VoodooChild

Asimis,

So you are saying that Adam and Eve knew good and evil before they ate of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Avatar

If God knew all and saw all, then what was the point of putting the tree in the garden in the first place? If God knew what the outcome would be, then why was he so psychotically angry when the result he knew would happen came about?

IT WAS A SET-UP!

Unless God had no idea what would happen...in which case God was not all-knowing. If that is the case then God has no business being God and is unworthy of the title. If it was a set-up, then we have no business giving this being any kind of respect at all, much less worship.

At which point we go back to the notion that the entire thing was just a story (like "Uncle Remus's Tall Tales) to explain why humans are imperfect and why the world is such a mean, merciless place.

Evoken

I think St. Thomas explains it very well. The following was taken from www.newadvent.org :

Whether passions existed in the soul of the first man?

Objection 1. It would seem that the first man's soul had no passions. For by the passions of the soul "the flesh lusteth against the spirit" (Gal. 5:7). But this did not happen in the state of innocence. Therefore in the state of innocence there were no passions of the soul.

Objection 2. Further, Adam's soul was nobler than his body. But his body was impassible. Therefore no passions were in his soul.

Objection 3. Further, the passions of the soul are restrained by the moral virtues. But in Adam the moral virtues were perfect. Therefore the passions were entirely excluded from him.

Aquinas Answer: On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 10) that "in our first parents there was undisturbed love of God," and other passions of the soul.

I answer that, The passions of the soul are in the sensual appetite, the object of which is good and evil. Wherefore some passions of the soul are directed to what is good, as love and joy; others to what is evil, as fear and sorrow. And since in the primitive state, evil was neither present nor imminent, nor was any good wanting which a good-will could desire to have then, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xiv, 10), therefore Adam had no passion with evil as its object; such as fear, sorrow, and the like; neither had he passions in respect of good not possessed, but to be possessed then, as burning concupiscence. But those passions which regard present good, as joy and love; or which regard future good to be had at the proper time, as desire and hope that casteth not down, existed in the state of innocence; otherwise, however, than as they exist in ourselves. For our sensual appetite, wherein the passions reside, is not entirely subject to reason; hence at times our passions forestall and hinder reason's judgment; at other times they follow reason's judgment, accordingly as the sensual appetite obeys reason to some extent. But in the state of innocence the inferior appetite was wholly subject to reason: so that in that state the passions of the soul existed only as consequent upon the judgment of reason.

Reply to Objection 1. The flesh lusts against the spirit by the rebellion of the passions against reason; which could not occur in the state of innocence.

Reply to Objection 2. The human body was impassible in the state of innocence as regards the passions which alter the disposition of nature, as will be explained later on (97, 2); likewise the soul was impassible as regards the passions which impede the free use of reason.

Reply to Objection 3. Perfection of moral virtue does not wholly take away the passions, but regulates them; for the temperate man desires as he ought to desire, and what he ought to desire, as stated in Ethic. iii, 11.

rosy tetra

Disobey God = Evil. Is there any other Christian definition of evil?

I guess it’s supposed to be understood that Adam and Eve were aware that the one who told them not to eat the fruit was the creator God, and that the creator God was all good, and that therefore to disobey the creator God is evil. If Adam and Eve did not know these things, and were not able to distinguish the voice of creator God from the voice of a snake or cow or bird, then they would be incapable of sin.

So how did the decision to eat the fruit come about? Was it faulty reasoning? Or did the inferior appetite gain control for the moment, with the snake acting as catalyst?

Evoken

No, it was a test of obedience. Also when God asks them about what is that they have done what do they say?

Gen. 3:12-13:
And Adam said: The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat.

See that none of them assumed responsibility for their actions, none took the blame. Which is what actually leads to their expulsion from paradise. If they had taken the blame and perhaps even asked for forgiveness God would have surely forgiven them.

Evoken

I would say that it was a combination of both, lead by pride. God had given them everything but the serpent promised them more, but not just more, but that they would obtain more than what they already had by disobeying the commandment of He who gave them all that they had. It was indeed faulty reasoning, like all sin is.

Avatar

Why test their obedience if by definition God had to know what was going to happen (omnsescence)? What was the point of the exercise if he knew what the outcome was going to be?

Am I making sense here? What was the point of the test?

GoodLittleAtheist

Say, Disobey God = Evil. (Although, I was using the standard definition of evil that doesn't mention God, just morality.) That doesn't imply they that had to know that. Or, more to the point, God didn't care whether or not they knew. They should have at least known to obey his commandment, because God gave it to them. That's my take anyway. And he was gonna learn 'em real good to reinforce the point. The fact that sin is NOT tied to only moral evil, but also to disobeying God is one of my top problems with Christianity. One of my 100 top problems....

If I tell my child not to leave the house alone and they do it anyway, it doesn't mean the child understood it was 'bad'. But I think it is bad that they disobeyed me (mostly because if they don't, they'll end up hurting themselves) so I punish them anyway to teach them that it is. However I don't punish my grandchildren and their children and so on and so forth for all time. Oh, and then there is that other difference in this hypothetical. I exist...
Who ever said there had to be a point?

rosy tetra

Morally bad, or just stupid?

If the creator is seen as not necessarily all Good, but rather all Powerful, then disobeying the creator’s commands would not be Evil, just Stupid.

Faulty reasoning, thus stupid. Man was created stupid.

Evoken

Sin is rooted in disobedience which begins with the mere though of an act contrary to God's will. The act is simply the result of disobedience.

I think this is not a good analogy as I pointed out in a previous post. Adam and Eve were not little children ignorant of what they were doing.

What we inherit from Original Sin are the effects, which is lack of sanctifying grace and not the act or guilt. Each one is measured according to ones own sin and not by the one of Adam and Eve.