Interpreting Genesis - did Eve really sin?

[CosmicMuse]

I was discussing Genesis with a friend, and I came across a dilemma I had never encountered before. I've really been struggling to overcome it.
My problem is this - Adam and Eve were created pure, sinless and without knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, when Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, she was entirely unaware that she was sinning (no 'mens rea'), and therefore couldn't have understood the importance of God's command to not to eat the fruit (i.e. how could she know it was bad/a sin to disobey god?).

The thing is, the Catholic Church admits that those who are unaware that they are sinning are legitimately free from blame (infallibly ignorant), and the common understanding of natural law (granted by eating from the tree of knowledge) which makes sins such as murder irredeemable, simply did not exist at this time. I honestly can't think of one sin which occurs without the wilful knowledge of the person committing it (apart from our inherited, original sin - and in light of this, I don't see how it makes sense).

So, how could Eve sin if she was completely unaware that what she was doing was bad? Isn't a guilty conscience a requirement for sin? Your help would be greatly appreciated.

[ricmat]

Originally Posted by CosmicMuse

I was discussing Genesis with a friend, and I came across a dilemma I had never encountered before. I've really been struggling to overcome it.
My problem is this - Adam and Eve were created pure, sinless and without knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, when Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, she was entirely unaware that she was sinning (no 'mens rea'), and therefore couldn't have understood the importance of God's command to not to eat the fruit (i.e. how could she know it was bad/a sin to disobey god?).

The thing is, the Catholic Church admits that those who are unaware that they are sinning are legitimately free from blame (infallibly ignorant), and the common understanding of natural law (granted by eating from the tree of knowledge) which makes sins such as murder irredeemable, simply did not exist at this time. I honestly can't think of one sin which occurs without the wilful knowledge of the person committing it (apart from our inherited, original sin - and in light of this, I don't see how it makes sense).

So, how could Eve sin if she was completely unaware that what she was doing was bad? Isn't a guilty conscience a requirement for sin? Your help would be greatly appreciated.

Adam and Eve disobeyed God. By definition, that's a sin.

They had no concept of evil, because God created everything "good." There was no evil available to experience. Only by disobeying God is it possible for evil to exist.

[CosmicMuse]

Originally Posted by ricmat

Adam and Eve disobeyed God. By definition, that's a sin.

They had no concept of evil, because God created everything "good." There was no evil available to experience. Only by disobeying God is it possible for evil to exist.

You are correct, it is an objectively sinful action, but knowledge of the sin is necessary for someone 'to sin'. But Adam and Eve had no more comprehension of what is right and wrong than animals. Please forgive the metaphor, but when you order your dog not to maul strangers, he does it not because he realises its a sin to disobey you, but because he wants to please you/receive a treat, etc. Following on from this metaphor, one couldn't call a dog who mauls a stranger and thus disobeys his master a sinner, simply because he doesn't realise what he's doing.

And, as stated, the Catholic Church recognises this - its why uncontacted peoples and babies can go to heaven, as long as they don't contravene natural law (which, as I said, was not understood by Adam and Eve).

[ricmat]

Originally Posted by CosmicMuse

You are correct, it is an objectively sinful action, but knowledge of the sin is necessary for someone 'to sin'. But Adam and Eve had no more comprehension of what is right and wrong than animals.

They understood God's command not to eat the fruit. Eating the fruit was wrong only because God said not to do it.

Originally Posted by CosmicMuse

And, as stated, the Catholic Church recognises this - its why uncontacted peoples and babies can go to heaven, as long as they don't contravene natural law (which, as I said, was not understood by Adam and Eve).

Whether or not Adam and Eve understood natural law is irrelevant. They understood God's direct command and disobeyed anyway.

But yes, for those of us who do have a conscience (as in natural law) and do not contravene it can go to heaven.

[Iron Donkey]

Originally Posted by CosmicMuse

... but knowledge of the sin is necessary for someone 'to sin

The only knowledge that is required is the knowledge that the action is contrary to God's will. Since God literally said "don't do this," they had that knowledge.

Knowledge is more complicated these days because few of us have direct conversations with God, and a lot of people are understandably confused about what's actually true. But in the garden it was pretty simple.

[CosmicMuse]

Originally Posted by Iron Donkey

The only knowledge that is required is the knowledge that the action is contrary to God's will. Since God literally said "don't do this," they had that knowledge.

Knowledge is more complicated these days because few of us have direct conversations with God, and a lot of people are understandably confused about what's actually true. But in the garden it was pretty simple.

Hmmmmm...this is food for thought - the fact that they did speak with God could change things. If, essentially, all there is to sin is the knowledge that you are disobeying God, as opposed to the knowledge that you are doing something bad. But is that all there is to sin?

This would mean that everything favoured by God is good, and what he forbids is evil, instead of the other way around - God favours intrinsically good things and forbids evil things. So all one would need to know to sin is knowledge of God's will, as opposed to what is good and evil, all our ethical frameworks do is inform us of God's will.

But this brings up all sorts of problems...what is the knowledge of what is Good and Bad - is it understanding some sort of objective morality, or not? Are God's judgements arbitrary? Isn't it logical that Eve would disobey at some time, considering the fact that she didnt have the reason to make an informed judgement? Is it just for God to condemn people who don't know why they are being punished, apart from the fact God decreed it? Is it just for him to tempt them?

The problem is, then, how could Eve know how to avoid sin, without reason to guide her? The only way she could make judgements was by choosing the course of action which was most beneficial for her, and she was literally deceived by the Serpent into believing that not following God would be better for her. How could she avoid this judgement, if she didn't have the knowledge of Good or Bad to tell her what to do?
I suppose I understand why it is can be sin now, but I don't see how such sin can be anything short of inevitable.

[Iron Donkey]

Originally Posted by CosmicMuse

This would mean that everything favoured by God is good, and what he forbids is evil, instead of the other way around - God favours intrinsically good things and forbids evil things.

It is not so much that God favors what is good because it is good, or that good is good because God favors it. Both of those have problems. On the one hand, God is subject to a moral code. But this does not work because then God isn't Supreme in every sense of the word. And on the other hand, God's rules - if they are seen as rules - are arbitrary, which is also problematic.

But the more fundamental problem with taking either of these stances is that we see God as the same sort of being we are, except one who either makes the rules or follows them quickly. It is not just that God is good as an adjective; it is that God is good as a noun, goodness itself.

So it's more than that we can know if a thing is wrong or right according to whether it is or is not contrary to God's will, or that God only wills things which are right but that the two really are in fact the same absolute thing.

The problem is, then, how could Eve know how to avoid sin, without reason to guide her?

She had reason. God said don't do this. So the correct action, knowing who God is, is to not do this. Absolutely nothing else comes into play.

[Rence]

Originally Posted by ricmat

Adam and Eve disobeyed God. By definition, that's a sin.

They had no concept of evil, because God created everything "good." There was no evil available to experience. Only by disobeying God is it possible for evil to exist.

But, Satan's temptation is evil, therefore it was available for Eve to experience, and in all fairness (from a human's perspective) without any preparation from God. Adam and Eve were not prepared for Satan's temptation. The children we send to school have more preparation than Adam and Eve had....

[LilyM]

Originally Posted by Rence

But, Satan's temptation is evil, therefore it was available for Eve to experience, and in all fairness (from a human's perspective) without any preparation from God. Adam and Eve were not prepared for Satan's temptation. The children we send to school have more preparation than Adam and Eve had....

You think God was either incapable of preparing Adam and Eve properly or unwilling to do so? Of course He was not only willing and able but DID prepare them well enough - by telling them what the consequence would be among other things - that they were culpable for what they did. Perfect knowledge is not what is required for guilt, just sufficient knowledge.

[CosmicMuse]

Originally Posted by LilyM

You think God was either incapable of preparing Adam and Eve properly or unwilling to do so? Of course He was not only willing and able but DID prepare them well enough - by telling them what the consequence would be among other things - that they were culpable for what they did. Perfect knowledge is not what is required for guilt, just sufficient knowledge.

Hmm...I've thought a while on this. Genesis 2:17 does say:
'But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

But nonetheless, the fact that they understood the consequences does not necessarily mean that they knew what they were doing, and therefore knew that they were sinning. An animal can understand whether or not the consequences are bad (not beneficial), without knowing whether the action is bad (morally corrupt/a sin). Not only did they not have sufficient knowledge of sin, they had no knowledge of it at all...hence I cannot understand how they can be culpable.

[ricmat]

Originally Posted by CosmicMuse

But nonetheless, the fact that they understood the consequences does not necessarily mean that they knew what they were doing, and therefore knew that they were sinning. An animal can understand whether or not the consequences are bad (not beneficial), without knowing whether the action is bad (morally corrupt/a sin). Not only did they not have sufficient knowledge of sin, they had no knowledge of it at all...hence I cannot understand how they can be culpable.

You are trying to separate God's commands from the definition of sin. "Sin" does not exist independently of God. They walked with God, they talked with God, they had direct involvement with God.

1. They knew that God said "Don't do it."
2. Disobedience of God is, by definition, a sin. They might not have had that word (sin) at their disposal. But they knew and understood what God said not to do. There was only one defined sin at the time ("Don't eat of the tree...").
3. So yes, they were culpable. They didn't "accidentally" disobey God.

[CosmicMuse]

Originally Posted by ricmat

You are trying to separate God's commands from the definition of sin. "Sin" does not exist independently of God. They walked with God, they talked with God, they had direct involvement with God.

1. They knew that God said "Don't do it."
2. Disobedience of God is, by definition, a sin. They might not have had that word (sin) at their disposal. But they knew and understood what God said not to do. There was only one defined sin at the time ("Don't eat of the tree...").
3. So yes, they were culpable. They didn't "accidentally" disobey God.

This question isn't about definitions. The question is, did they know that disobeying God was morally incorrect/a sin (No), and does this ignorance mean that they cannot be culpable for their actions?
Essentially I am asking, can someone be guilty of sin without knowledge of their sin (or in Adam and Eve's case, Morality at all?) The Church accepts the fact that people who sin without knowledge of their actions are not guilty of sin - they do not have to confess, or repent. Guilty is the key word here. I cannot see how this is different.

[ricmat]

Originally Posted by CosmicMuse

This question isn't about definitions. The question is, did they know that disobeying God was morally incorrect/a sin (No), and does this ignorance mean that they cannot be culpable for their actions?

"Sin" has no meaning outside of God's commands. Immorality has no meaning outside of God's commands. All sin somehow involves disobeying God's commands. Did they know they should obey God? Yes.

[CosmicMuse]

Originally Posted by ricmat

"Sin" has no meaning outside of God's commands. Immorality has no meaning outside of God's commands. All sin somehow involves disobeying God's commands. Did they know they should obey God? Yes.

How did they know they 'should' do something is they didn't know following him was Good? All they had was the knowledge of what was beneficial for them, as stated.

Btw, What worries me is that your quote in your signature seems entirely opposed to your belief that God is a dictator who acts for our own good, and is not justified by objective morality. I've always been of the opinion that God's actions were justified by certain unalienable principles, I'm afraid.

[babylonsfalling]

Originally Posted by CosmicMuse

How did they know they 'should' do something is they didn't know following him was Good? All they had was the knowledge of what was beneficial for them, as stated.

Btw, What worries me is that your quote in your signature seems entirely opposed to your belief that God is a dictator who acts for our own good, and is not justified by objective morality. I've always been of the opinion that God's actions were justified by certain unalienable principles, I'm afraid.

They knew they should NOT do something because they were told by God.

They knew that following Him was good because not following him (exemplified by eating the forbidden fruit) would result in death...they were told that too. It's simple, they follow God by following His commandment and they don't die, which is a good thing. So they had the choice between doing something that would result in death and doing something that would NOT result in death. The idea that they couldn't determine for that death was bad and NO death was good is not sensible.

Trying to find one tidbit of missing information in order to absolve Adam and Eve from sin is ultimately fruitless. Despite all human reasoning, it's clear in Scripture that they DID sin. We don't get to second guess God.