guilt. I saw the following on a forum where I am a moderator: “I never want to feel guilty or ashamed or sinful ever again.”

I’m not sure that is exactly “rejecting the concepts of pride and guilt.” Instead, I’m seeing that the person’s conscience is working exactly the way it is meant to work! Of course we do not want to feel guilty, ashamed, or sinful because it is uncomfortable. The natural answer to not feeling guilt is to behave in ways where we do not feel guilty, to follow our own consciences.

 

[fhansen]

Wow, this speaks volumes about your position, fhansen. Can you elaborate on the harm done by pride and self-righteousness? Give an example?

ISIS. I guess I shouldn’t be judgmental about beheadings, etc tho. Maybe I’m being the self-righteous one here.

 

[OneSheep]

What we cannot afford to reject is trust in the right judgment of Almighty God.

Okay, so far that follows from the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” symbolizing rejection itself.

God didn’t reject the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.

Yes, if God “rejected”, then He would have eaten from the tree (in this proposal).

He made the fruit; the tree and the fruit were good. He told Adam and Eve that if they chose to eat of that fruit instead of all the life-giving fruit they could have had, they would die.

Yes, this also is in line with the symbolism proposed in the OP. When we reject, we experience a death, a death of separation from what we are refusing to accept, which is a state of sin (alienation). I am “thinking with my fingers” here, seeing if my friend’s proposal is workable.

Our free will is a good thing. It is a good thing that we have the capacity to choose. We don’t know that Adam and Eve were to be forbidden to eat of that tree for all of time. We know they were forbidden to eat of it at the time and in the way they chose to eat it. They chose not to trust [that?] God would make God’s use of that fruit in God’s time and according to God’s plan.

Well, the forbidding by God itself makes sense, because rejection itself leads to alienation. There is nothing in the story that indicates that God ever was going to change His stance about the tree, right?

 

[edwest211]

False reasoning. This is putting man and his desires before God and the Truth.

 

[OneSheep]

ISIS.

Shoot, I was hoping we could stay on topic, so hopefully you can respond to the tree symbolism stuff.

Okay, what was going on in the minds of those of ISIS when they did beheadings? What were they thinking?

I guess I shouldn’t be judgmental about beheadings, etc tho. Maybe I’m being the self-righteous one here.

obviously

So, to elaborate (I think, following my friend’s proposal) it is the word “should” that is part of the rejection process. We reject what we are thinking we shouldn’t do. There is certainly an evolutionary benefit for such rejection in that when we reject such behavior, we are guided to avoid doing what is harmful. However, the price of rejection is that we are alienated to some degree from what actually is.

The word “should” leads us to counterfactual thinking, which is a non-acceptance.

Feel free to point out all the shortfalls of this approach, there are some that jump out right away. I hope I can address them in a way that conforms to the proposal.

 

[OneSheep]

I’m not sure that is exactly “rejecting the concepts of pride and guilt.” Instead, I’m seeing that the person’s conscience is working exactly the way it is meant to work! Of course we do not want to feel guilty, ashamed, or sinful because it is uncomfortable. The natural answer to not feeling guilt is to behave in ways where we do not feel guilty, to follow our own consciences.

edwest211:

False reasoning. This is putting man and his desires before God and the Truth.

Really? Where did I say that? I’m confused. Could you point out where I said that?

 

[fhansen]

Shoot, I was hoping we could stay on topic, so hopefully you can respond to the tree symbolism stuff. Okay, what was going on in the minds of those of ISIS when they did beheadings? What were they thinking?

They were thinking they were right, while being about as wrong as they could possibly be. In your scenario I just judged them, failed to accept their opinion perhaps. You’re supporting moral relativism I tend to think, while the opinion that God created the “natural law”, with a conscience already in place where we can know that some things are just plain right and some just plain wrong, without being self-righteous, is the classic understanding.

 

[fhansen]

So, to elaborate (I think, following my friend’s proposal) it is the word “should” that is part of the rejection process. We reject what we are thinking we shouldn’t do. There is certainly an evolutionary benefit for such rejection in that when we reject such behavior, we are guided to avoid doing what is harmful. However, the price of rejection is that we are alienated to some degree from what actually is. The word “should” leads us to counterfactual thinking, which is a non-acceptance.

Yes, maybe they “should”-or alternatively, should not-behead. And in any case maybe I should-or should not-judge them for it.

 

[PetraG]

No, I’m saying that choosing to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was an example of a good act chosen at the wrong time or under the wrong circumstances out of lack of faith. No, I don’t see that it can be presumed that Adam and Eve never could have been allowed to eat from the Tree. They didn’t know that, one way or the other. They were told it would be deadly under the present circumstances and were told no more. They were told enough to act according to God’s plan.

I don’t think God made the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil–or any good thing that is deadly if used at the wrong time or in the wrong way–as a way to trap Adam and Even into sin. We have free will in order to share in the life of God. Like the Trinity, however, the divine life requires that free will is used within a framework of relationship. In our relationship with God, we must have faith–trust that the divine law is superior to our own capacity to choose. Even within the Trinity, after all, there is no contention. The Three Persons are one God: being of one mind is the nature of being in a relationship of love. It is the way the moral universe is built.

Contrast this with the way Adam and Eve reacted to being questioned about their decision–immediately, they point fingers. Immediately, they distance themselves from their decision by shifting blame. This is what evil does: it destroys unity and introduces contention and dissension. The suggestion of the snake, too, was a temptation to lose faith, was it not? The first step towards sin is losing faith in the absolute goodness of the divine law.

The exercise of free will and a correctly-formed conscience, in contrast, is seen in Gethsemane. Our Lord did not look forward to the Passion. He didn’t want to be falsely accused, physically assaulted, insulted, and eventually killed. This was a correct prudential judgment, the same judgment he has used all the times the crowd wanted to kill him and he slipped away. In this case, however, he knew with certainty that there was a overriding concern with regards to the will of the Father that made it an exception. In this case, his prudential judgment was overridden by faith that in this case slipping away was not in God’s plan. In this case, he had to remain, testify to the truth by his actions, and in so doing fulfill the will of the Father, even to death, a death he knew was certain because he understood the situation fully. This was the fulfillment of the journey of faith begun in Abraham (whose righteousness was accounted according to his willingness to trust in both the promises and the commands of God).

Now, if you want to see the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil as something good we can appreciate but can never achieve ourselves, I don’t see why that would be a wrong way to look at it. For instance, you could say it was a physical analogy of the actual sovereignty of God. We can appreciate the divine law, but we don’t get to write it. Sure, that works, too.

What I don’t think works is looking at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and as inherently bad thing, rather than a good thing used in the wrong way.

 

[OneSheep]

They were thinking they were right

Yes, they did think that. But thinking that one is right does not in itself lead to destroying someone else, correct?

What else was going on in their minds?

In your scenario I just judged them, failed to accept their opinion perhaps.

You did not necessarily “fail to accept” or judge them. You observed that something about what they were thinking was “right” was an untruth, which I think is an accurate observation.

They are rejecting the existence and the beliefs of those they kill, right?

Yes, maybe they “should”-or alternatively, should not -behead. And in any case maybe I should-or should not-judge them for it.

I know this sounds confusing, but examine this: if we reject rejection, we are still rejecting.

There are other operators on human choices besides “should” and “should not”. This is not a proposal of “moral relativism”. There is certainly a known moral and immoral. This is a way of approaching and addressing what is moral and immoral, I think.

 

[PetraG]

“Tree of knowledge of good and evil” symbolizes the human capacity to reject any part of life or creation. When we reject, we experience a separation from the whole of the universe, that there are consequences both known and unknown for such rejection.

Indeed, we know from Genesis 1 that all of creation is good, but what occurs in the human mind is the “knowledge” of evil, which in itself is the illusion that there is some part of creation, some aspect of our life, that is to be held unacceptable.

When we hold onto this non-acceptance, we suffer, just as Adam and Eve suffered.

If you’re saying that all sin is rejection of the divine law on the grounds that we think we are better judges of reality than God, then sure, that is a way to look at it. Faith is the evidence of things unseen–that is, the decision to trust that God does see, does love completely and by justice ought to be trusted to judge all things rightly.

So yes, you can look at the consequences of the Fall as God’s recitation of what humans chose when they chose to substitute their own decision-making for the wisdom of God’s law.

 

[OneSheep]

What I don’t think works is looking at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and as inherently bad thing, rather than a good thing used in the wrong way.

Yes, this still works with the proposal. If we are saying that it is an inherently bad thing, then we are rejecting the tree itself.

Everything else you mentioned also does not appear to contradict the proposal of the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil representing rejection itself, correct?

 

[STT]

They were thinking they were right, while being about as wrong as they could possibly be. In your scenario I just judged them, failed to accept their opinion perhaps. You’re supporting moral relativism I tend to think, while the opinion that God created the “natural law”, with a conscience already in place where we can know that some things are just plain right and some just plain wrong, without being self -righteous, is the classic understanding.

Things which is plainly right cannot be relative.