DiogenesofSinoppe

Alright, remembering from my Catholic upbringing and all, we all learned that in the first book of the Bible, Genesis, mankind's 'Fall from Grace' or the concept of 'original sin' is introduced.

I believe many other xian denominations hold that when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they sinned against God, thus introducing sin into the God's otherwise perfect creation.

I just re-read the creation story, chs. 1-4 of Genesis, and I have a serious question that never dawned on me until just now.

How could the serpent tempt Eve if the Garden of Eden was 'paradise' and no sin existed in God's creation?

Xians hold the view that it was humanity that sinned against God, thus introducing sin into the world. That's a big problem for the serpent then. How the heck did the serpent have the ability to tempt anyone? How did the serpent have the ability, the sinful ability, to coerce, deceive, tempt, lie?

I really wish I were back in 6th grade catechism so I could as sister Mary Margaret Gallagher (no, not her real name) about this. That would really piss her off, just like when I bugged her for three weeks about who the heck Adam and Eve's kids had sex with to produce more offspring (along with Noah's tribe).

Seriously though, does anyone have any thoughts about the Fall from Grace story in Genesis. The way I read it in the KJV, the serpent brought sin into the Garden and then God condemned humanity for the serpent's actions. So on the surface, it looks like Jehovah and the serpent were in-cahoots.

I'd really like to hear a religiously motivated explanation for this.

Peter Kirby

Here is how John Milton tells it in Paradise Lost:

Say first, for Heav'n hides nothing from thy view
Nor the deep Tract of Hell, say first what cause
Mov'd our Grand Parents in that happy State,
Favour'd of Heav'n so highly, to fall off
From their Creator, and transgress his Will
For one restraint, Lords of the World besides?
Who first seduc'd them to that fowl revolt?
Th' infernal Serpent; he it was, whose guile
Stird up with Envy and Revenge, deceiv'd
The Mother of Mankinde, what time his Pride
Had cast him out from Heav'n, with all his Host
Of Rebel Angels, by whose aid aspiring
To set himself in Glory above his Peers,
He trusted to have equal'd the most High,
If he oppos'd; and with ambitious aim
Against the Throne and Monarchy of God
Rais'd impious War in Heav'n and Battel proud
With vain attempt. Him the Almighty Power
Hurld headlong flaming from th' Ethereal Skie
...

So, as this idea goes, there was a revolt of "Rebel Angels" against God in heaven (who were cast down to hell) at some time before the creation of man (or at least before Satan assumed the form of the snake).

I am not calling this idea biblical. Nor do I wish to be interrogated as to its plausibility. But it is a story that has been held in the religious imagination for centuries.

best,
Peter Kirby

Diogenes the Cynic

But Peter, that still doesn't answer the question of how the serpent could "sin" before sin existed.

There's actually another paradox to the story as well, and that is that Adam and Eve do not know right from wrong until AFTER they eat the fruit...but if they didn't know eating the fuit was wrong, then how could it be a sin?

Peter Kirby

Certainly, those who take this view of Satan would say that these rebellious angels disobeyed God before humans did.

How do you think that such a paradox could/would be explained if posed to the author, or to a "sympathetic" reader of the text?

(Obviously, more than one response is possible here; note as many as you care to. I am asking because I believe you could expand on a paradox [any good paradox should provoke further pondering] or you might have previous experience with discussion or thought about the question posed.)

best,
Peter Kirby

Diogenes the Cynic

You'd make a good teacher. This is very "professorly" kind of question.

I actually don't have a good answer for how the author would reconcile the paradox and to be honest, I'm not sure the author recognized the paradox.

When I've posed this question to "sympathetic readers," they usually say that Adam and Eve did not have to know good and evil in order to disobey God. That seems to me to be begging the question, though and the responses I've heard have not been well articulated (I've actually seen analogies drawn to dogs who "don't know good from evil but know to obey their masters).

To be fair, I have no doubt that more sophisticated explanations are out there and lot of the people I ask in casual dialogues have never noticed the paradox themselves so they just try to improvise something.

DBT

Years ago I came across the idea that Satan rebelled because he disagreed with God on the creation of man - that God should not create man.

I've been searching for the source, with no luck so far.
Perhaps the book of Enoch?

Sign Related

It sure wasnt paradise. What the hell is the devil doing in paradise? And if it is God's paradise then God and the devil are one hypocrite. Anyway, sin is of the devil in general only. No one else can be condemned of sin but the devil (God) in general. The master of the house knows all about God in general being the hypocite/unbeliever/unprofitable servant, and shall cast the poor devil into the rich God's bosom so that they shall be even in the greater damnation where they will shine forth as the sun.

Watch how so the master of the house got the trap set. It will be all over for God soon in the worst wise. Do keep in mind of the slip up "Let us make man in our image". Evil entites are more than one, how see through, in the hollowpoint proof of the matter of existence, in lets say, of somethingness and nothingness.

Diogenes the Cynic

It wasn't "the devil." It was a serpent. The identification of the serpent as "Satan" is a non-scriptural Christian inference.

cjack

This reminds me of a conversation I had with my mother last year.

In order to better understand a fundy friend of mine, I started to read the Bible. I noticed the same discrepancy, and was talking to mom about it. I said something like "well, who let the damned serpent into the garden? Was God just not paying attention, or did he let the serpent in just to see what would happen?"

To which she replied "now you know why we never took you to church...you're bright enough to ask questions, and they don't like it when you ask questions."

judge

The sepent was just doing his job I suppose.

Augustine had the following to say.

Man, on the other hand, whose nature was to be a mean between the angelic and bestial, He created in such sort, that if he remained in subjection to His Creator as his rightful Lord, and piously kept His commandments, he should pass into the company of the angels, and obtain, without the intervention of death,(1) a blessed and endless immortality; but if he offended the Lord his God by a proud and disobedient use of his free will, he should become subject to death, and live as the beasts do,--the slave of appetite,..


from here