ashpanda

lallations of a labile lagomorph: once there was brownpanda who died leaving behind his mate ashley whom we called panda out of love and since brownpanda.blogspot.com is not available. . .the picture is ashley

Friday, September 22, 2006

Why?

I've always pondered over the oddness of the expulsion of Adam and Eve. They were expelled because they disobeyed God and ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Until then, I guess, they were innocent - not knowing the difference between good and evil. Does this mean then that they were incapable of evil? If so, was their disobedience 'evil' then, in a sense? It was obviously not 'good' or God wouldn't have punished them.

Also, I may be somewhat pedantic here, but the use of the word 'knowledge' is also intriguing. Is knowledge dangerous? Does God prefer us not to know? Historically, at least, in the early days of Christianity (esp. the Middle Ages), knowledge was considered dangerous and only churches and monasteries had libraries. Universities began in monasteries. The average Christian was 'forbidden' access to knowledge. There were many instances, even recently, of books being burned for heresy. Except that today, we mostly ban them.

We do say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And sometimes, we may argue that some arguments are wrong because they contain imperfect knowledge or are incomplete. But, all human knowledge are imperfect and incomplete. Descartes is famous for his (to me, rather comical and disastrous) attempt to found human knowledge on doubt. So, if we cannot know anything perfectly, are we better off keeping our state of innocence?

But knowledge is one of our greatest achievements. A child, almost as soon he or she is able to speak, asks, "Why?". We are naturally curious (about life, about one another*, about almost anything) and most parents encourage their children to study and to learn. Our ability to learn, to develop knowledge, is perhaps the single most important reason why we are where we are today - with our technology, science and great art.

There is a great lesson to be learnt in the story of Adam and Eve. As with much of the first part of Genesis, I see this story as myth. Myth is not necessarily just a story that is not true - even though that is how we see it today. For me, myth is a way of capturing certain truths. It is a way we little understand today (because we are so blinded by the concept of scientific truth). But I do know this: myths capture truths in a way that is both profound and memorable. And I see a profound truth in the story of Adam and Eve: about knowledge, good and evil, and the human condition. Read the story again.

_____________________________
*Isn't gossip simply irresistable?

posted by brownpanda @ 10:48 am  

13 Comments:

  • At 7:56 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Yes, when they ate from the fruit, they realised that they were naked and were ashamed, so in a sense, their eyes were opened. I believe that disobedience towards God is evil, seeing as God always commands us to do good things, disobeying Him would be doing something evil, would it not?

    I have said before on my blog (Refer: http://becktan.diaryland.com/060817_56.html), I believe that knowledge in itself is not dangerous, it's how you use it. Like to draw a parallel to what you said abobe about the fruit. The fruit itself was not dangerous, what was dangerous was the potential for it to be abused, or in this case, eaten.

    And I won't be tagging for some time because I need to study. :)

     

  • At 12:12 am, Blogger brownpanda said…

    No prob, becca. Xin's in the same boat. Good luck, and hope you don't need it. God bless.

     

  • At 8:57 pm, Blogger alchemist said…

    It is clear (as also it was to Milton - see Paradise Lost) that when Eve ate the fruit of the knowledge of Good and Evil (a very specific knowledge), Adam had two choices. As a perfect man, he would have known them both. 1) Refuse to eat, obey God, and be forever separated from his wife; 2) eat, disobey God, and be the father of the human race, which would be saved through the power of Christ. This is borne out by 1 Tim 2:14 - Adam was not deceived, but he ate of the fruit anyway!

    Adam was a 'type' of Jesus; a person who would sacrifice his own immortality (for the fruit of the tree of life remained in the garden) for love - love for his wife and his unborn billions of descendants. And this correspondence is echoed throughout the entire New Testament (e.g. Romans 5:12-21, 1 Cor 15:20-22).

    The thing is that Adam was born 'gifted' - God made him as the prototype human, the model and pattern which God said was 'very good'. He had knowledge and the authority which goes with that - he named the animals, an exercise of spiritual authority. He had access to all knowledge except that which God forbade him to have. And when he left Eden, he took it with him.

    So the bottom line: knowledge is never a bad thing except in one case - once Adam knew it was in practice (and not merely in theory) possible to disobey God (thus committing evil), that particular piece of knowledge caused evil to enter the world.

     

  • At 7:01 am, Blogger brownpanda said…

    Very erudite, as usual, alchemist. So, forgive a simpleton - I don't get you. What is this specific knowledge of good and evil? Did not Adam's knowledge that disobedience is bad not constitute this knowledge of good and evil? Is it just a kind of innocence, like a child knowing that it is wrong to disobey the parents but somehow still innocent (although one might argue that this innocence of the child is imputed rather than actual). How can you know something is wrong without knowing the concept of good and evil?

     

  • At 10:05 pm, Blogger alchemist said…

    1. I tell a person who is completely adult and in the full power of his intellect and genetic potential, "You can eat of everything in this place, except the fruit of this tree of the knowledge of good and evil." He cannot see that it is evil to break this rule. The rule really has no moral underpinnings. What could be evil about it? There is no hint about what the moral consequences are. God said he would surely die - but what is that to someone who doesn't know what death is? Eating is not wrong. And everything can be eaten. Almost.

    So the question to Adam must have been, "Why must I not eat, except that God says so?" And being perfect, he said, "OK, fine, I won't." And he didn't. Until his wife ate. And that gave him the choice - eat, and follow her into exile, or not eat, and be separated forever.

    Adam did NOT know that disobedience was bad (in the moral sense). He just saw it as a rule which had only the authority of God, and not reason or sense behind it. Genesis 2:25 tells us that they felt no shame, and implies there was no reason to do so. They had no sense of morality - i.e. reasons beside reason, logic, sensibility - about anything.

    So your question about 'How can you know something is wrong...?' misses the point. Adam didn't know it was wrong; he only knew that when he ate of it, he would surely die. And death is not in itself bad (or even defined, to Adam). Later, this is what he would choose, for the love of Eve and his future offspring.

     

  • At 11:03 pm, Blogger brownpanda said…

    Nice argument, alchemist, but a little too fine.

    1. Becca, and several other Christians I know and respect, suggests that disobedience is Adam's sin. Or, in other words, disobedience of God is evil, if not the original evil (or sin).

    2. You are suggesting that something is evil only if you know the reason or sense behind it. That this is the 'Knowledge of Good and Evil'. I am not sure I agree with you:
    a) Where in the Bible is this argument forwarded? My reading is closer to Becca, that disobedience is the sin, not the reasoning behind the act.
    b) The notion that the reason or sense of evil is what makes something evil, rather than the act itself, is the basis for the science of evolution of morality - i.e. that we evolved morality because moral behaviour is advantageous to us as a species, or in the long term. In other words, it argues against the God as the source of morality.

    3. Finally, the idea that Adam was perfect and chose between being with Eve or God is rather chauvinistic. It also makes God's punishment punitive. I disagree. I reckon that both were equally 'evil' or naughty - both were seduced by the devil. Eve directly, and Adam, when he saw Eve eat the apple and nothing happened, indirectly. They were like children eager to try something new, something interesting.

    Why would God make Adam perfect and Eve not? Such an mcp view is acceptable in the days of Milton, but surely not today.

     

  • At 7:52 pm, Blogger alchemist said…

    1. What really riles me is when we listen to what people say without looking at the text offered. You don't have to believe me. Just read what the Book says. Disobedience of God is indeed sin. My point is that Adam did not know this until he ate the fruit. Else, why did God Himself call it the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:9)?

    2. I am not saying this. I am explicitly saying that Adam did not know evil, and could not have, until he tasted the fruit. Eve knew it first. It is clear from reading Gen 2-3 that the man and woman did not know what evil was - they could not have known what evil was - until they ate. The Bible refers to it as 'sin entered the world' (Rom 5:12). Obviously therefore, the Bible says that sin was not known until the act of eating. There is no other credible interpretation. Sin does not exist in God, neither did it exist in His creation (unless you are a heretic) until Eve ate the fruit and Adam followed.

    3. Adam was perfect. It is a fact. God made all things good. Are you saying that God made Adam imperfect? That's heresy. Until he ate the fruit (thus gaining the knowledge of good and evil), he was perfect too. And for God's punishment not to be punitive is odd - then why do YOU call it punishment? God cursed the ground because of Adam (Gen 3:14 onwards). You can disagree - it is your right as a freewilled being. But the text suggests you are wrong. Further, you claim they were equally naughty - that is denied by the Bible again: see 1 Tim 2:11-15.

    It is a modern point of view to say that Adam and Eve were like children. That is not Biblical. God made all things in their fullness, able to reproduce after their own kind. The only way Adam was childlike was in his innocence. He knew enough not to be deceived (1 Tim 2:13). Hence it must have been his choice to eat. That was sin, but he did not know it till he ate.

    Lastly, I did not say God made Adam perfect, not Eve. He made both perfect (God cannot create imperfection directly; it arises from free will). But Eve was deceived and sinned, Adam was not deceived - that much is clear from the Bible itself. If you think I am an MCP, then you have me wrong. The Bible differentiates between Man and Woman, Adam and Eve. It is our modern sense which makes one role less desirable than the other, and then turns around and accuses others of MCPism.

    I do not share my views unsupported. I share what I see of the Word of God, and if you must disagree, sir, show your cards - what evidence does the Bible have for your views?

     

  • At 10:40 pm, Blogger brownpanda said…

    Whoa. I apologise for riling you, alchemist. I did say that I am dealing with blasphemies in my blog, so yes, I know I am being heretical here.

    I am struggling here with my conflicts as a Christian. And, I did worry, right at the beginning that I might not be doing a good thing. Still, Becca encouraged me on - even though she may have bitten off more than she bargained for.

    If my comments offend you, let me stop right here. If I am stupid, as well as being heretic, that also I will acknowledge. But my views are simple:
    1. Knowing something is wrong is akin to knowing that it is evil - especially in this case. The evil is disobedience. Adam knew it was wrong. What's the difference? I don't get it. What is this specific knowledge of good and evil that is different from knowing right and wrong? The notion of sin entering the world was to me a simpler problem - it's like an unpainted canvas. Until you actual put paint on it, it's unsullied. But the knowledge of good and evil as opposed to knowing what is right or wrong is not so easy to understand for me.
    2. I have lots of problems intepreting the Bible, so I can only ask you where you get your views, since you are defending the Bible. I wasn't. I was questioning it.
    3. It seems to me rather harsh to punish someone who (a) doesn't know good and evil when he committed the sin, and (b) by your reasoning, and according to Timothy, was actually doing a rather honourable thing, i.e. standing by his partner. It is almost as if he died for Eve, isn't it? Like Jesus died for us. Isn't it rather harsh for God to punish him for it? On the other hand, contrary to Timothy, if Adam was tempted and succumbed just like Eve, then it is fair that both are punished.


    But I really do not want to quarrel with you. And this blog being as unpopular as it is, I don't want to lose a valued contributor. So, perhaps if I may just not comment on your comments in future? But do please continue to post your comments. It's a lonely blog otherwise.

     

  • At 11:21 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Heh. No, you have not offended me. I am riled only on behalf of the evidence we share.

    1. What is the difference between knowledge of prohibition and knowledge of good and evil?

    1.1 Analogy: Supposing you are an inexperienced human and you see a sign which says, "Danger: 300 kV. Do not touch." Touching it is morally neutral, and need not be stupid in principle (since you really do not know what the consequences really are). This is Adam's state - he knows 'you shall surely die', but he doesn't necessarily know what death is, and to break a prohibition has no moral weight as yet.

    1.2 This is a whole lot different from when you know 300 kV, with sufficient amperage earthing through you, will kill you. Then, it's attempted suicide and carries a moral weight.

    1.3 Similarly, you tell a child, "Don't use bad language. It is wrong." Well, you have defined it as such. But is it evil? Does it bear moral weight? Will the kid necessarily have a bad conscience? The answer is that saying 'S**t', for example, has no moral weight in its own right. So it is wrong only in the sense of being socially unacceptable. It is not evil. It does not necessarily lead to corruption of the spirit in and of itself.

    2. It must be even harsher to punish someone who has NEVER committed sin. Hint, hint. As I said before, the Bible likens Christ to Adam in several passages. Christ died for the Church, His bride, just as Adam accepted death for Eve and his future generations. He deliberately offended, then made a clumsy effort to pretend it was accidental. God saw through it - 'Adam was not deceived,' says the Bible. And God penalised him accordingly. He did not curse Adam. He cursed Adam's working environment.

    3. Actually, if God says, 'If you eat that fruit I will have to make sure you are not immortal,' it is the same thing. Read Genesis 3:22-24. The wages of sin is death. But the original context is clearly shown in that verse.

    4. Lastly, why should punishment be deserved by our standards? Interesting, no? It is a human concept that the punishment should fit the crime proportionately. But it never happens that way. And the Bible never says punishment will be that way either. God is not fair (human concept). He doesn't have to be. But He is just (Biblical concept). And just (as in 'just in time', 'just right', 'left-justified') means 'exactly fitting' - God's justice is always appropriate, but not necessarily predictably so. The Psalmist laments, "Why do the wicked prosper?" And God gives a hundred different answers - and in the end asserts His primacy to Job by saying, "Ask, and I will answer."

     

  • At 7:01 am, Blogger brownpanda said…

    I am happy to see you back, alchemist. So, the difference is between knowing something is wrong and knowing what wrong means. Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with your analogy.

    But, let me end the discussion here, temporarily. We will have lots of opportunity to disagree - it may get worse before it gets better, haha.

    It may well be that we agree but see things in a different light. It may even be that we agree but I am stubbornly claiming to be original (even if I am not). But then, what's a blog for if not to indulge myself. We shall see.

    Next stop: God is evil. *smile*

     

  • At 5:33 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    *grin*

    No, it is the difference between knowing you are being told not to do something and knowing it is a bad thing to do if you did it. One is value-neutral (do/not do), one is value-sensitive (good/evil); right/wrong is criterion-sensitive - it is a matter of whether you give an appropriate response to a test.

     

  • At 10:13 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    me and becca would both very much like to see you two continue this debate :p

     

  • At 8:04 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "becca and I"... oops, i just started doing what autolycus does. haha.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home