makerowner

He had no way of evaluating God's trustworthiness or lack thereof if he had no sense of right and wrong.

Baalazel

It makes a lot of sense sonofone. If we take the meaning of the fruit as offering the ability to choose between good and evil, it is clear that Eve chose before eating the fruit. It is that Eve gained the knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

But it doesn't end there. Remember the words of the serpent in Gen.3:5, "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

We can say that after Eve ate the fruit she was "as a god." Think of Adam being offered the fruit by Eve whom he now sees as a god. And think about the creation of Adam as a creature whose only purpose was to do what he was told to do by God.

What we have is a woman who found a way around Gods restriction on eating from the fruit of the tree. Eve is blameless. And, we have a man who only did what a god told him was good to do. Adam is blameless.

We should all pay homage to the serpent who was the only one who spoke the truth.

Baal

Amaleq13

How did Adam obtain the concept of "trustworthy"? Who lied to him so that he might know the difference? How does one recognize a lie if one is oblivious to the difference between good and evil?

Once you've answered those, you can explain how Adam knew God was trustworthy.

What about those experiences would inform Adam that God should be obeyed?

You need an argument to recognize that concepts like "obedience" and "respect" involve value judgments?

With regard to the point in question (ie awareness of what "death" means), it is an entirely appropriate comparison. Absent any actual experience of the concept, one does not magically obtain an understanding of what "death" means upon reaching adulthood. It must be learned.

Nonsense. You are simply dodging the painfully obvious difficulties resulting from taking this fable seriously by making specious complaints. Deal with the problems or admit your position has nothing but faith to support it.

Johnny Skeptic

And how was Adam supposed to know if God is trustworthy?

Would you have eaten the forbidden fruit? If so, you have no business criticizing Adam. If you do not know, you should not be criticizing Adam. God should be criticized for causing animals to kill each other.

Roland

It's a stupid story anyway. It's all about the glory of ignorance and the evil of knowledge. It's about a creator who wants to keep his creation childlike and incurious. What modern person would take it seriously or believe it teaches anything worth knowing?

Matt Stone

First, I've always seen the story of Adam and Eve as an allegory for the transition from childish innocence to the burdensome responsibilities of adulthood. After all, what differentiates children from adults more than an understanding of right and wrong, good and evil? Children possess innocence, and typically do what they're told (disobeying when they're really too young to rationalize doesn't count, and exploring their world as they learn about themselves and their surroundings doesn't really count either). Adults know there is a choice, they know the consequences of their actions (mostly), and are held accountable when they choose poorly.

Second, the debate whether Adam/Eve knew the consequences of their actions is a circular one... They couldn't know, truly, because they had nothing more than God telling them "don't do this or I'll kill you." He bullied them, perhaps not in an in-your-face manner, but he bullied them nonetheless. It wasn't "don't do this or no dessert for a week," or "don't do this or I'll give you a spanking," but rather the terroristic demand of "don't do it or I'll kill you." Can you imagine the conversation?

GOD: "Adam, Eve, this is the Tree of the Fruit of Knowing Stuff. Don't eat the fruit, or I'll kill you."
Adam: "Right, then. What's this "knowing stuff" all about, anyway?"
Eve: "Yeah, I mean, why can't we know stuff?"
GOD: "Never mind that, just don't eat the fruit. I'll kill you if you do."
Adam: "Right. What's this "killing" all about, then? Never seen "killing," not quite sure what it is..."
Eve: "Yeah, I mean, like, what's "killing" anyway?"
GOD: "Just do what you're told. I'm your GOD and you will do as you're told, or I'll kill you."
Adam: "See, that's my point here..."
Eve: "Yeah, that's his point..."

And on and on and on. Those of us with children can imagine how the rest of the conversation went. It certainly wasn't as simple as the bible portrays... God told them "don't," and the kids asked "why" until either he gave them a reason that made sense, or he appealed to his own authority and threatened them with bodily harm in order to get his way and enforce his rules (like most terrestrial parents do when completely frustrated and unable to find any other way of convincing their children - surely a god can do better than we do, right?).

Lastly, why was God so firm on the punishment issue? If he knew Adam and Eve would be tempted by eating the fruit, most especially after telling them not to (never had a problem with my children not doing things I didn't want them to do if I hadn't first told them not to do it) and inspiring curiosity in them by pointing out the forbidden nature of the fruit, why'd he do it in the first place? We're talking omniscient deity, so if he didn't already know they'd "fall," if he didn't know what choice they'd make, then he proves himself as anything but omniscient, and therefore "not god" but something else.

Thoughts?

Joan of Bark

You are correct, Matt, of course.

Another question: What was the purpose of the tree of knowledge of good and evil anyway? Why was it in the garden? It reminds me of a naughty twelve-year old leaving chocolate cake out in front of his baby brother, and telling him: "you better not eat it, or else!" And then later yelling: "mom, Jimmy ate the cake when I told him not to!"

Christians should stop looking at this story as anything but an allegory -- an explanation for the origin of free will.

Dogfish

Did he do that for Adam? or are you talking about general salvation? If so, by making the message clear as mud (either on purpose or by putting it in the hands of fallable people - people made fallible on his command - so it is virtually indistinguisable from fairy tales), he would still be evil.

Dogfish

And what is more amazing is the hoops that some will jump thru to make themselves believe it.

Meatros

So Adam isn't able to make value judgements, yet he's able to determine that breaking a decree that God commanded is a bad thing.....