Heaven's sake, Mad Fool. 'The fall of man' is a mythical account of the predicament of the human condition. Dismissing it with a single paragraph hardly does justice to the magnitude of the existential plight that it tries to address. Your consistent stream of one-liners on these topics reminds me awfully of this.

God offered Adam a perfect version of woman,
One who would even paint ceilings, cut grass…
But this would have cost Adam an arm and a leg.
So, Adam said, ‘What can I get for just a rib?’

God said to Adam and Eve in Eden:
‘Do what you like, but don’t eat the apple’.
Now we know that when you tell children
Not to touch something, they certainly will!

Perhaps man knows quite well of good and evil, and squabbling in ethical discussions is but an attempt to justify their failure to adhere to it.

and perhaps not

Heaven's sake, Mad Fool. 'The fall of man' is a mythical account of the predicament of the human condition. Dismissing it with a single paragraph hardly does justice to the magnitude of the existential plight that it tries to address. Your consistent stream of one-liners on these topics reminds me awfully of this. — Wayfarer

You're right. It's too superficial a treatment.

Nevertheless, even if it's mythical, the message seems to be knowledge of ethics is forbidden and actually the cause of all our problems. The way I parse that is God wants us to be innocent more than he wants us to understand Him.

Anyway, I read a bit more on the forbidden fruit article in wikipedia and it mentions a certain Telemachus and his interpretation of "good and evil" is "everything". That's omniscience and God probably doesn't want a worthy contender in paradise.

It is important to read it right, because those people were pretty smart. What they're saying goes much deeper than what you are gaining from it, and I blame translation mostly, but also deeply established ignorance through false doctrines over the centuries (the majority of people tend to believe whatever comes to mind in the moment and don't care much for the accuracy of their beliefs, just the security of them).

The tree was already in the garden, and it was growing. It was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so the knowledge of good and evil was already growing in the midst of their garden.

Can you see already, the poetry in the language? The word "ets" (עץ) that is used in Genesis 2:9, is mostly translated as "wood" - a thing that is useful for constructing. Of course, it is a wood that grows. So the knowledge of good and evil was a thing growing in their midst that was useful for working with (Genesis 1:28 "subduing the earth"). But God had said "do not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

What does it mean to eat fruit? It is the source of sustenance and growth, and of pleasure. Just as Eve saw in Genesis 3:6 the fruit was "good for sustenance" and "satisfying of lusts", as well as seeing that she could become more shrewd by it (that is the real value that the tree had over the others, afterall).

So what that translates to, is a picture of a world where they were already learning of good and evil, and they were simply living according to God's expectation of them (He saw all He had made, "that it was good"). But then she was tempted, and fell to the discontentment of thinking that she could have more satisfaction if she ate of it.

In order to really understand why what she did was so bad, we need to look at what it means to eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. It isn't so simple as "missing the mark" as some might say.

To use the produce (fruit) of the knowledge of good and evil as a way of life (sustenance and pleasure), is to reckon that sometimes evil can serve our interests well. That's where the sin exists, and you can see it manifested in the ways of the world, as normal business practice.

In a paradise, we expect everyone to only do what is good, don't we? We don't expect robbers and murderers and liars etc, because those things bring hell upon the world rather than paradise.

So that is what they did. They chose to bring hell upon the earth - though, they didn't know that was exactly what they were doing, because they had been deceived and it crept in gradually. Their son murdered his own brother, and I don't imagine that anyone who had walked with God their whole life would have chosen to bring a hell like that upon the earth.

Anyhow, so we have the situation at that point in the story, that they had immediately forgotten God's character (1 John 4:8 "anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love" and 1 John 4:18 "There is no fear in love, because fear is of torment" - yet Genesis 3:10 shows us that they had forgotten love: "I heard you, and I was afraid so I hid myself").

So if we are reading God's character consistent with the authors of the bible that say God is love, we should not be finding that Adam was right to be afraid of God, and that is your primary contention.

Remember what Jesus said "which one of you, if your child asks for bread, will give him a stone?".. and so it is, that when a child messes up, if they know that they can trust the parent's love, they confess "daddy, I broke it!" and Daddy, being one who loves his son, doesn't say "you fool! Go to the bad corner!". No, but the father full of love says "awww, now it's broken, that's sad. We have to fix it".

(But there is a type of child who doesn't confess, and there might be different reasons for that).

So we see that Adam and Eve were hiding from God - they were afraid to confess because they didn't trust Him, and it isn't uncommon for people to think that way about God - which is the main thrust of John 3:16 "God indeed loved the world, He even gave up His only-begotten son so that anyone believing in Him should not perish".

There is a useful observation in 2 Peter 2:19 "whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved". Remember what Jesus said of the devil? "he was a murderer from the beginning, and when he lies, it is his native language".

So they had been overcome by a liar and a murderer. Their minds had already forgotten that God is love, and that He desires to heal the sick and broken. So it was wisdom, not punishment, that caused God to say "what if he now reaches out to take from the tree of life, and lives forever?", and you might think about that more in context of some of the greatest villains we have known in history. There are some people that the world is better off to be without.

Don't forget too, that it is not written that they were created immortal - but that "if they should reach out, and eat of the tree of life" then they could live forever.

As for the curses "thorns and thistles shall spring up for you, and by the sweat of your brow you will eat" - a statement of a knowledge of the consequence (not punishment - authorities who use those words interchangeably are intellectually dishonest). It is what happens to a person's soul when they realise there is no escape from the system, and that the system doesn't value them personally. They are enslaved, a disposable resource, their sense of life (the "me/who I am") is stolen from them, and rather than enjoying their days, work is a chore. Likewise for the woman, who rather than seeing a baby as a bundle of joy, sees it as a burden, and rather than being fulfilled by her man, is constantly trying to fill the God-shaped hole in her heart with him - because he is no longer the image of God (1 John 4:16), he is a shell of a man that never quite makes her complete.

It is again, not a punishment of wrath to subdue God's anger (because a noble person doesn't feel that way - wrath is rooted in insecurity and it is a fallen nature that behaves that way), rather, consistent with His noble character as Isaiah 27:4 describes, He is simply saying what is to come so that His critics would trust that He is to be feared (Job 1:6, Job 1:9).

The way I parse that is God wants us to be innocent more than he wants us to understand Him. — TheMadFool

You'd be wrong.
The ingestion of the fruit is the severing of the divine symbiosis.

It appears to be more a threat against deviating from the teachings of the book. The punishment was mortality, which is telling, because the world and life are assumed to be wicked enough to serve as punishments.

Great question, but a vexing problem nonetheless (aka: the problem with evil).

I take a different view. My interpretation is that the tree of knowledge is an allegory/extended metaphor over fact that we are barred from perfect wisdom here. Evil/sin= lack of perfection.

I don't think of it as an Ontological evil being. Instead I think of it in other metaphorical ways. For instance, like an Aristotelian maxim of moderation, the 'better choices' you can make in your life, the more likely you won't suffer bad consequences. Or like the law of attraction theory; you reap what you sow. You can choose to do good or bad and you suffer or benefit accordingly. (Or even being barred from the 'perfect laws' of the universe.)

And so I think the interpretation is awareness of the aforementioned temporal nature that we have, including how volitional existence effects our happiness.

Nevertheless, even if it's mythical, the message seems to be knowledge of ethics is forbidden and actually the cause of all our problems. The way I parse that is God wants us to be innocent more than he wants us to understand Him. — TheMadFool

The way I read it, ‘knowledge of good and evil’ signifies the formation of self-consciousness, the awareness of oneself as an agent with the ability to form judgements. I think, in realistic terms, it corresponds with the advent of tool use, language and possessions.

According to the Book, Adam and Eve were punished with mortality and other ugly stuff after they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. — TheMadFool

There is good argument that the "good and evil" reference is a literary device intended to mean knowledge of everything, not just of morality (the juxtaposition of opposites to make that point). See also Genesis 3:22. Compare 2 Sam 14:17 to 2 Sam 14:20.

I’ve never been a theist and so I tend to read the story at face value. It seems to me that it's not talking about morality but rather making a distinction of knowledge as being either good or bad, an epistemic distinction rather than an ethical distinction if you like.

It seems to me to be various etiological myths wrapped up in a main etiological myth. The myth of why we are here, why we wear clothes, why we toil for a living, why giving birth is painful, why snakes are feared, etc. The main take home point is why we die rather than live forever (we shall not eat from the tree of life). It's a tale about mortality, not morality.

:up:

Why was Adam and Eve punished for actually failing to understand good and evil? — TheMadFool

Depending on how you interpret the myth, it seems one or more of the following:

1. This is the Jewish version of Pandora's box, meant to explain why bad stuff exists and how it relates to knowledge and making choices. It's also an allegory for growing up.

2. They were punished for disobeying God, not trusting or believing what God said.
2b. They were punished for giving into temptation, listening to the snake instead.

3. It was a setup. God intended for the snake to deceive Adam & Eve. That way, the plan for redemption could be unfolded, and the possibility for evil choices could be worked through.

3b. God predestines everything, so it happened exactly as God wanted, because how else could it happen, given God's omni-abilities?

#2 has free will at the center, #3b is the Calvinistic view, while #3 is a mix between the two. The really interesting theological question here is the snake. Let's assume the Christian interpretation that it was Lucifer who rebelled and became Satan.

How did this happen, and wouldn't God have known about it before creating Lucifer? So why create him? How does a perfectly created being become proud? Isn't that a character defect? Wouldn't wanting to be God be a colossal misunderstanding on the part of a created being? Doesn't much sound like Lucifer was created perfectly.

Basically, if God is omni-everything, then God can choose what sort of world to create and who will populate it. God doesn't have to create anyone who will choose evil. So it's ultimate God's responsibility. The Calvinists have a more consistent theology.

Of course that means God can't be all-good in the way we humans understand good.

There is good argument that the "good and evil" reference is a literary device intended to mean knowledge of everything, not just of morality (the juxtaposition of opposites to make that point). See also Genesis 3:22. Compare 2 Sam 14:17 to 2 Sam 14:20. — Hanover

I found that out. Thanks for confirming that for me.

You'd be wrong.
The ingestion of the fruit is the severing of the divine symbiosis. — Shamshir

Divine symbiosis? Care to expand on that? What do you mean? Humans get to live and God gets some sycophantic tribe of worshippers? I don't understand God's need for worship. Perhaps he needed company of some kind. Anthropomorphizing God may be a complete mistake.

The punishment was mortality, which is telling, because the world and life are assumed to be wicked enough to serve as punishments. — NOS4A2

All the above was after the fruit-eating episode.

we are barred from perfect wisdom here — 3017amen

Why? Can you answer that as a human? Why is perfect wisdom undesirable? Is it dangerous or is it a waste of time?

High marks to you my friend!! I could not agree more with your analysis! I wish the fundamentalist's would take heed!!!!!

Now let me go and try to answer Mad Fool's great questions....

Read the story again in the original Hebrew and then the Ugaritic texts.

A whole tribunal elects to forge man, yet only one holds the secret 'breath of life'.
This creation method is what separates man from a mere puppet; hence the free will and divine symbiosis, as they are replicas.

The fruit then was a Trojan Horse to sever this link, illustrated through the escort out of the garden. Ultimately the new malformed man endangers the earth and so a flood is cast.

:ok:

Read the story again in the original Hebrew and then the Ugaritic texts.

A whole tribunal elects to forge man, yet only one holds the secret 'breath of life'.
This creation method is what separates man from a mere puppet; hence the free will and divine symbiosis, as they are replicas.

The fruit then was a Trojan Horse to sever this link, illustrated through the escort out of the garden. Ultimately the new malformed man endangers the earth and so a flood is cast. — Shamshir

Well reminds me of something I heard a long ago: "the shortest distance between two points isn't a straight line. It's a smooth curve.".

Unfortunately no one person can answer the question as to why we are barred from perfect wisdom here. (I wish I could!) Accordingly, from an Existential point of view:

Ecclesiastes 8 English Standard Version (ESV)
8 Who is like the wise?
And who knows the interpretation of a thing?
A man's wisdom makes his face shine,
and the hardness of his face is changed

The interpretation there could be in spite of that said, we must have hope and engage with a smile. What are our choices otherwise?

As far as the 'dangers' of seeking perfection as you say; from a pathological point of view:

•As a person you are not okay as you are.
•No matter what you achieve, the feelings of satisfaction are temporary. There is always more to do, be, accomplish.
•Things are either black or white- no vaguely defined area of in between or close enough. Things in your life are either right or wrong, good or bad success or failure
•You believe that only by making everything perfect on the outside will you feel peace and serenity on the inside.
•If you continually achieve, acquire and look good doing it, you will be successful and happy.
•When things go wrong or you do not achieve at a certain level, you have failed.
•Effort and intention are not enough. Results must be productive and successful. Focus is on product, not process.
•You are extremely competitive about almost everything.
•You feel secretly judgmental of people who fall short of perfection.
•You imagine others admire and value you only for your high level of achievement and production.

Pragmatically or ethically speaking, I will say enjoy a bit of heaven everyday and incorporate moderation where possible. When a mathematician computes perfectly then returns to the ordinary life of striving, we too can engage in moments of wisdom, joy and resulting pleasure by focusing on good rather than bad (evil). We are capable of having Maslonian peak experiences that make the 'tree of life' worth living.

Unfortunately no one person can answer the question as to why we are barred from perfect wisdom here. (I wish I could!) — 3017amen

Proves the point in a way. Thanks.

Good and evil (bad) are one of the many dualities of Genesis. They are fundamental, not to be resolved. The truth lies neither with this or with that, but with both in the tension of their opposition.

The tree of knowledge cannot be understood without knowing what was meant by knowledge. It seems to have had something to do with producing or making, whether it was protective girdles out of fig leaves or Cain and Abel. Knowledge bring both benefits and new problems, it produces both what is good and evil.

My interpretation of the Garden of Eden is a little different. I see the story as a metaphor with both literal and figurative sides and many layers of understanding. But I am not religious, so I don't view it from a religious perspective, and for this reason I tend to remove references to "punishment", as I see that as a religious teaching tool, rather than as essential to the meaning and understanding of the story.

I study consciousness and mind, and I firmly believe that religions also study consciousness, but their interpretation or theory of consciousness is called "God". So when I apply my thinking to the story of the Garden, this is what I find:

First note that Adam and Eve are symbolic names. Adam in the old original texts is "human", or man, and Eve in the old texts is "bringer of life", or woman.

Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge; therefore, Adam and Eve chose knowledge. What does that mean in terms of mind and evolution? Can any specie choose knowledge? Can a plant or any animal or bird choose to know concepts? Can they make decisions on knowledge that has been processed and thrashed around into ideas and concepts?

I don't think so. I think that a rational aspect of mind is necessary to do these things. We have always believed that the rational mind is what separates us from other species. So I see the story in the Garden as an explanation of the evolution of the rational mind, or you could say that Adam and Eve attained that level of conscciousness. So what does this have to do with good v evil? Original sin? or even mortality?

Well, the mortality question is easy. All life lives and then dies, but it takes a rational mind to understand time, math, and truly understand the limits of mortality.

What about original sin? Was there any sin before the rational mind? No. Sin requires intent, and intent requires a rational aspect of mind.

What about good v evil? Well the opposite of good is not evil, it is bad. Good and bad have always existed as long as opinions and feelings existed. Even a dog can feel good if he is healthy and bad if he is sickly, but there is no evil there.

The opposite of evil is innocence. A wolf that kills a lamb is just hungry and maybe bringing nourishment to its cubs -- that is not evil. Actual evil requires thought; it requires intent, it requires a rational aspect of mind. War is evil, genocide is evil, corrupting innocence is evil.

So religion is right; good and bad were always here, but evil did not come into the world until the rational aspect of mind evolved.

Gee

:up:

Your interpretation brings to mind two thoughts; one being fear based, and another relating to self awareness of having wisdom or knowledge.

Consider a child who is naïve about many things. Consider that naivety in the face of the concept 'what he doesn't know won't hurt him' paradigm (or as adults).

It could follow that with knowledge comes pain. That with awareness comes emotional pain. (Not to mention what other's have said about the interpretation of our temporal existence; finitude, mortality and death-physical pain sort-a-speak.)

And so how that relates to the concept of fear based behavior is interesting. If we are to fear reverence (God), how do we develop that fear? I'm thinking that as the OP suggested earlier, that somehow awareness of wisdom or knowledge in and of itself imparts or results in a sense of fear too. Otherwise we are just naïve and go about our business care free. The tree of knowledge then becomes a bitter sweet concept viz. the joy that wisdom imparts, but the pain it brings about accordingly.

I think some other's have alluded to that as well...

According to the Book, Adam and Eve were punished with mortality and other ugly stuff after they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

This is an unjustified punishment because, if we look at all the squabbling going on in the ethics section of philosophy, we haven't figured out anything in ethics. Of course one may prefer one moral theory over another but there isn't a sound basis for it and that's why there's always the other theory one has to worry about.

Why was Adam and Eve punished for actually failing to understand good and evil?

Poor judgment. — TheMadFool

I’ll offer another interpretation of the story, if I may.

First of all, I don’t see the ‘knowledge of good and evil’ as actual knowledge. What humanity acquired here was the propensity to judge or claim to know what is good and what is evil - without having any of the knowledge that comes from experience.

We have a naive Adam and Eve, with zero life experience, who choose to ignore instructions from God and instead listen to a serpent, seeking pleasure. The result of eating from the tree was that “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.”

This was not a knowledge of experience or understanding, but one of awareness; self-awareness. And the first thing a human would notice with a sudden onset of self-awareness would be their vulnerability, that they were naked. From this initial awareness of vulnerability comes their response: to cover themselves with fig leaves, and then to hide from God. “I was afraid because I was naked”.

God’s response is interesting: “Who told you that you were naked?” Again this refers to an awareness, rather than experiential knowledge. They were always naked; only now they were aware of it - and not only aware, but they had judged nakedness to be a bad thing for them.

So now Adam and Eve are making moral judgements based on nothing but their immediate and direct physiological response to the world as a vulnerable organism. Talk about poor judgement. The fact that we have yet to figure out anything in ethics just goes to show that Adam and Eve stuffed up - they jumped the gun. Judging ‘good and evil’ is something that first requires a comprehensive understanding of how everything in the universe is interconnected. As a single organism, that would take some time.

So Adam and Eve weren’t punished for failing to understand good and evil. They brought suffering upon themselves by acquiring a capacity which they lacked the life experience to use properly. They could have eaten from the tree of life, lived forever in a paradise with everything they’d ever need, and eventually built up enough life experience to genuinely understand the value of everything in the universe. It would have been a cushy apprenticeship...

But you can’t give that kind of capacity to a couple of two-year olds and expect them to learn any kind of humility, let alone teach them to make right judgements when any judgement is just as effective in the short term.

But you can’t give that kind of capacity to a couple of two-year olds and expect them to learn any kind of humility, let alone teach them to make right judgements when any judgement is just as effective in the short term. — Possibility

And that's why you don't take candy from strangers.