Evoken

I understand what you mean. But you are working from the assumption that it was just a mistake or something done in ignorance when it was not.

When Eve tells the serpent that: God hath commanded us that we should not eat .. lest perhaps we die. She is aware that dying is not a good thing but once the serpent fools her into thinking that she would not die, assuring her that it was safe to eat from the tree because: God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil. And that she would not die, then she ate and disobeyed God's commandment.

Also notice that Eve: saw that the tree was good to eat So she was capable of apreciating good things, she had a basis upon which to base her choice.

Awmte

Let me pompously quote myself :-)

Thus, we have two mutually exclusive scenarios: Either they could sin before they ate of the fruit (by disobeying God's command) and did not, therefore, need to eat of the tree, or they could not have sinned before they ate of the tree and consequently did not sin.

If she knew good from bad, the tree is pretty much redundant

Killer Mike

If we were to take the Garden of Eden myth seriously that would mean at one time there was Adam and Eve. So they must have had children and inbreed with each other for population growth. I mean if a guy wanted to find a date he would have to go to a family get together! Sick is it not :huh:

chokmah

Good point. I find myself wanting to get into semantics, but for the most part, that only leads me down a derogatory path. I was just trying to make the distinction clear regarding "original sin" and Judaism. Everything else is secondary.

chokmah

Well, Mike, here's the deal in that regard (take it for what you like):

At the end of each day of creating (except for day one), G-d said that it was "good". The general assumption is that "good" lends itself to perfection. In that regard, there were no infirmities or problems with progeny through mutation or anything else. Therefore, the concern for incest (that is present today) did not exist.

Not to get off on too much of a tangent, but the same consideration would be standing from evolution (if I'm not mistaken). There is no way to determine whether there was a mass progression that produced more than two human beings that were able to produce offspring together. Therefore, there is the chance of "incest" and the chance of "non-familial intercourse".

chokmah

Evoken

They had the ability to sin before eating from the three and that is what they did. The lost of sanctifying grace came after they disobeyed God's command and ate from the tree. They simply had not sinned until this time. They didn't gain the ability to sin after eating from the tree.

The tree is there in order to test their obedience. The tree didn't give them anything, rather, it took away from them sanctifying grace without which they became subject to death and the dominion of the devil.

When it says in Gen. 2:25: And they were both naked .. and where not ashamed. It is referring to their original state of holiness in which they were not subject to the rebellions of the flesh. It does not refers to a state of ignorance of good and evil. But then when it says in Gen. 3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened.. it does not means that they gained any new knowledge at this point, but rather as the commentary of the Douay-Rheims says:

That is what Original Sin is, it is not an addition but a substraction. It is not something that they gained but something that they lost.

John A. Broussard

I'm bothered by the use of human analogies to explain God's actions. In the example above, if the parents had God's wisdom they would have known the kid was going to get burnt and would have prevented the event from happening--unless they were sadistic of course.

Hmm.

GoodLittleAtheist

According the definition of sin from dictionary.com what they did constitutes a sin. They didn't have to know good and evil. They only had to disobey God.

sin n.
1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. Theology.
a. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
b. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

Evoken

Exactly. And to provide another definition from the Catechism of The Catholic Church:

SIN: An offense against God as well as a fault against reason, truth, and right conscience. Sin is a deliberate thought, word, deed, or omission contrary to the eternal law of God.

rosy tetra

Some Christian churches put strong emphasis on Original Sin. They will tell you that you have to begin using the rod on your child within the first few weeks of life. (As soon as the baby begins to cry not for food, but for “selfish� reasons.) Babies are born totally depraved and will try to get away with murder unless the parent uses “rod and reproof� to break the will of the flesh.