A
ateista
Guest
Why would it be a distortion of the truth? God said: “for in the day that you eat of it you shall die”. The serpent said: “you will not die”. They ate, and did not die… so who is distorting the truth?
- Status
A
ateista
Guest
In the moral sense, they could not have known it. They could have felt it pleasant to fill their stomach, they could have felt it nice to bask in the rays of the Sun, or take a dip in a cold water… that is not the point. Something that feels pleasant is not necessarily morally good.
E
East_and_West
Guest
You read to much into the concept of the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil. They knew that they were told not eat it. Because they were created in a state of perfection, they new that they should not eat it. What the tree of knowledge did was introduce to them new evils that they would not have known of had they remained in perfection or had they not been told about them. Things they would not have done without this knowledge.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
A description of Adam and Eve in terms which is not solely derived from one line of Scripture. The definition which the Church and orthodox Christianity presents.
Please. This a fruitless pursuit. You can’t tell the Church what it believes about Adam and Eve. This is a straw-man argument.
Although I agree with you that your interpretation of that single line of scripture is illogical and incorrect.
VC
A
ateista
Guest
And pray tell, why not? If the Bible is the word of God, what else is there go on? And it is quite clear and unambiguous. Just because the text is inconvenient to accept?
To know “good and evil” is what makes one a moral agent. That is all.
Illogical in what way?
K
Katholish
Guest
So you believe they had knowledge of physical good and evil, but not moral good and evil?
You seem to be making a hard dichotomy between the goodness in the moral and physical orders. While they are indeed conceptually distinct, goodness is still only one thing–desirability. Adam and Eve saw that everything God made was good–was desirable, even if just for the reason that it had being. In the same way, they know that anything God commanded was good, because they knew God was goodness itself (they knew God in a profound way because their knowledge was not happered by concupisence.
The perception of goodness is the very basis of all choice.
T
tobias
Guest
You keep running further from the point. It was the serpent that said ‘you will be like God, KNOWING good and evil.’ This was a distortion. Eve recounted that God said not to eat or touch it lest you die. If this is just a conceptual knowledge then Eve already had it, because she did not ask for clarification.
On the point if dying as a result of eating the fruit, consequent to this action God said 'man shall not live forever.'
A
ateista
Guest
Not exactly. They could have known about the “pleasantness” on the existence, but that is all. The Garden was supposed to be “perfect”, no death, no pain, no disease, no misery… none. All those “unpleasant” things were introduced into existence by God, who cursed his creation because of the disobedience.
Therefore they could not have known about the possible “negative” side of existence, either experientally of conceptually.
K
Katholish
Guest
For a finite being of a rational nature, the idea of privation would practically be a first principle (like non-contradiction). It is something so basic, that it is impossible to have rational thought without it.
The concept of privation is the basis of morality. The concept of goodness is foundational to choice, and it is impossible to have a rational being (with the use of his natural ability) without that being being a moral agent.
The concept of privation is the basis of morality. The concept of goodness is foundational to choice, and it is impossible to have a rational being (with the use of his natural ability) without that being being a moral agent.
A
ateista
Guest
Which part? To “become” like God? or “knowing good from evil”? The name of the tree was “the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil”. Was it a “misnomer”?
Yes, Eve repeated it, but that does not mean she understood it. Besides it was not true in the first place. They did not die the very day when they disobeyed.
Contradicted by the Bible. They were prevented by the cherubim with the flaming sword which was placed there by God, so that they could not live forever. From that it logically follows that they were not immortal in the first place.
Someone, who actually understood the situation as presented, would have gone to the tree of life first (which was not forbidden) and only afterwards to the tree of knowledge.
The funny stuff is that God did not bother to place a cherubim to protect the first tree… only the second one. Did you ever wonder why?
K
Katholish
Guest
It was mortal sin, so they died spiritually at least–the very day that they committed the sin.
A
ateista
Guest
“Nihil est in intellectu…” have you heard that? In the Garden there was no “privation” - according to the Bible. So the very concept could not have come up.
Sure it can. Small children have a very limited, but still existing “rationality”. They experience pain, they experience pleasure - unlike Adam and Eve who only experienced pleasure. They learn to seek pleasure, they learn to avoid pain - which is a “rational process”.
What they cannot know for quite a long time that “if I cut my finger and it hurts me, then if I cut your finger it will hurt you as well”. That recognition comes much later in life.
They are not “moral” agents, because they cannot reason the trasitivity of actions.
A
ateista
Guest
A mortal sin has a few prerequistes - according to the Cathecism. First one is that one has to be fully aware of the “sinful” nature of the action. And that is precisely what is missing here, what they could not have known. Disobedience is not a sin, much less a mortal one.
(Of course “spiritual” death is just a verbal doubletalk.)
K
Katholish
Guest
While it is the natural mode of human knowledge to gain knowledge only through the senses, that doesn’t mean that everything must be experienced in order to be understood. Logical deduction allows man to expand his base of knowledge without direct experience.
There certainly was privation in the Garden–not in the sense of the privation of a due good, but in the sense of the lack, or privation, or certain perfections. Adam and Eve did not possess all perfection, such an idea is silly. They are limited creatures, and as such were aware that there were perfections that they did not possess. In this way, they knew limitation and privation, but not in the sense of experiencing evil. The absense of a good is the privation of that good. “Perfection” can be understood in two different ways, on the one hand as the summation of all goodness (the attainment of all perfections), or on the other hand, to have all of the perfections or goodness appropriate to one’s limited nature. In this later sense, Adam and Eve were perfect, but in the prior sense, only God is perfect.
This is precisely why I qualified my statement to say “with the use of his natural ability”. Children do not have the use of reason per se, but their ability to reason is still being formed. That is why we refer to children of around the age of 7 having attained “the age of reason” and why the Latin Rite does not allow the distribution of the sacrament before this age. While those with dificient reason, like the mentally disabled or young children operate as moral agents in a very limited sense, they are not held truly accountable for their decisions until they have full use of their reasoning ability–because with that reasoning ability comes true moral agency.
That being said, Adam and Eve had a superior use of reason than most men because they were unincumbered by concupisense. Their passions did not act as a hinderance to their rational faculties. As such, they were even more culpable for their choice then most of us born with the propensity to sin.
K
Katholish
Guest
Out of curiosity, and in order to know what I might assume to be common ground in an argument, may I ask from where you are approaching this issue? Are you a Catholic who believes this to be the teaching of the Church? A believer in Christ who believes Catholic have misinterpreted the Bible? or a sceptic?
A
ateista
Guest
Only in the case of axiomatic systems (like mathematics), which does not apply here.
The highlighted text is unsubstantiated. If one lacks something, it does not mean that one is aware of such lacking.
That does not follow. Either they were **aware **(or knew) that action “A” is good and action “B” is bad, or not. If they knew it, then consuming the fruit was irrelevant and the prohibition of it was also unneccessary. Or they did not know it, and in that case they were not culpable for their action.
A
ateista
Guest
If you look at my screen name and/or check my user profile, you will see that I am an atheist, who does not believe in any gods, who does not believe that the Bible is more than a mildly interesting semi-historical document, which is useful only as a description of how some people imagined the “creation” of this world.
That does not prevent me from asking questions, and that is precisely what I am doing.
Since I am aware of my “fallibility”, I assume that maybe I am wrong in my worldview, and ask these questions to find out, if there are any logical and reasonable arguments for Catholicism, or Christianity. So far I am disapponted, there are no good logical arguments.
T
tobias
Guest
On the sixth day it is said God made man in his image and likeness. Prior to the fall man was more like God than after the fall, not having this privation of good. This was the distortion, the subtle notion that God wanted less for them.
Partaking of of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil gave them 1st hand experiential knowledge of good and evil by the very act of disobedience. They did, then they ‘knew’ which is the point.
God already had knowledge of evil by creating free angelic beings who had rejected Him. !st hand experience of the rejection of part of his creation.
Sure she did, she 1st brushed aside the serpents erronious question then stated the truth of the matter. If she did not understand she wouldn’t have said ‘No, God said…’
To be removed from the place where you could live forever, to a place where you may not is to incur death.
No, someone with concupisence might think along this order, but they were decieved.
Not to sound disrespectful, but yes I wondered this as a child.
To have partaken of the tree of life would have made thier action of eternal consequence. It was in order to offer them mercy. To have gaurded the tree of knowledge of good and evil would hae been a hinderance of free will.
Of course you do know what the tree of life is in Catholicism?
Let me bring it back to my 1st point. The Hebrew usage of the term knowledge is 1st hand experiential.
K
Katholish
Guest
I commend you on your desire to investigate. I just wanted to be able to focus my responses.If you look at my screen name and/or check my user profile, you will see that I am an atheist, who does not believe in any gods, who does not believe that the Bible is more than a mildly interesting semi-historical document, which is useful only as a description of how some people imagined the “creation” of this world.
That does not prevent me from asking questions, and that is precisely what I am doing.
K
Katholish
Guest
- Status