God's injustice towards Adam and Eve

[John V]

Presumably, until the serpent came along the only commands they received were from god. Thus, there isn't any reason to think that they needed to be able to discern right and wrong; god determines what is right and wrong. All they needed to do was obey.

The serpent didn't order them to do anything. This completely undermines your theory that they were just used to obeying and so obeyed the serpent.

I am assuming that she convinced him, but you're right-- the account simply states that she gave him the fruit and he ate, as he confirms when god questions him. That is more in line with him being used to doing as he is told and not needing convincing.

Likewise, Eve didn't tell Adam to eat the fruit. This is twice that you've read in orders that aren't there.

The line in the NT makes me wonder. What did Adam know that Eve did not?

She presumably had all the intellectual knowledge that Adam had. I would suppose that Adam filled her in on all the things that had happened to him before she was created. But, she didn't experience certain things as Adam had.

The story only tells us that she gave him of the fruit and he ate. Paul claims that Adam was not deceived, but the account gives no detail. And Adam and Eve are equally judged and punished, so did it matter that one was deceived and the other was not?

I don't know that it's equal. Paul also says that sin entered the world through Adam, even though Eve ate first. It seems that Adam, not being deceived, was guilty of the greater sin.

If it didn't, then I think it reinforces the point that unwavering obedience was the key, not whether they understood the magnitude of their actions or not.

Again, neither the serpent nor Eve gave orders to be obeyed, so you can't explain it as them just being used to following orders.

Further, they were only given one command from God - not to eat from that tree. They weren't in the habit of obeying orders all the time, as they just weren't receiving orders, except for one.

[Bibliofagus]

Paul also says that sin entered the world through Adam, even though Eve ate first. It seems that Adam, not being deceived, was guilty of the greater sin.

Yet god gives dominion to men and also curses women with pain while giving birth. Resulting in countless unnessecary deaths I might add.

[Mister Agenda]

Since we know the origins are the word of man, not god, what do you think the original authors were trying to convey?

Partly it's a 'just so' story. Why is childbirth painful, life hard and temporary, and those creepy snakes, why don't they have any freaking legs? Like almost every other culture, the ancient Hebrews answered these questions with an entertaining, easy-to-remember story.

But it's also an interesting metaphor for the human condition of wanting to do good, recognizing what is good, yet so often doing evil instead.

There are also probably clues to bits of history in there, possibly including a reference to a prior serpent cult.

---

The pair immediately exhibit this knowledge upon eating the fruit. They are fearful of God and ashamed of their nudity. It is extremely obvious that they could not have understood it was wrong to disobey God until after doing it.

That's silly. If they were completely unaware of the concept of right and wrong as you suggest, they would have just eaten the fruit without the serpent's urging. One can have intellectual knowledge of a concept without having experiential knowledge of it.

One can also refrain from doing something because it hasn't occurred to you to do it. Not knowing good from evil doesn't mean you automatically seek to do evil, it means you are completely indifferent. They didn't immediately eat the fruit because they weren't tempted.

---

Presumably, until the serpent came along the only commands they received were from god. Thus, there isn't any reason to think that they needed to be able to discern right and wrong; god determines what is right and wrong. All they needed to do was obey.

The serpent didn't order them to do anything. This completely undermines your theory that they were just used to obeying and so obeyed the serpent.

Because people inured to obedience only obey sometone if they phrase their desire in the form of a command? Really?

Further, they were only given one command from God - not to eat from that tree. They weren't in the habit of obeying orders all the time, as they just weren't receiving orders, except for one.

Good point. Perhaps they merely lacked the slightest bit of sales resistance?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Congrats, it looks like you've uncovered another contradiction in the Bible.

Yeah...unless you keep going and read the next sentence.

Why bother? "Intellectual knowledge" of right and wrong is the only possible avenue to morality, because right and wrong are abstractions.

Certainly someone of your wisdom would understand that without my having to point it out.

[John V]

Why bother? "Intellectual knowledge" of right and wrong is the only possible avenue to morality, because right and wrong are abstractions.

Certainly someone of your wisdom would understand that without my having to point it out.

I have to disagree. Personally I have a deeper or different knowledge of a wrong after I have committed it, although I intellectually knew it was wrong before I did it. Don't you?

[FatAndFaithless]

Why bother? "Intellectual knowledge" of right and wrong is the only possible avenue to morality, because right and wrong are abstractions.

Certainly someone of your wisdom would understand that without my having to point it out.

I have to disagree. Personally I have a deeper or different knowledge of a wrong after I have committed it, although I intellectually knew it was wrong before I did it. Don't you?

The word you're looking for is regret. It's not knowledge.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have to disagree. Personally I have a deeper or different knowledge of a wrong after I have committed it, although I intellectually knew it was wrong before I did it. Don't you?

No. I don't need to steal in order to see why it is wrong. Do you?

[John V]

The word you're looking for is regret. It's not knowledge.

No, it's knowledge. Consider definitions 1 and 3:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge?s=t

---

I have to disagree. Personally I have a deeper or different knowledge of a wrong after I have committed it, although I intellectually knew it was wrong before I did it. Don't you?

No. I don't need to steal in order to see why it is wrong. Do you?

You're referring to the intellectual part of the knowledge in your question, not the experiential.

[Cato]

I have to disagree. Personally I have a deeper or different knowledge of a wrong after I have committed it, although I intellectually knew it was wrong before I did it. Don't you?

I'll give this a fair reading and assume you aren't talking about 'getting caught', but I have to ask what does your 'deeper knowledge' constitute other than what it might feel like to have done the deed? I can't find a shorter verion, but are we talking about 2:34 in the following video? (Ghostbusters scene where the electrician says 'oh shit' after opening the breaker to the ghost storage 'facility').

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Uy9wsfkok

I think we've all experienced moments where we've inexplicably done something we knew we shouldn't, to the point where we want to go back just five seconds and kick the shit out of ourselves. John, is this what you're getting at? If so, I understand although I would stick with it being different knowledge, not necessarily 'deeper'.

[John V]

I'll give this a fair reading and assume you aren't talking about 'getting caught', but I have to ask what does your 'deeper knowledge' constitute other than what it might feel like to have done the deed?

Does it need to be more than that?

I can't find a shorter verion, but are we talking about 2:34 in the following video? (Ghostbusters scene where the electrician says 'oh shit' after opening the breaker to the ghost storage 'facility').

Sorry, I don't accept videos as arguments.

I think we've all experienced moments where we've inexplicably done something we knew we shouldn't, to the point where we want to go back just five seconds and kick the shit out of ourselves. John, is this what you're getting at? If so, I understand although I would stick with it being different knowledge, not necessarily 'deeper'.

I;m not sure that it's deeper either, that's why I said different or deeper.