Adam and Eve story - Logically flawed?

[Hubriss]

I think this exact topic was the very first post I made on these forums three years ago. It’s totally shocking once you realize how flimsy and degrading the whole ideological basis is for all of Christianity is. It is all based on original sin which was the whole reason Jesus had to come and save us in the first place. Yet the justification for original sin is totally illogical and contradicts many other dogmatic beliefs of the faith. It’s one of the reasons why I respect some protestants more, because they can actually apply reason and logic to correct bad dogma.

 

[PinoyCatholic]

I think this exact topic was the very first post I made on these forums three years ago. It’s totally shocking once you realize how flimsy and degrading the whole ideological basis is for all of Christianity is. It is all based on original sin which was the whole reason Jesus had to come and save us in the first place. Yet the justification for original sin is totally illogical and contradicts many other dogmatic beliefs of the faith. It’s one of the reasons why I respect some protestants more, because they can actually apply reason and logic to correct bad dogma.

Actually the flimsy and degrading ideological basis you’re referring to would include the Jews. Genesis was a Jewish book.

 

[pprimeau1976]

I think this exact topic was the very first post I made on these forums three years ago. It’s totally shocking once you realize how flimsy and degrading the whole ideological basis is for all of Christianity is. It is all based on original sin which was the whole reason Jesus had to come and save us in the first place. Yet the justification for original sin is totally illogical and contradicts many other dogmatic beliefs of the faith. It’s one of the reasons why I respect some protestants more, because they can actually apply reason and logic to correct bad dogma.

I think it’s clear that Adam sinned. The biblical justification for the concept of original sin having an effect on all humanity can be seen if you look at the sequence of events compared to an alternatives. This is the way Genesis puts it:

1. 
   *]Eve eats the fruit
   *]Eve gives it to Adam
   *]Adam eats the fruit
   *]Adam and Eve both realize that they are naked.
   Notice that the sequence was NOT as follows:
   1. 
      *]Eve eats the fruit
      *]Eve realizes she is naked
      *]Eve gives the fruit to Adam
      *]Adam eats the fruit
      *]Adam realizes he is naked
      Why does this matter? It matters because only after *Adam *ate the fruit did shame set in for both of them.

 

[peso73]

I think it’s clear that Adam sinned. The biblical justification for the concept of original sin having an effect on all humanity can be seen if you look at the sequence of events compared to an alternatives. This is the way Genesis puts it:

1. 
   *]Eve eats the fruit
   *]Eve gives it to Adam
   *]Adam eats the fruit
   *]Adam and Eve both realize that they are naked.
   Notice that the sequence was NOT as follows:
   1. 
      *]Eve eats the fruit
      *]Eve realizes she is naked
      *]Eve gives the fruit to Adam
      *]Adam eats the fruit
      *]Adam realizes he is naked
      Why does this matter? It matters because only after *Adam *ate the fruit did shame set in for both of them.

1. 1. 
      AGAIN ~ WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY HAVE GIVEN A FIG LEAF THAT THEY WERE NAKED??? No one has commented on this as it may seem stupid, I guess, or whatever, but why would they have been ashamed of their nudity??? God made us with genitals folks, and they are nothing to be ashamed of, especially as Adam and Eve were a couple? Since this thread is retarded anyway, why not give an opinion on this? Lighten up and chew on that thought? Good and evil aside, why would they have been ashamed and made the loin cloths?

 

[Hubriss]

Actually the flimsy and degrading ideological basis you’re referring to would include the Jews. Genesis was a Jewish book.

It’s also a Catholic book which is foundational for Catholicism. Why is it in the Catholic Bible if it’s just Jewish? And were you saying that the Jews are stupider than Catholics are?

pprimeau1976. Who ate the apple and who committed the original sin for both of them is irrelevant to my and the OP’s post.

peso73:

AGAIN ~ WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY HAVE GIVEN A FIG LEAF THAT THEY WERE NAKED??? No one has commented on this as it may seem stupid, I guess, or whatever, but why would they have been ashamed of their nudity??? God made us with genitals folks, and they are nothing to be ashamed of, especially as Adam and Eve were a couple? Since this thread is retarded anyway, why not give an opinion on this? Lighten up and chew on that thought? Good and evil aside, why would they have been ashamed and made the loin cloths?

That’s actually a very good question… The only logical answer I can think of is that by eating of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil did they realize with full knowledge that their bodies were actually evil, probably referring to sexual desire. This would again contradict the belief that everything was created good.

 

[PinoyCatholic]

It’s also a Catholic book which is foundational for Catholicism. Why is it in the Catholic Bible if it’s just Jewish? And were you saying that the Jews are stupider than Catholics are?

No. I’m saying no such thing.

What I’m saying is why are you ascribing such a flimsy and degrading ideological basis only to Christianity? When you say that some Protestants can apply reason and logic to correct bad dogma, does that definitively exclude Catholics? Or Orthodox? Or maybe Muslims because Genesis is also a foundational book to them?

Is it because all these religions are equally stupid? Or maybe, just maybe, there is some reasonable and logical basis for this “flimsy and degrading ideology”, one that you’re not aware of or haven’t bothered to thoroughly research?

 

[pprimeau1976]

AGAIN ~ WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY HAVE GIVEN A FIG LEAF THAT THEY WERE NAKED??? No one has commented on this as it may seem stupid, I guess, or whatever, but why would they have been ashamed of their nudity??? God made us with genitals folks, and they are nothing to be ashamed of, especially as Adam and Eve were a couple? Since this thread is retarded anyway, why not give an opinion on this? Lighten up and chew on that thought? Good and evil aside, why would they have been ashamed and made the loin cloths?

In my previous post I showed how the text could convey that they had knowledge of the* concepts* of goodness and wickedness. The tree of knowledge did not necessarily bestow the knowledge of the concept. God told them what the tree was and not to touch it. Like VociMike said, if you tell someone not to touch the red button, you assume that the person knows what red is and what a button is. We can only conclude that knowledge of good and evil is really knowledge of good and evil acts. God knows all of the acts that are good and all of the acts that are evil

I also said that biblically speaking knowledge was really initimate familiarity so much so that the act of having sex with your wife is conveyed as “knowing” your wife. It was not wrong to be intimately familiar with goodness, but I think it was a big problem to want to be intimately familiar with wickedness as well. Once Adam ate the fruit, they both became intimately familiar with goodness and wickedness. Shame came upon them for the first time because they both probably knew what lust was, knew that looking upon a person with lust (instead of with love) was sinful, and they didn’t want to be an object of each other’s lust.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Reading some of the posts here I get the impression that some here think of Adam and Eve before the fall as deficient humans who are almost ignorant or stupid. This is 100% opposite of what they were. They were created with the original unfallen grace of a full humanity. That gave them a higher moral basis for rational thought as well as intellect. After the falling away humanity as a whole suffers the progressive pattern of declining moral standards and aging to live less long. If on doubt look at scripture and see how the ancient writers of the Old Testament give accounts of successive generations of humanity living less long and how sin and disorder increase. This is the effect of sin and the corruption on humanity as well as Creation.

From current “modern” context of gravely disordered human moral condition and corruption it would really be laughable to an objective viewer standing outside time-space to hear us pontificating on what Adam and Eve knew as if we had a superior objective moral or intellectual basis. The closest analogy I can come up with on short order that gives insight on this would be to use the example of a copy machine. That is, if one had a perfect unblemished manuscript and copied it on a reproduction machine successively for thousands of years what would come out would be an abject mass disfigured by noise and imperfection that would not be recognizable to the original author except by similarity to form factor (8" x 11" size paper).

So I would caution against diminishing the lesson of Adam and Eve and thinking we have outgrown it since it is really key to understanding not only the whole complete human condition but also our grasping the necessity for having an uncorrupted divine savior to redeem a fallen humanity and graft it in intimately to divinity through the tree of life.

Moral of the story Adam and Eve originally were perfect human beings and even after the fall, compared to us they had a super-human nature.

James

 

[AndyF]

How could Adam and Eve be punished for doing wrong when they didn’t know right from wrong before they did it?

This implies that the concept of original sin is based on a logical absurdity.

Is it?

They were given a conscience and intuition. Their descendants would further benefit from the Word, however, they were given sufficient attributes to know the difference.

Having said that, original sin “in it’s application” is an issue with me and I know this isn’t dogma.

If at least one absolute rule regarding culpable transferance is dependent on species type, then Eve is innocent, has she too is a species different from her tempter. The effect is that her compounding to Adam doesn’t occur and so he is innocent as well.

However, If she is guilty solely due to her giving in to her nature of being hungry, Satan being absent, then yes I can see her as being culpable, and so is Adam in this case. However one should remember much emphasis is made to Satan’s part in her sin, implying influence by a differing species, and that too can’t be ignored.

So I like to believe she was hungry.

AndyF

 

[peso73]

“I also said that biblically speaking knowledge was really initimate familiarity so much so that the act of having sex with your wife is conveyed as “knowing” your wife. It was not wrong to be intimately familiar with goodness, but I think it was a big problem to want to be intimately familiar with wickedness as well. Once Adam ate the fruit, they both became intimately familiar with goodness and wickedness. Shame came upon them for the first time because they both probably knew what lust was, knew that looking upon a person with lust (instead of with love) was sinful, and they didn’t want to be an object of each other’s lust.”

interesting…I never thought of that before, and the only counterpoint I’d make is that most folks don’t lust after the “private areas” in and of themselves (i.e. a naked man or woman in a leaf loin cloth would still be lust inspiring ~ just look at the burkas in Afganistan, now THOSE outfits make lust impossible!) so…
I have to agree with the “pro-bible story” posts’ points as far as one would not need to know good or evil to know not to do something esp. if God directly said so. For example, a well-training dog “knows better than” to chew on papa’s slippers, but sometimes may, and when he does and is discovered, often even may whimper and put her head down, “knowing” she did something she was not supposed to do, probably instructed not to in the past. BUT I think it is universally believed there is no such thing as a “bad” dog, dogs do not have the “knowledge of good and evil”, yet we still punish them for disobeying and they still know better, although maybe not that the thing they should not have done was wrong or evil (not that chewing a shoe is wrong or evil, but you get the point) ~ I think that is a pretty valid point…

 

[John_Hiner]

AGAIN ~ WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY HAVE GIVEN A FIG LEAF THAT THEY WERE NAKED??? No one has commented on this as it may seem stupid, I guess, or whatever, but why would they have been ashamed of their nudity??? God made us with genitals folks, and they are nothing to be ashamed of, especially as Adam and Eve were a couple? Since this thread is retarded anyway, why not give an opinion on this? Lighten up and chew on that thought? Good and evil aside, why would they have been ashamed and made the loin cloths?

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

God wills radical self-donation and authentic love. This both demands and makes possible radical intimacy between people. Original Sin was a decision to seek one’s own ends rather than pursue the self-abnegation required by God’s will.

Before the fall, sex was not a source of separation (shame) because it was properly (chastely) integrated with man’s passions and served its proper role: self-donative love, intimacy, and procreation. However, after the Fall, both Adam and Eve were tainted by motives of self-interest. Sex became a source of separation, because each wished to take benefit from the other, to fully penetrate and know the other, but not to be fully open and giving of himself. Once this double standard arose, as a direct result of the Original Sin, sex (the differentiation between man and woman) became the occasion of feelings of exploitation and separation – this is the meaning of the shame of nakedness after the Fall.

This subject is addressed in detail by Pope John Paul II in the series of presentations which later came to be called “The Theology of the Body.” The lectures can be read on EWTN’s website.

In short, the shame called “nakedness” arose because of the radical degradation of the quality love between the sexes caused by Original Sin.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[St_Aloysius]

How could Adam and Eve be punished for doing wrong when they didn’t know right from wrong before they did it?

This implies that the concept of original sin is based on a logical absurdity.

Is it?

I didn’t read through all posts to see if someone else pointed to a view similar to this or not, so if someone has, then forgive me. But I’ve also heard some interpreting the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil like this:

Adam and Eve had perfect ‘knowledge’ of good (in the sense of living in and experiencing it), as they were created to be “good.” However, only when they reached out and took from the Tree did they have the “knowledge of good and evil,” because whereas before they’d known only good–now they knew evil, as well.

My guess is the Hebrew word used to denote “knowledge” is the same, or similar to, the word in Hebrew used to denote sexual intercourse (“he knew his wife,” etc.), and if this is the case, then “knowing” evil to our First Parents was a matter of personally experiencing it. Being created as “good,” they therefore knew what was contrary to goodness, as well. (In other words, having known goodness, they knew that there was *none *in disobedience, even if “no-good” is not as substantial a realization as “the action is evil.”) Satan’s lie was that he would give them “knowledge” of good and evil–a “knowledge” God was depriving them of. Well, he was right in one sense: They did obtain a knowledge of good AND evil (the latter of which they had not formerly known), but by selling guilt and depravity and fall as “knowledge” which they didn’t already have, Satan distorted the truth of the matter (as much a lie as there ever was).

God’s culpability in the ordeal really can’t legitimately be called into question, though it’s a common thing to do. Say God is a gentleman asking a girl out to the prom, he gives her the option of letting him take her or declining. So it is with humanity–and so it was from the beginning. He is inviting us into his embrace, into the Paradise that is him. That is Eden. That is the pure Goodness that our Forbears rejected. God is always a gentleman. He will always give us a choice: to draw near or to run from him, and end up cowering in the bushes like Adam and Eve did–afraid and naked and helpless, vulnerable to their own schemes.

I hope this helps.

Peace.

 

[peso73]

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

God wills radical self-donation and authentic love. This both demands and makes possible radical intimacy between people. Original Sin was a decision to seek one’s own ends rather than pursue the self-abnegation required by God’s will.

Before the fall, sex was not a source of separation (shame) because it was properly (chastely) integrated with man’s passions and served its proper role: self-donative love, intimacy, and procreation. However, after the Fall, both Adam and Eve were tainted by motives of self-interest. Sex became a source of separation, because each wished to take benefit from the other, to fully penetrate and know the other, but not to be fully open and giving of himself. Once this double standard arose, as a direct result of the Original Sin, sex (the differentiation between man and woman) became the occasion of feelings of exploitation and separation – this is the meaning of the shame of nakedness after the Fall.

This subject is addressed in detail by Pope John Paul II in the series of presentations which later came to be called “The Theology of the Body.” The lectures can be read on EWTN’s website.

In short, the shame called “nakedness” arose because of the radical degradation of the quality love between the sexes caused by Original Sin.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

:tiphat: Thanks for addressing that side-issue with some interesting thoughts and guidance towards good reading, I guess the nudity is not really the source of shame then,
I love you guys, a lot of you really know your stuff!!!
I’m at home on disability right now and this site is like Blue’s Clues for catholic grown-ups (my 2 year old is watching this show non-stop for the last 2 months) - to quote Steve Burns, the shows’ original host, “…you’re really smart!” :dancing:

 

[Hubriss]

No. I’m saying no such thing.

What I’m saying is why are you ascribing such a flimsy and degrading ideological basis only to Christianity? When you say that some Protestants can apply reason and logic to correct bad dogma, does that definitively exclude Catholics? Or Orthodox? Or maybe Muslims because Genesis is also a foundational book to them?

Is it because all these religions are equally stupid? Or maybe, just maybe, there is some reasonable and logical basis for this “flimsy and degrading ideology”, one that you’re not aware of or haven’t bothered to thoroughly research?

Oh, no sorry for the misunderstanding. I have very little respect for all of the dogmatic sects of christianity and judaism and Islam and in fact all dogmatic religions… It’s just that I have a tiny bit more respect for those who can analyze their beliefs and come to conclusions different than their current dogmatic beliefs and effectively change their beliefs. For instance protestants who don’t believe we were created good by the same reasoning we are using in this thread, and those who believe in pre-destination based on the attributes to God as being all powerful, all knowing, and having a divine plan. This is something that Catholics don’t do for fear of losing their infallibility. (But in fact it has been done many times by the RCC, they’re just ignored or justified by attempting to change history).

But no, original sin is offically a mystery for the RCC.