Why did God call the tree of which Adam and Eve ate from the "Tree of Knowledge".

I got into this discussion with this protestant friend of mine and he insists Adam and Eve sinned but not because they knew it to be wrong, they were too ignorant to really grasp the wrongness of their actions. He says this because he somehow thinks the tree of knowledge is what gave them understanding of what they have done. I told him that to Sin, it has to be done willingly and with full intent. I said they knew exactly what they were doing and knew it to be wrong and against God.

He doesn't believe that definition of Sin. Does anybody have any quotes from Scripture that could back up what I have said about Sin? And again, why was it called the Tree of Knowledge? Does the Knowledge represent that which they knew sin from the inside looking out as opposed to knowing sin from the outside looking in?

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 09, 2005

Answers

bump

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 09, 2005.

Actually it isn't simply called "the tree of knowledge". It's much more specific than that. It is called "the tree of knowledge of good and evil". It wasn't any general fund of knowledge that the tree represented, like they were going to suddenly know everything or be a lot smarter. That's what Satan told them, but that was a lie intended to deceive them. Actually the only knowledge they would gain by eating of the tree was the knowledge of sin and its effects in their lives, something that was totally outside their experience until that moment. This was knowledge God never desired mankind to have, because it could be gained only by personal experience, the experience of sin. There was nothing special about the tree itself. It just represented a command of God to be obeyed. When they chose to disobey God, they thereby gained experiential knowledge of the difference between good and evil, something they had never known before, and began to experience the inevitable effects of evil in their lives.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 09, 2005.

16 And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: 17 But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

But God did call it the tree of "knowledge of good and evil". Why use such a name as a misreprestentation of what it truly was?

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 09, 2005.

"...Has the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in observing the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of divination (witchcraft), and insubordination (stubbornness)is as iniquity and idolatry." paranthesis mine due to 2 dif bibles. ISam 15:22-23

If your friend thinks that the only way to sin is by breaking the commandments, then he misses the point of what sin is. Sin can be described as a break in communion with God. He's holy and cannot tolerate sin so when we sin, we are not as close to Him as we should be. Rebellion can be relabeled "pride" like saying you're so proud of your own actions you'd rather not do what God says. And pride can be relabeled "idolatry" because you are holding something in higher esteem than God.

Satan is the father of lies and his biggest trick is subtlety. Carefully reread Genesis 3 and notice that the serpent tells Eve that she surely won't die, that her eyes will be opened, and that she will be like God in knowing good and evil if she eats of the fruit. How true! And yet what a lie. Eve was human like you and I. If you were there, do you think you might have listened to the serpent? The only person she ever spoke to was Adam (and of course God) and now out of nowhere comes this other entity she could speak to. How ignorantly she listened... or was she ignorant? Maybe she should have went straight to God and said, "Hey Lord, there's this serpent talking to me and I've never seen a serpent speak before." Maybe she was just a little bit too curious as to what the serpent had to offer.

Read carefully, right after the serpent tells her about the attributes of the tree, the bible says that the woman saw the tree was good for food, that it was delightful to the eyes and that it was desirable to make a person wise... there, she takes the fruit and eats it. Sounds like she never really thought about the tree that way before until the serpent told her. So maybe you could blame it on the devil. But wait, can you honestly blame all of your disobedience on the devil? He may try to push or plead or cajole or talk sweetly to your proud little heart, but the action belongs to you.

Here's the part that kills me cuz I never really noticed it before. "...she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband WITH HER and he ate." (bold mine) Maybe Adam was watching this convo take place. Looks like Adam wasn't all that innocent either even though later he claimed some innocence by passing the buck and blaming Eve for giving it to him.

My point is, look at what sin does. It breaks up relationships. It makes us feel guilty. It makes us hide from God. Adam and Eve wouldn't have hidden from God unless they knew they had done something wrong. Besides, Paul says that if you think something is wrong but you do it anyway, you're sinning. Not because the act which you commit breaks the commandments per se, but rather, your conscience which is given to you by God is screaming at you to stop, but you willingly perform the action.

So, one could argue that some people feel stealing is okay, so when they steal, it's not sinning. So maybe Eve thought in her heart and in her conscience that it was okay to eat the fruit. I beg to differ. It is possible to "sear" your conscience. "...some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of hypocrisy of liars seared in their own consciences as with a branding iron" 1Tim 4:2 There are people who say that religion makes them feel guilty so in order not to feel guilty they choose not to believe in God. They're still going to hell because they're brainwashing themselves not to feel guilt where they naturally would feel it. Also, you might "feel" stealing is okay but God commands that it is not okay. Just like Eve may have felt eating was okay, totally disregarding her Father's warning.

For example, as a teen, I didn't want to believe in God because I wanted to play around with the boys. So I let myself be brainwashed by my liberal surroundings into thinking that I was "sexually liberated." Notice my choice of words... LET MYSELF be brainwashed. So just because I refused to feel the guilt by my conscience (and trust me, after awhile there WAS no more guilt), doesn't mean that it was okay for me to do it. Your conscience only works as good as you let God work on it. Eve could have checked with God to see if it was okay to eat the fruit just in case she forgot what God had said about it just like we can always read the bible to get a little perspective on our own actions.

In summation, I would say that Adam and Eve were not ignorant of their actions.

As to the what the tree of knowledge represents, are you asking if God named it that because He knew they would sin and that it would open their eyes to good and evil or if was named that because it was imbued with some special attribute of knowledge that would be given them if they eat of it?

-- hello_rina not hell-o-rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 09, 2005.

(But God did call it the tree of "knowledge of good and evil". Why use such a name as a misreprestentation of what it truly was?

-- DJ)

Did Adam and Eve actually know what good and evil were? Up until this point, they had no idea. All they knew was God and his creation and we know that God is good and his creation was proclaimed to be good. What happened after they ate the fruit? "Then the eyes of both were opened..." and they cover themselves with fig leaves to hide their shame. I'd say that they knew what good and evil were now! So how could the name of the tree be misleading?

-- marina (hellorina@aol.com), January 09, 2005.

As to the what the tree of knowledge represents, are you asking if God named it that because He knew they would sin and that it would open their eyes to good and evil or if was named that because it was imbued with some special attribute of knowledge that would be given them if they eat of it?

Hey rina, I was wondering if He called it that knowing it would open their eyes in light of both Good and Evil as opposed to just Good as they only knew since they had not fallen yet.

Did Adam and Eve actually know what good and evil were? Up until this point, they had no idea. All they knew was God and his creation and we know that God is good and his creation was proclaimed to be good. What happened after they ate the fruit? "Then the eyes of both were opened..." and they cover themselves with fig leaves to hide their shame. I'd say that they knew what good and evil were now! So how could the name of the tree be misleading?

Yeah marina, your right. I think i'm looking too much into it.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 09, 2005.

Maybe Adam was watching this convo take place. Looks like Adam wasn't all that innocent either even though later he claimed some innocence by passing the buck and blaming Eve for giving it to him.

How about this politically uncorrect posit: Adam should have but did not step up to the plate and take the leadership role as the husband is the head of the wife...

I have several times pondered what would have transpired had Adam said no... Of course, of the two outcomes possible -for some reason I assume Eve disobeying Adam regardless to be most probable -from there, then what?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 09, 2005.

Also, does anyone have any Bible quotes referring to the definition of sin. I believe there is one that says that a certain people did not sin because they did not know or something like that.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 09, 2005.

hmmm... about Eve diobeying regardless

the husband is SUPPOSED to wash the wife with the word (alliteration not intended) so it may be that had adam acutally said to eve, "hey honey, remember what God said about that tree?" she might have actually thought twice about it. but then again, perhaps you're correct, eve might have been like whatever, the fruit looks good, the serpent says it's cool, so why not?

it seems as if what God wants men and women to be like goes contrary to our nature. men want to sit around and roll the eyes at the wife while she tries to take control. everyone knows the common stereotype about who wears the pants in the family (the wife of course!) but what God wants goes contrary to our nature because our nature is sinful! so God commands men to love their wives cuz let's face it, guys can be insensitive boogers who want the wife to be a slave or they're looking at the chica next door. and He says that women should submit to their husbands because let's face this one too, we HATE when a guy tells us what to do.

i'm about to go off on a tangent here

everyone tries to explain this away by saying that submission is not really what God had intended. OH really? then why have it in the bible? submission is not necessarily a bad thing. i put forth a few examples from personal experience.

i was being a total nag and my husband actually finally had the courage to tell me ENOUGH! wow that was a shock. he said that he would love to talk about our issues but only after i've cooled off and could speak to him as he were a man and not a child. so i "submitted" to his wishes and found the results of our subsequent convo most satisfying.

once i wanted to use our savings for some thing because i felt that we should really spend our money this way and he said he didn't want to. but my feelings were so strong and he seemed so cold hearted about it that i was getting angry like he was trying to control me. later, i realized that his decision was based on logic and it was the better decision. because we women have so many damn feelings, they get in the way of rational decisions many a time and i thank God for my husbands manly rational thinking.

once my husband wanted to buy something with our savings and i'm the one that didn't want to buy it. but he really wanted it and i "submitted" to his decision. it happened to be a bad decision, but guess what? he learned his lesson and it will never happen again. let's pretend that instead of submitting i nagged him about his decision... would he ever have learned his lesson? no, he would have resented me for nagging or for my power struggle.

one time i really wanted to buy something and he didn't want to but because he loves me, he bought it.

i think that we have come to a very good mutual understanding of what God means by submission. and seriously, before my husband and i came to christianity, i did wear the pants in the family. it wasn't pretty. when daddy said something, the kids came to me for confirmation. when i said something, the kids did not go to daddy for confirmation because i was the authority. there came a time when the kids started to become rebellious and i wanted my hubby's help, but alas, i had stripped him of all power and he couldn't help out with the discipline. i started to resent him and even had the gall to ask him why he couldn't be a man!!! like duh.

not to mention the added benefits of the responsibility of decision making falling on his shoulders. when i made a bad decision, i would get all moody about it and it would affect my day. when he makes a bad decision, he just gets on with his life. not that i totally give up my individuality. it's just that the two of us have become one flesh and he's better at some things and i'm better at others. although i cook, he actually does any and all baking in the house (my cakes and cookies come out flat) and although he has the ultimate say on finances, i'm the one who handles the numbers (he'd put us in the red every month). there are areas where we are both equally good and equally not so good. and we do have our problems. but in general, when you put your egos aside, and you realize that you strive for a common goal, it's not hard to "submit" on rare occasions when the two can't agree.

by the way, the bible also says that the two submit to each other. a pastor friend once explained this to me as "someone has the be the first one to lay down the six shooter." both parties are responsible of feeling each other out and realizing when to lay aside their opinions for the good of keeping the two in unity.

unfortunately, people continue to think of submission in a bad light because of the way women were treated in the past (and today of course). but just because women are treated poorly, doesn't make God's word null and void. women just cringe at the word "submit" because that's the one thing our fleshy nature does not want to do. when my husband is acting lovingly and godly i do not have a problem with submitting, "hey honey, i don't think we should make this decision yet" and i say, "but we need to make it now in order to take advantage of this or that..." and he says, "it's really bothering me and i can't put my finger on it right now so i'd like to pray about it first" and i say OKAY. now, in our house, the conversation could easily go the other way with him submitting to my request. is this such a bad thing?

i seriously think the reason why God wants the hubby to be the head is because of what eve did.

-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 09, 2005.

--DJ, a dictionary definition of sin is a transgression of God's law or in the verb sense, transgressing God's law. but if you only go by that definition, then the saying "you can look but you can't touch" would be true. however, according to Jesus himself, you most certainly cannot look because you're already sinning in your heart. so what is a sin?

well, if you think of sinning as a break in your relationship with God, then what Jesus says makes a lot of sense. for example, if you don't cheat on your wife but you constantly think of other women in your head or your heart, you're not sinning according to the ten commandments but you're sinning anyway cuz you're doing it in your heart. and if you harbor those feelings in your heart, you'll eventually get tired of your wife or even worse, actually commit the sin you've been thinking about. also, if you think using crayons is a sin, even though it really isn't, but if you honestly think it is, and you go and sneak a purple crayon into the closet and start to color with it, guess what? you're sinning! think about it. you think using crayons is wrong but you do it anyway. that's rebellion. and rebellion is what? it's as the sin of witchcraft (1Sam 15:23)

On the other hand, let's say using purple crayons really is a sin but you had absolutely no clue about it. let's say nobody told you, you weren't brought up that way, there's no way you could have found out. then when you use the purple crayon are you going to hide in the closet? of course not, cuz you don't know that it's a sin. and will God think it's a sin? of course not, but there are exceptions.

the first one is that i really don't know God's mind so maybe in some cases it is a sin. the second, God gives us a conscience so if you use the purple crayon and the conscience says no, it's probably a sin.

in terms of actual bible definitions on sin, there's no set definition but there are guidelines. i'll hunt down the versus but here's a short list so if anyone has the versus handy or wants to add to the list, be my guest.

1 jesus says whoever even looks at a women with lust is already sinning (2) paul says that if you think eating meat sacrificed to idols is wrong and you do it anyway it's sinning (3) paul says that if your brother thinks eating the meat is wrong and you know it's not wrong, but you in your freedom eat the meat in front of your brother and you cause him to stumble in his faith cuz you're flaunting your freedom, it's sinning

okay i'm getting tired of this and i think i fudged that last one but i hope you get the point peace

-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 09, 2005.

1: mY FIST STANDARD COPAINT. SATAN TOD DEE NOTHING. I KNOW i KNOW ATAN TEMPTED EVE O TAKE THE FRUIT... BUT THE bIBEL NO WHERE SAYS SATAN TOOK THE FORM OF A SERPENT OR POSSESSED HE BODY OF ONE. IT SAYS A SERPENT. EEN THE ORMAN cATHOLCI CATECHISM DOESNT PSECIFY IT AS SAATN TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

2: as noted, its nto the tre f Knwoeldge. Thsi si a common argumet I hear form critiscs of christainity, that Goid wanted peopel ignorat so hid knowledge and didnt let them get it.

The Knwoeldgeof Good and evil is guilt, shame, suffeirng, and retrebution, sometignwe ought to have acvoided...

3: The name wa snot misrepresentativ of the tree, the tree actualy DID confer upon them this knowledge. They now whre capable of distinguishing right fomr wrong, and hus became the only Animal capable of sin, and wher the onl thing seperated from God.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 09, 2005.

The name was not misrepresentative of the tree, the tree actualy DID confer upon them this knowledge. They now were capable of distinguishing right fomr wrong, and thus became the only Animal capable of sin,

Yeah, i told my friend similar to what you and the others said.

I just went by from what I learned the Church saying how 3 things need do be in place for a sin to be mortal. One of them is the knowledge of that sin, even the knowledge of the natural moral law written in one's heart. I had a tough time explaining that one to him.

For example, when the nazis killed the Jewish people in numbers they knew in their hearts write from wrong didn't they, even the ones who claimed to be brainwased. But how about someone who is brainwahsed as a young child to believe that a killing such as that is just?

Here is one of the examples in the Bible i was looking for dealing with something becoming sin with knowledge.

John 9

35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? 36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? 37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. 38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. 39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. 40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? 41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 09, 2005.

If you were there, do you think you might have listened to the serpent? The only person she ever spoke to was Adam (and of course God) and now out of nowhere comes this other entity she could speak to. How ignorantly she listened... or was she ignorant? Maybe she should have went straight to God and said, "Hey Lord, there's this serpent talking to me and I've never seen a serpent speak before." Maybe she was just a little bit too curious as to what the serpent had to offer.

It's funny you mention this rina. Cause my friend said the very same thing as you except he said this "But you see, they were never deceived before and thought they could trust the serpant. They didn't know they would get punished."

The problem here as you also said, is that up till then, they only trusted in God. Now you have someone else come along who they never saw before and give them the opposite story that God told them. "Eat of the Tree" as opposed to "Don't eat of the Tree". There was obviously something more going on there with their conscience, as one doesnt choose to go in the opposite direction unless they consciencely willed to do so using reason with Good intent or bad intent. Wanting to be like God is not Good.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 10, 2005.

The incident that happened in the Garden of Eden is something very true. What actually happened literally is deeply spiritual, therefore neither comprehensible nor expressible in human language. Therefore, the Holy Spirit inspired the human author the Genesis of chaps 1, 2, and 3 the truth in a simple picture form that could be easily understood and communicated even to children. Nevertheless, God may reveal deeper meanings if one humbly decides to meditate on the same.

As long as our first parents listened to God's Word and believed, they had a perfect blissful relationship with God. When they (the woman) listened to the serpent's word, suspected God and His Word, believed in the serpent (literally impregnated herself with the devil seed), transgressed God's command, then and consumed spiritually poisonous word, they died. Spiritually destroyed and stripped off all grace (divine love, joy, peace, presence) of God, the relationship was broken.

The only way that the tree of knowledge of good and evil differed from other trees (Gen.2:9) was the false promise of gaining wisdom that would give them the ability to become like God. This is because the devil saw our parents were already god-like (or children of God) and envied their position and being extremely cunning baited them to disobedience and fall.

These were some of the effects their fall: The devil could separate our first parents from God. Our first parents and their descendants would ever be under the dominion of Satan, sin, and death. The Satan became the ruler of this world and creation, until the coming of the Christ. God still loved them and promised to save them by sending a redeemer who will crush the head of the devil. Behold! We believe He loved us so much that he Himself came. He was not willing to forsake his precious ones to untrustworthy men or even angels. He knew he was going make himself a frail creature weak and helpless, yet He knew He alone was trustworthy and could keep faith till death for his people. This we have see accomplished in Jesus Christ or Lord!

Mary was the new Eve who believed (impregnated) by God's Word (the spiritual seed) and gave birth to the Christ who destroyed the power of the Satan, sin, and death, by his Passion, Death, and Resurrection, and now sitting at the right hand side of the Father until all enemies are totally under his feet (the last enemy being death).

Before the fall, man's relationship with God was so completely full that he did not need any spiritual radar to tell what was wrong or right; he was filled with so much grace whatever he did was right. Eating from the tree of knowledge did not make our parents like God, but gave them the awareness to differentiate good and evil. Knowledge was there, but they fell from grace and inclined toward devilish things. We believe in God's infinite wisdom, there was also the spiritually desirable effect of knowing good from evil (formation of an conscience). The moment our first parents fell, they became aware they were naked (or guilty) and tried to hide (or cover up) and when encountered ended up blaming one another, etc.

Man deprived of God's perfect presence, would have no notion regarding right and wrong if there was no conscience (an animal-like state). The conscience prompts in his mind what is wrong and what is right; therefore, now he has the information of what is wrong and what is right. This information is only partially helpful to the man who is under the dominion of original sin. In fact, many a times, impulses to commits sin gets overwhelmingly stronger when man is aware in his conscience that what he wants to do is really wicked or wrong. It is with much labor, pain, and fear unto martyrdom that a man many a times avoids the evil he desires and tries to do the good that he would rather not do. It is a losing battle because of our sinful nature. In Christ, we put on a new nature of a spiritual man who is now able orient his will towards God, and being filled with the Holy Spirit, with help of Sacraments, and intercession of saints, the battle becomes much easier to fight, endure, and win. As long as we remain in Christ, we cannot lose and the victory is surely ours that we may come enter into the perfect presence of God in Christ, the new Adam.

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), January 11, 2005.

Man deprived of God's perfect presence, would have no notion regarding right and wrong if there was no conscience (an animal-like state). The conscience prompts in his mind what is wrong and what is right; therefore, now he has the information of what is wrong and what is right

Are you saying they had no conscience before the fall? How could one sin without a conscience telling them right from wrong?

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), January 11, 2005.

conscience is a part of us, part of what is God-given...

conscience is not "formed" by what we experience, it's already THERE. our experiences can adjust our conscience but it is something already innate within our hearts (minds or whatever). tell me, does a blind, deaf, and dumb person have a conscience? of course. even this type of person will have to answer to God one day when it comes to the conscience. so to say that adam and eve did not have a conscience is to deny them the same type of humanity that we have and that doesn't explain why all of humanity is cursed with sin because of them.

-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 11, 2005.

We are not born with a conscience. A baby has no conscience, and therefore no moral culpability. Conscience is formed as we mature, and how it is formed depends on the input we provide to it. Conscience is not a feeling. It is a rational process by which we make valid moral decisions. Like any rational process, it draws from knowledge in order to make decisions or judgments. Conscience will develop whether we make any effort to guide its development or not. If we do not make an honest effort to learn the truth, our conscience will have to make its moral determinations based on whatever is available to it within our minds; and those decisions will often be erroneous. The conscious can provide valid moral guidance only when we have carefully monitored its formation by feeding our minds a steady diet of truth, to counteract the deluge of untruth the world feeds us every day. If we fail to do so, we will have a worldly conscience which allows us to do without guilt whatever the world says we should be able to do without guilt. And that would be far from the will of God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 11, 2005.

a baby doesn't sin but it still has a sinful nature... in which case it is possible that a baby has a conscience albeit he doesn't use it yet

-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 11, 2005.

Adam and Eve did not need any conscience before the fall due to utter close proximity with God. They were supposed to obey God even without without any moral justification, just because God is God and they are supposed to obey him unconditionally.

It only after the fall and separation from God that conscience was given to act like a moral radar in the absence of that total presence of God.

We can compare children to be like Adam and Eve before the fall not knowing wrong and right or even nakedness, but they have ability to obey or disobey not based on morality, but based on what their parents say. But when children mature, they develop a conscience, which we can compare with the state of Adam and Eve after the fall.

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), January 11, 2005.

you can't develop what you don't have. and to say that adam and eve didn't have a conscience is to excuse them from their sin, and that's saying that God was unfair to boot them out of the garden. they did have a conscience, it's just that they failed the first test run.

-- rina (hellorina@aol.com), January 11, 2005.

you could also just say that they had a concious before they just didn't know what guilt was. Or they just hadn't experienced it until then. That could be why they freeked out from the nudity

-- kat (riesoracle@hotmail.com), January 11, 2005.

Paul is right in that to have a rightly formed conscience we need ongoing instruction of truths.

The child develops what is called an unformed conscience, which has to be formed by instruction and example.

An adult is supposed have a well-formed sensitive conscience, which is never automatic, but only out of sound religious instruction combined with spiritual practices of prayer, experience, sacrament of confession, etc.

Generally speaking most people (even pagans) have some level of sensitivity in their conscience against gross misdeeds like murder of innocent, sexual immorality/perversion, dishonesty, etc. An absolutely insensitive demonic man is rare, although there may be few a people on this planet who labor hard to destroy their conscience through various psychological or dark spiritual practices. According to theology, there is also a deformed conscience, which could mean (Paul may correct me if I am wrong) conscience that has been spoiled by wrong instruction, evil spiritual practices or sin.

Apart from these there are also a scrupulous conscience and a perplexed conscience, which could arise from wrong improper or incomplete instruction and may need counseling.

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), January 12, 2005.

“Adam should have but did not step up to the plate and take the leadership role as the husband is the head of the wife... I have several times pondered what would have transpired had Adam said no... Of course, of the two outcomes possible -for some reason I assume Eve disobeying Adam regardless to be most probable -from there, then what?”

Yeah, from the attitude to women which you've shown, I’m sure you’ve assumed and pondered that long and hard Danny boy. About how wonderful it would be, just us guys living in Paradise forever, with no pesky, uppity women to mess things up! :-)

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 12, 2005.

Rina, even though a child's conscience is not fully developed and cannot judge morality, he or she can surely learn obey or disobey to his/her father or mother without it. The child has an undeveloped conscience. We are talking about the Genesis, the beginning when our first parents who were perfectly good and had perfect relationship with God like friends. They did not have a conscience the way as we know of today. Therefore, their sin was more serious (a transgression) since they preferred an unknown serpent's words over God who created them, loved them, took care of them, and tangibly present with them. They did what was wrong, but they could only experience the wrongness (nakedness) somewhat bleakly after the ate the fruit (see Gen. 3:7), which intensified after they heard the sound of God walking as they ran about to cover themselves (see Gen.2:8), and it is God himself who encounters them and confirms the real reason (see Gen.2:11). The concept of right and wrong came into our first parents only after the eating of the fruit (Also see Gen.2:22). Thereafter, it was slow God-assisted development, which found its perfection in Christ, but clearly interpreted by the Catholic Church so that we may have a well-formed, sensitive, razor- sharp conscience.

God Bless!

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), January 12, 2005.

Steve,

Once again, my name is Daniel. -your effeminate passive agressive persistence in ad hominem says much of your inability to proudly lead rather than meekly deride...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 12, 2005.

Just trying to get you to lighten up a bit Danny boy. You seem to be convinced anyone who disagrees with any of your personal opinions is going straight to Hell.

“Once again, my name is Daniel”? Are you somehow offended by me calling you Danny boy? Have you said this before and I missed it? Ok if you wish I’ll always refer to you by your full name. Hey people here call me “Stevie boy” and “little Stevie” and I don’t mind, I’d like to think it’s an expression of familiarity and friendship. I have a fondness for “Danny boy” because it was my late grandma’s favourite song. And I have a friend called Danny who knows if he ever gets called “Daniel” he’s got a serious problem. It’s not "effeminate" or "passive" to let women have an equal say, Mr Daniel sir. Remember the "meek" shall inherit the earth. Put your "proud" feelings aside and let women share the "lead", and you will be surprised at how much YOU grow and mature, even to the point where you’re not so insecure that you have a cow if anyone playfully shortens your name, for fear that they’re mounting a disrespectful “ad hominem” attack on you! :-)

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 12, 2005.