Good and evil

[Khalfan]

Have Adam and Eve had the knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit?

 

[HammerStone]

They did not have the knowledge of good and evil prior to eating the fruit hence the reason it was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. All they had was God's instruction. Keep in mind that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil stood for Satan himself. We have a study on this topic: http://www.christianityboard.com/true-sin-...study-t509.html

 

[guerrillasaint]

They did have knowledge of what was Good because that is all they had knowledge of.

 

[GetAgrippa]

A system in which individuals believe 'immoral desires' can be blamed on an “evil” outside force, or in which they can be forgiven in their transgressions by appealing to a “good” force, is not a system that actually prevents antisocial/evil deeds, but is simply a process used to justify or excuse such deeds by reducing or displacing accountability and/or responsibility.'Altruism' is normally defined as 'acting for the benefit of other people'. Most religions use altruism as their definition of “good”. Certainly, the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) is the Christian equivalent of the religious form of altruism...also known as 'Ethical Altruism'. Whereas, performing unselfish deeds, in order to help others, earns one a 'holy' or 'paradisiacal' reward. Unfortunately, by definition...it is not actually 'altruism'. Helping others for a return of any type of personal compensation, is actually a self-serving act....including 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'....as the reward is for yourself, and not expressly/solely for God, or others. In other words, the intent of behaving in a 'seemingly selfless' manner, with the goal of doing something that ultimately benefits oneself, or conversely failing to behave so brings you 'eternal punishment'....you are not acting for the sake of others at all, but only for yourself. (i.e. your salvation)Some contend that the only people who can perform a truly altruistic act is an atheist since they have nothing to gain from it, directly or spiritually. Although atheists are not pursuing a religious/mystical reward, they still benefit from feelings of 'accomplishment', or 'joy'....therefore, still being a selfish intent. This type of 'Ethical Altruism' is a self-destroying definition, and therefore is impossible if someone stands to gain, in any manner. This opinion is widely held, and is 'true' in principle. If you consider Ethical Altruism as empirical...it is certainly 'learned behaviour'.This also balances with the concepts of 'good and evil' being just that...man-made concepts....based on individual, or group perspective. Truly, it can be said that it would be more accurate to define 'good and evil' as 'agreeable or disagreeable' actions or intent. Meaning, if the action is 'agreeable' to a particular individual or group, it will be held as 'good' to that particular individual or group.....and conversely, if the action is 'disagreeable' to an individual or group will be held as 'evil'.It can be said, no matter what the situation or reward...it will always still fall in the realm of being defined by the 'individual or group consciousness'. (Which is why many hold that "God IS Consciousness", since it is the ONLY explanation that holds true on ANY definition, individually, or socially).In times of crisis, there are individuals who seemingly sacrifice their own lives in order to save others. If it were given they did not formulate an intent, but simply reacted 'instinctively' to the situation. This type of innate response is called 'Psychological Altruism', upholding the concept people are 'good by nature'. I would have to add, anything that deals with the term 'instinctive' is also highly debatebable since some form of 'information processing'...(i.e. - intelligence and/or choice) MUST occur. (Meaning, the 'instinctive impulse' must 'fire' from one point, and be 'processed' at another...therefore making a choice requiring information processing within the consciousness/mind/brain.'Instinctive morality' or ethics of this sort is contrary to the beliefs of “original sin” to suggest that man is actually evil by nature, and that good behaviour is learned through doctrine...defined as 'Ethical Altruism'. Certainly, anything that uses the term 'ethical', like the concept of 'instinctive', is highly debatable since a deed may hold to be 'ethical' in one society, and even taboo or evil in another. Either way, it is defined by the "belief system" of the individual or group mind/consciousness. This is, and always will be, an inescapable aspect since we must have consciousness to learn, define concepts, or even define 'life' or 'living' itself. Ultimately, 'good and evil' is defined within predisposed perceptions, (within the individual or group consciousness), and therefore the definitions may hold 'true' for one person or group, and 'untrue' for another.

 

[Rasta]

Wonderful analysis GetAgrippa. Basically it is impossible for someone to perform a "truely unselfish" act as defined above.GetAgrippa, was the point of your post to show your idea of good and evil? I actually agree with what you posted, but not sure what the point you are trying to make.I have just this to add. How could Adam and Eve be blamed if they did not know the difference between "good and evil"? If they had no knowledge of what "good" was and no knowledge of what "evil" was, surely they are not to be blamed for eating fruit.It seems the only one who really knew what was going on is god. Then isn't it god's fault for not teaching them, but expecting them to behave as if they did know.If god is omnipotent, all knowing, it seems like he set them up for failure.

 

[Amy]

(guerrillasaint;8015)
They did have knowledge of what was Good because that is all they had knowledge of.
No, they did not have the knowledge before, they only had instructions which they disobeyed. Realistically speaking, one can not gain knowledge unless exposed.

 

[Jordan]

(Amy)
No, they did not have the knowledge before, they only had instructions which they disobeyed. Realistically speaking, one can not gain knowledge unless exposed.
That is difinately completely true...How can one get knowledge if they don't have Him? Simply that can't get (like Amy said) until their darkness is exposed by the Light. Amen!Lovest thou in Christ Jesus (Yahshua) our Lord and Saviour.

 

[Commander Commando]

The logic of the doctrine of the Fall of Man is simple.1. Adam and Eve had no inherent knowledge of "Good and Evil."2. Adam and Eve were commanded never to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.3. Adam and Eve ate of the tree anyway, however conned into it by Satan, and were immediately shamed. Disobedience -- the eating of the fruit in contradiction of God's commandment -- was the sin they committed.4. Therefore it is possible to commit a sin when you do not even know what Sin is, since at the moment they bit into the fruit they were disobeying God and therefore sinning, even though they had no knowledge of good and evil and therefore couldn't be expected to know that "disobedience" was any more "Evil" than breathing the air around them.So after this event, the table is set and the rules are clearly lined up for you to see: Sin is contradicting God, even when you are not consciously aware that you are sinning. Sin can be committed regardless of your intention; sin can be committed when you are, logically speaking, above reproach. In short, "Sin" is anything God doesn't like, even if he doesn't let you in on his opinion first.