CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Okay, since theological discussions are allowed now, here's one of the ultimate questions that I've pondered: I was once told by an English professor that some people believe that it was actually a good thing Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. According to this argument, the act allowed them to learn wisdom. Does this seem right to you? I'm not sure if I ascribe to this belief because it almost makes it seem ilke Satan did the right thing, and I'm not sure if I want to think that.

They sinned (and caused sin to enter the world and sinful nature to be a part of humans). How is that a good thing? It's against God. The wages of sin is death.

I see another discussion stemming from this, on "Who is the serpent, really?"

But I won't touch on that one right now, suffice to say that Warrior's got it nailed pretty tight there, by my understanding. The process before the fall was one of deception, taken from the notes our Old Testament professor gave us...

The Deception Process
- Serpent twisted God’s words – compare 3:1 with 2:16
- Woman adds to God’s words – compare 3:2 with 2:17
- Serpent changes the meaning of God’s words to plant a seed of doubt in the humans – v. 4
- Serpent manipulates a half-truth and offers humans an opportunity to elevate themselves – v. 5
- Eve adds her own selfish motives and Adam complies without questioning – v. 6

Just a little to chew on for the moment.

There is a lot of discussion that can come out of the first chapters of Genesis. In class we spent about two weeks covering Genesis 1-11... So I'm excited to see where this leads.

I don't really see any reason it's a good thing (at the time anyway). The only thing I can see now is that humans crave power, wisdom, knowledge and so forth -being why right now for some humans it seemed like a good idea- so I see no reason (minus selfish desires) why this would be a good thing.

I've never heard a Christian claim that The Fall was a good thing for creation but I've heard that many Christian sects believe this to be the case. God is sovreign but he gave us free will. He didn't plan for The Fall to happen but he can develop blessings from great evil to redeem creation and bring glory to himself.

I think God knew that it was going to happen, and even meant for it to happen. It might just be the way I view Earth, as sort of a "testing ground" to determine where we go afterward.

A wtist on what Ante's saying- if God saw it beforehand, then He meant it to happen. I tend to view this sort of thing neutrally, as neither good nor bad.

Since God is God, then he knew that they were going to eat from that tree. And he still put it there.

I've heard that take that the eating of the fruit was a good thing. This usually framed in the acquisition of knowledge being a good thing. But what happened was they learned the could turn their back on God, and they learned negative consequences. They learned selfishness and suffering. Bravo (heavy sarcasm).
A good short explanation I have read is: People learned there is both good and evil. God cannot be tempted so does not do evil, but people do give in to temptation and therefore the knowledge of the difference between the two does us no good.
God allowed it to happen because He gives of us the freedom to chose, but this does not excuse us from accountability.

because of the fall now billions of people will go to hell, so either God is a hateful tyrant who finds please out of other people's pain, or it is a bad thing that they sinned. just my opinion anyway

Ah, this is interesting, I to have not heard that it was a good thing, I think that's somewhat interesting O.o But pretty much what everyone is saying, sin is sin, and overall, sin ain't that good, but God can turn something bad to His advantage. Because he is just that awesome, I've seen it done! lol He knew it was coming to, the question I would be asking is 'If He saw this coming, why did He let it all happen?' I mean, He coulda avoided a lot of mess and stuff and sin and the likes... But that's a question we'll probably have to ask Him in heaven. God decided to give us Free - Will. A gift in His eyes and to some of ours, yet we use it as if it was a curse.(I don't think that was worded right...) The Enemy also likes to take hold of it to. Just like he did in the Garden Of Eden.

God is a ruler and a king. He rules over us all like one and tells us what to do. But he never oppresses. Thus the power of free will. It can feel like He forces us to do stuff, and the likes, but He really doesn't force us to do anything, it just feels that way some times XD lol I think I am off topic now...

Anyway, on topic, I don't think it was a GOOD thing that Eve sinned, and then Adam and the likes. The events of Eden weren't GOOD. But they weren't all bad either, I mean, we can learn from there mistakes. Look what one sinful act can cause? A lifetime of sin and the likes. Sin can last a day, or forever like that event, so we can learn from that to help us do something different =D Though we will mess up, we're not perfect XD lol It'll just help us on our walk with God :3 So in the end, it's a moot point, it's not good that it happened because a lot of bad came out of it, but also a lot of good came out of it, if past events didn't happen, we wouldn't be where we are today. We can't say for sure what would it be like if that never happened... So we've gotta make due and trust God :3

Sorry, I ramble a lot, I'll end it here XD

animefanatic777 (post: 1433955) wrote: God decided to give us Free - Will. A gift in His eyes and to some of ours, yet we use it as if it was a curse.(I don't think that was worded right...) Anyway, on topic, I don't think it was a GOOD thing that Eve sinned, and then Adam and the likes. The events of Eden weren't GOOD. But they weren't all bad either, I mean, we can learn from there mistakes.

I think I get what youre saying, and I agree. God allowed us free will- even if what Adam and Eve did was a sin, then it was a sin that came from God's gift to us. So.... it was a mixed blessing? But God doesn't force us to do His will. And we can't say what would have happened had they not eaten of the fruit.

Ante Bellum (post: 1433934) wrote:I think God knew that it was going to happen, and even meant for it to happen. It might just be the way I view Earth, as sort of a "testing ground" to determine where we go afterward.

This again goes back to my old "Friend"... (this topic sucks at times...)
PRE-DESTINATION...

Common questions
So God planned for this to happen?
Did he just know it would happen?
If he knew couldn't he change it?
If he changed it would it stop our free will?
Do we truly have free will?
If pre-destination is so, are we already guaranteed Heaven or Hell?
If God knows were we go, why bother making earth, why not just go straight to eternity?
Does God just not choose to look at the end of time (can he choose not to)?

So we all have to want to research together to make sure there is a continued strength if anyone finds a difficult subject, I love this topic when with a group if anyone else feel they want to do so as well.

Actually, the forms of Theistic Satanism adhere to this view, though a bit backwards. They believe that Satan is a bearer of light and knowledge and wisdom, and that God is a liar and not to be trusted, using Genesis as evidence that God wanted to prevent us from knowing the difference between good and evil, whereas Satan wanted us to have our own knowledge and free will. They believe that Satan is more benevolent than God, wanting us to be equals to him, rather than servants as God wants us to be.

They believe Satan encourages us to be individuals and think for ourselves, rather than blindly following orders from God. They also believe Satan purposely does bad things to people to test their will and character.

Just throwing that out there.

I've thought of this question myself - in fact, I follow it up with my own question. As much as we bash the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, would we destroy that knowledge if given a chance. That is, suppose you had the ability to forget what was good and what was evil, you would act without any moral value to anything. Shoot up a mall at your whim, and it really doesn't have a moral value because you lack the ability to discern good and evil or give away your house to charity and it's not even good. Or if we can't "unlearn" good and evil, would we grant it to our children? If we hate the knowledge, then why pass it on to our young? Why not banish every trace of it?

The thing is, I think people only hate the knowledge of good and evil because the Bible said the event was sin - but they can't stand to think of it much further. After all, they don't want to live in a world where we all forgot about this topic any time soon... that should at least give some inclination as to what we feel about it. I believe the gnostics also had an aspect of belief that held that eating off the tree was a good thing as well. It's an odd question that seems obvious depending on whether you view it from a religious viewpoint or not. Yet each answer seems different.

Personally, I can't help but feel God had it planned that we would eat off the tree... I mean, he doesn't give a single other commandment right at the get go? The fore-shadowing can hardly be missed there. Of course, in my own viewpoint I believe that he planned the whole collapse of humanity and the wide array of good and evil that we display, if man were not evil he could not display the depth of his love for us on the cross. That is to say, without humanity, the depth of God's love would be lost to obscurity. God's love shines by means of the shades and colors of man's sin and efforts. That's just my own way of looking at it.

Hmmm, I have to admit that I'm making a bit of a blind statement here since I haven't really studied this story in detail but there do seem to be somethings that need to be mentioned in reference to it.

1). The first to stories in the Bible are definitely mythic in nature. This has nothing to do with there historicity, it's merely a way to categorize them as literature and aid our interpretation.

2). With this in mind, I think it is safe to say that the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil can be viewed in a symbolic sense.

3). This means that the story's message is tied directly to the symbolism of these trees.

So, with this in mind, I'll make a not so educated guess at what the message is and then actually answer the question of this thread. I think Pascal has started off going in the right direction with this question but veers at a point that I don't really agree with. It seems (and this is assuming the translations we read from have done justice to the original words) that Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil does indeed represent Knowledge of Good and Evil. Unless we separate the first two stories in Genesis, there is no reason to view this as a bad thing. God made the world good and therefore the tree along with the fruit and idea it represents is good. However, there is a catch with it and I think this is the message of the story as well as what Pascal missed. Knowledge of good is tied to knowledge of evil and when you have knowledge of evil. This means that while knowledge of good will lead to good acts the knowledge of evil can and will lead to evil acts as well. Now, it can be argued that this differentiation means that man and woman was neither acting good nor evil at there creation. In other words, innocence is a moral vacuum and man existed in it before the fall. I disagree with this because I don't think the first two stories in Genesis should be separated (so humanity is good and is acting good before the fall but without real knowledge of it, in other words it was there nature) and, frankly, I think its missing the point of the story. The point appears to be that knowledge of good also brings knowledge of what is not good or evil. It's not a tail arguing for ignorance but a commentary on this point along with some other things (namely, God's forgiveness, the existence of death and possibly the effects of shame in our relationship with God). This is where I diverge from Pascal. I don't think God planned the whole collapse of humanity but instead allowed it. In other words, I don't think predestination (or determism or whatever you want to call it) can happen until after the fall. Part of the reason I think this is that I equate free will to being made in the Image of God. Now, I will say that this image has been tainted and therefore we can argue that humanity no longer has free will or has its will limited but I don't think we were made into automatons from the very beginning since that causes some rather nasty problems with the very existence of evil and I would even say the existence of love. Plus, I just don't think man is innately evil but, as I said earlier, tainted.

Ok, now that that rambling is over, to answer the question with my blind conclusion that might be completely wrong, I disagree with the argument that knowing good and evil is better then living in innocence assuming that innocence does not mean living in a moral vacuum. The reason is that knowledge of good and evil has a catch built into it that seems worse then innocence, namely having a compass that can guide us to create the Holocaust or any other numerous evil things.

Whoa, this thread got really interesting. So now, I have a bit of a question.

If humans did not know the difference between good and evil, how can Adam and Eve's disobedience of God be sin?

You may say "Because they disobeyed." Ah, but disobeying God is evil, yes? And they did not know the difference between good and evil. Therefore, they could not possibly have known that disobeying God was wrong. They didn't know any better. They knew God told them not to, but they would have to know the difference between good and evil to know not obeying God is wrong.

I think then, we can safely say God did intend and plan for us to eat from the tree. God set up the sacrifice of His son purposely to take care of it. God didn't go "Oh crap, they disobeyed me, now I have to think of an alternate plan." God doesn't have a plan B. It also doesn't make sense for God to not have planned for them to eat from the tree, since as I said, there's no way they could have known it was right for them to obey God. God basically made Adam and Eve completely incapable of obeying Him, this much is clear, and the only reason for Him to do this was to have them eat the fruit. Otherwise He would have made us like the angels, with full knowledge of good and evil and the ability to intentionally choose one or the other.

" wrote:If humans did not know the difference between good and evil, how can Adam and Eve's disobedience of God be sin?

Now that is a fascinating little point. Or likewise, how could they know that "death" was bad. They didn't know what "death" even was. To them, it was nothing more then a word, one that couldn't be inherently bad because they did not know evil - it would be the same as any other aspect of their lives.

But it's not just death, in Gen 2:17 God says that the punishment for eating off the tree is that Adam will surely die. He doesn't mention the additional punishments listed later on. What was that for and was there some kind of unmentioned second rule?

Even still, I must also agree with Peanut in that the story is mythical, so ultimately I cannot say if all of this is a historical analysis, or a metaphor for something deeper that we're missing (even though I take the idea to heart that there is always some amount of truth to any myth). After all, Adam is said to be forced to eat from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil for the rest of his life while exiled from the garden... which tree is this? In other words, this gives some in-story evidence for the idea that this was always meant to be taken as a myth and not a historical record (albeit, I can't say what the historical records of Cain's lineage were supposed to be for, or why they were really included to begin with).

Peanut, you take the creation story etc. as symbolic in nature but how do you then take Jesus life, death and ressurection as anything but symbolic? The Bible is made up of many different genres but Genesis is written as a record of Hebrew history, not as something mythological in nature.

I would like to pop in here early and state that the official CAA staff opinion is to not have an opinion as to the historicity of the creation story and Garden of Eden. We're okay with people believing it literally happened and we're fine with people believing it's mythical. So if you discuss this please be sure to be tolerant of others' beliefs.

With that out of the way, carry on.

Pascal (post: 1434061) wrote:Now that is a fascinating little point. Or likewise, how could they know that "death" was bad. They didn't know what "death" even was. To them, it was nothing more then a word, one that couldn't be inherently bad because they did not know evil - it would be the same as any other aspect of their lives.

But it's not just death, in Gen 2:17 God says that the punishment for eating off the tree is that Adam will surely die. He doesn't mention the additional punishments listed later on. What was that for and was there some kind of unmentioned second rule?

Even still, I must also agree with Peanut in that the story is mythical, so ultimately I cannot say if all of this is a historical analysis, or a metaphor for something deeper that we're missing (even though I take the idea to heart that there is always some amount of truth to any myth). After all, Adam is said to be forced to eat from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil for the rest of his life while exiled from the garden... which tree is this? In other words, this gives some in-story evidence for the idea that this was always meant to be taken as a myth and not a historical record (albeit, I can't say what the historical records of Cain's lineage were supposed to be for, or why they were really included to begin with).

If I recall correctly, Cain's lineage is running alongside Seth's, which then parallels the later account of Lot and Abraham and Isaac and Ishmael. Or something like that. It's this idea of the chosen lineage that is to be God's lineage in comparison to the people of the world. In the case of Isaac, it was Jacob that was blessed with twelve sons - Ishmael was also blessed with twelve sons.

The way I see it, chapter two of Genesis is a blown up, zoomed in picture of day six in creation. It was very good. This dispells the argument for incest, as well as makes sense as to why Cain was afraid...after all there were cities and towns when he had to go out with the mark (Cities? Towns? That requires lots of people!)

I have problems with idea that God intended for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit. That sounds rather sadistic, considering the horrible consequences of sin the world. I have always believed that the tree was there to give Adam and Eve the option, so that they weren't just slaves, following God because there was no other option. I think God can give options and intend for us to choose one thing, but with the knowledge that we will choose the other. But knowledge does not equal intention. God knew we would eat the fruit and so was able to plan from the beginning of creation for His son. But I don't believe that means God wanted us to eat the fruit.

To go back to the original point, that now we have wisdom because of sin, and this is a good thing: why do we need wisdom? Isn't it so that we won't do stupid things that have horrible results? If there are no horrible results (like, say, in an Edenesque situation) then I submit that there really is no need for wisdom. If we all lived in a paradise, who would need to be wise?

Yuki-Anne wrote:To go back to the original point, that now we have wisdom because of sin: why do we need wisdom? Isn't it so that we won't do stupid things that have horrible results? If there are no horrible results (like, say, in an Edenesque situation) then I submit that there really is no need for wisdom. If we all lived in a paradise, who would need to be wise?

I think Wisdom is considered a virtue usually, and if man was perfect, shouldn't he have wisdom too? What I think is that, since Wisdom is trusting God and following his commands, if Adam and Eve had obeyed God and not eaten from the tree, then they would have done the right thing, and therefore they would have been wise.

See, God said that the tree is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He didn't say "If you eat it you will gain the knowledge of good and evil." It's Satan who said that.

Warrior 4 Jesus wrote:The Bible is made up of many different genres but Genesis is written as a record of Hebrew history, not as something mythological in nature.

Then why do Jews see it as mythological and not historical? I mean, if it really is supposed to be a record of Hebrew history, you'd think the people who it was written for would believe that...

Believe what YOU want about Genesis, but believing that it's mythological is not in conflict with believing the rest of the Bible is true.

Also, wasn't I the one who said in another thread that mythological does not mean "false" or "made up"? The word "mythological" has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is true or false.

Though you're not familiar with US history, a good example is the mythological story of George Washington chopping down a cherry tree, then telling his father "I cannot tell a lie" and admitting to the deed. George Washington was a real person, and the story may or may not have happened. Either way, it's a mythological story, and even if it was a made up story that doesn't mean George Washington never existed.

For the record, I don't take Genesis as literal or historical either.

The way I see it, chapter two of Genesis is a blown up, zoomed in picture of day six in creation.

I've heard that, but some stuff just doesn't jive for me with that. Genesis 1 says God created male and female at the same time. Genesis 2 implies a passing of time between Adam's creation, and his feeling lonely. I really doubt after four or five hours Adam was like "Man I feel so LONELY I need someone with me!" Especially since Adam supposedly named all the animals on the earth before Eve was made...pretty sure that would take more than a few hours.

Unless you subscribe to a non-literal interpretation of the word "day" in Genesis 1. That would solve that problem, but...eh, I still don't buy it. If you do, that's cool though.

I have always believed that the tree was there to give Adam and Eve the option

But how was that an option? If the tree gave them wisdom/knowledge of good evil, they wouldn't know it was the wrong thing to do until after they did it. As I said before, without knowledge it would be impossible for them to choose to do the right thing...because they wouldn't know what the right thing even was. It's not like now, now it's easy to say "Oh yeah, they did the wrong thing" because we're looking at it after the fact...AND we're looking at it with the knowledge of what good and evil are...which we ONLY have because they ate the fruit.

Also, again, "option" implies that they could have not eaten the fruit, and then God wouldn't have sent Christ to die. God doesn't have plan B. God doesn't have plans for "if" this doesn't happen. With God, there is no "if." He clearly intended for those two to eat it. Otherwise, you're implying Adam and Eve could have thwarted God's plans by not eating it.

EDIT:

See, God said that the tree is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He didn't say "If you eat it you will gain the knowledge of good and evil." It's Satan who said that.

Hmm, lemme look this up.

Okay, you're right. God says, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

You're right about that. However, Genesis 3 states...

"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked. . . "

This states that some sort of knowledge or wisdom WAS in fact imparted into Eve and Adam when they ate the fruit. In fact, they didn't know they were naked until after they ate it. Also, if Adam and Eve already knew what good or evil were, the serpent's words would be nonsense...I suppose you could make the argument that they did know what good and evil were but Satan made them think they didn't, but...that's too much of a stretch for me and it's putting a lot of implications into the story that I don't think are really justified.

Warrior 4 Jesus (post: 1434063) wrote:Peanut, you take the creation story etc. as symbolic in nature but how do you then take Jesus life, death and ressurection as anything but symbolic? The Bible is made up of many different genres but Genesis is written as a record of Hebrew history, not as something mythological in nature.

I'm responding to this only because I think I was misunderstood so I'll just quote this again.

Me wrote:This has nothing to do with there historicity, it's merely a way to categorize them as literature and aid our interpretation.

Also, I just noticed a typo of mine...random thought. Anyway, I won't pursue this much further since it would likely cause an unnecessary debate. But I do feel like that little statement from my post might have been missed.

Peanut (post: 1434034) wrote:1). The first to stories in the Bible are definitely mythic in nature. This has nothing to do with there historicity, it's merely a way to categorize them as literature and aid our interpretation.

I have to ask you this,
when you say this you are meaning these are just symbolic and as such did not actually, physically happen? (or historically happen in our world?)

Please respond as if this is a case, there's some major topics that can arise out of this.

also Peanut, this is good, it broadens the topic and allows more idea bouncing

Furen (post: 1434076) wrote:I have to ask you this,
when you say this you are meaning these are just symbolic and as such did not actually, physically happen? (or historically happen in our world?)

Please respond as if this is a case, there's some major topics that can arise out of this.

To explain further, when I say "This has nothing to do with the historicity of the documents" I'm not saying "These documents aren't historical," I'm saying that this fits a certain genre that has certain characteristics. Furthermore, I do think stories can be symbolic and still historically true. This story may be one of them it may not. Either way, my discussion is on the symbolism in it and the message (though not necessarily the main message). Hope that clears things up.

Honestly, this discussion is one of the reasons that I enjoy taking the Genesis account of creation as allegorical. Now the details of it aren't as important as the big ideas and lessons conveyed within.

For example, a lot of people struggle with how God's omniscience and human free will interact in this scenario. If it's an allegorical tale meant to portray specific lessons about the nature of God, humans, and sin, then this problem can be mostly overlooked. (Though it does still leave some things to be talked about)

On a related note, I know that for a lot of people, this is sort of a hot button issue. I apologize if voicing my opinion about the first few chapters hit any emotional buttons, but I hope that you can agree that the way that God created everything isn't a terribly important point when it comes to the larger message that the Bible has for us.

Peanut (post: 1434079) wrote:To explain further, when I say "This has nothing to do with the historicity of the documents" I'm not saying "These documents aren't historical," I'm saying that this fits a certain genre that has certain characteristics. Furthermore, I do think stories can be symbolic and still historically true. This story may be one of them it may not. Either way, my discussion is on the symbolism in it and the message (though not necessarily the main message). Hope that clears things up.

Okay, I was just checking because I know people that take it as symbolic and nothing more, but to contradict that though; if people take this as symbolic and nothing more, does this mean that any or all of it is so, if so why not totally give up because it's just theology and nothing more. (Poor wording I apologize, I'm tired)

Furen (post: 1434085) wrote:if people take this as symbolic and nothing more, does this mean that any or all of it is so

What I've come to learn is that the Bible isn't a simple book, as far as interpreting it goes. When I say that, I mean that if you can interpret one part of the Bible symbolically (like the Psalms), it doesn't mean the entire Bible is meant to be interpreted only that way. The Bible is a complex book full of all sorts of genres, and you have to read each part of it in its original context. So if you take the first three chapters of Genesis symbolically (which I see no wrong in doing), it doesn't mean the entire book of Genesis ought to be viewed that way. A large part of Genesis is written as history, but there's actually pretty good reasoning behind viewing the first three chapters as poetry, the first chapter especially (ending each stanza in "and there was evening, and there was morning--the first/second/etc. day" is one example).

Radical Dreamer (post: 1434092) wrote:What I've come to learn is that the Bible isn't a simple book, as far as interpreting it goes. When I say that, I mean that if you can interpret one part of the Bible symbolically (like the Psalms), it doesn't mean the entire Bible is meant to be interpreted only that way. The Bible is a complex book full of all sorts of genres, and you have to read each part of it in its original context. So if you take the first three chapters of Genesis symbolically (which I see no wrong in doing), it doesn't mean the entire book of Genesis ought to be viewed that way. A large part of Genesis is written as history, but there's actually pretty good reasoning behind viewing the first three chapters as poetry, the first chapter especially (ending each stanza in "and there was evening, and there was morning--the first/second/etc. day" is one example).

Correct, though I would say that you could go farther (as many do) and say all of Genesis (since we really only have evidence for written records dating back to the time of Abraham and no earlier) is symbolic without actually harming the rest of scripture. In fact, Augustine and Origen pioneered and championed the idea of taking Genesis (along with Revelation) as allegorical and in fact was the most popular interpretation for much of Christian history. Here's a wiki article in case anyone is curious:
Link.