Like God, you will be able to tell the difference between good and evil. She also saw that it would make a person wise. So she took some of the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her. And he ate it. They realized they were naked. So they sewed together fig leaves and made clothes for themselves.
It was during the coolest time of the day. They hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. So I hid. Have you eaten fruit from the tree I commanded you not to eat from? She gave me some fruit from the tree. And I ate it. I am putting a curse on you. You will crawl on your belly. Your children and her children will be enemies.
Her son will crush your head. And you will bite his heel. You will be in great pain when you have children. You will long for your husband. And he will rule over you. You ate fruit from the tree I warned you about. Nakedness in and of itself is not sinful in G-d's eye. But when man looks to other people to fulfill himself, the sight of nakedness causes him to sin. She asked if nudity is a sinful thing, and if so, why did god originally let them walk around naked. I'm assuming we can all agree that god is unchanging and that he creates morality and rules based on his will, not on people's wants.
So if nudity was not a sin before the downfall, how could it be a sin after the downfall if god is unchanging and creates the rules based on his will, not peoples? Why do indigenous tribes people not feel this shame? Or do they feel it and simply ignore it? I've wondered this too. Can anyone explain this to us? Really Good! The way you have explained it is really good. But the knowledge of knowing good and evil was only after eating the fruits. They were innocent but not ignorant.
As we grow learning things they were too to learn things, the only difference between them and us is they were to learn only good things but we and they learn and learned good and evil things after their disobedience. Or G-d's plan for humans to gain the knowledge of good and evil may be after they gained enough self-control, so that even after acquiring the knowledge of knowing good and evil humans can win the temptation of doing evil as per the standard of G-d.
The part we are all missing is that eventually we would become aware, but in a much slower pace, so we would obtain a felling of truth that is better understood To desire righteousness for life's sake with out trying to over step our yung Way's not old enough in the Way's of the universe ,. How to describe this nakedness idea to children Chaya Sarah Silberberg, of Chabad org.
After the Fall, when Adam and Eve decided they do not need G-d, they became aware of the the chill in the morning air and of the afternoon wind. And when they went to hide in the bushes, they were scratched by thorns. So, they realized then, they were naked.
Why did Adam and Eve become aware of their nakedness only after they sinned?
Over complicated? The saying is "ignorance is bliss". They ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it's safe enough to assume that before they did this they didn't have knowledge of good vs evil. I can see that many biblical scholars don't agree with this but it seems obvious enough to me. Adam and Eve were ignorant and quite happy in their paradise because they knew nothing of good and evil, right and wrong. They never anguished if something didn't go their way. They never suffered because they believed "bad things" were happening to them.
If you have no knowledge of good vs bad, or even good vs bad, you simply don't have the faculty to think that being naked is shameful. You don't have the ability to think that anything is bad. Everything just is the way it is. They would have accepted the world, all that it involved, including their nakedness, and this would have been a happy, contented life.
God didn't need to punish them, the knowledge was it's own punishment. They exiled themselves. Great Great Reply. I agree with you, Adam. Still, I must add that Adam and Eve were in friendship with G-d. Under the Creator's protection, man did not need knowledge. It was only his desire to get knowledge and so, be on a par with G-d, did sin and suffering enter the world.
I feel God knew all along adam and eve would eventually fall and partake in the forbidden fruit. The big question is why didn't God stop the serpent?? God already knew of the serpent and his ways, surly this did not catch God off guard or surprised. Why have such potential dangers in the vicinity of such earth changing proportions. Seems harsh just one infraction caused any and everything to suffer and die all our norm days.
Your question is a good one, and we can ask more broadly: Why did G-d not create a world in which it would be simpler to fulfill His will? The answer relates to the fundamental principle of free choice. G-d desires that we, His creations, freely choose to partner with Him in perfecting His world. In order for free will to exist, G-d created a world in which the truth is not glaringly obvious, a world of temptation. When we struggle and yet we ultimately choose to do what is right, when human beings with human failings fall and get up again, and serve G-d through the ups and downs, then our good choices truly make a difference.
See also here and here. I cannot understand why Adam and Eve were not forgiven for their first 'sins'. After all, anyone can make a mistake. Adam and Eve I had the same question and read your response but am struggling with the meaning. Sexual desire is from nature. I am not following where "be fruitful and multiply ends" and sinful sexual passion begins. Hmm Could naked simply mean naked of everything? Look at how far we've come as a civilization, we started with absolutely nothing. We realized we were 'naked' and wanted more? Just a thought. I see what you are getting at, TJ.
But we did start out in a friendship with our Creator. That is everything. Without a friendship with G-d, all else is dross. Civilization, technology, market place, everything consumes us. The only good that comes of Knowledge is we become aware of what we lost. Thankfully, the Bible shows us how to restore ourselves. I have the Rosenbaum chumash with onkelos and Rashi and in parenthesis it has "midrash rabbah". Is that only for the conclusion about turning a deaf ear to the commandment? I have a digitized midrash rabbah with a search function, and when I search on ha-suma, I don't get a midrash that talks about the first part of Rashi's comment.
Thanks Reply. Perhaps they became aware that the glory that had covered them had been stripped from them and they were ashamed. They were not aware of their nakedness before they sinned, perhaps their perception did not include that concept. Certainly Adam was aware of Eve at her creation as his own flesh and bone but not necessarily the exposed vision they had after their sin and thus they became aware and were ashamed. Here's a great tip! Enter your email address to get our weekly email with fresh, exciting and thoughtful content that will enrich your inbox and your life.
No Thanks. Subscribe Subscribe. The doctrine absolves God of responsibility for the evils that make our world imperfect by teaching that Adam and Eve introduced evil to a perfect world when they disobeyed him. An alternative understanding of the story of the fall emphasises that Adam and Eve did wrong because they 'gave in' to the temptation of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. This second understanding fits well with human psychology.
Looking at it this way, original sin becomes the tendency for human beings to 'give in' when tempted by the prevailing evils of the society around them, rather than standing up for good, and it helps explain why each individual finds temptation so hard to resist. As the Bible puts it:. A third understanding teaches not so much that Adam's sin brought sin into the world, but that it removed from humanity the gift that enabled people to be perfectly obedient to God. Adam was created in the image of God with the potential to be perfectly fulfilled through his existence and his relationship with God.
What was Adams sin - yriruhanuj.tk
But Man failed to fulfil his potential and opted to go it alone and estrange himself from God. Jesus as the "Second Adam" re-established the relationship with God and showed how man can become perfectly human - which puts him in right relationship with both the creator and his creation. Original sin is a difficult doctrine, and a rather gloomy one, but it had some key theological benefits that have kept it as a mainstream Christian teaching:.
What effect has the concept of original sin had on Western culture, and how did it influence gender and morality in Christian Europe? One rather difficult explanation says that the whole human race was somehow contained in Adam and so when Adam fell, they fell too. The other explanation, expanded below, is that all human beings are descendants of Adam and Eve.
Modern Catholic teaching is less clear about the mechanism of transmission and refers to it as a mystery. St Augustine, who largely devised the theory of original sin, thought that original sin was transmitted from generation to generation through sexual intercourse. Augustine did not say exactly how this happened. He said that it was transmitted by "concupiscence", when people had sex and conceived a child. Concupiscence is a technical theological word that Augustine used to refer to sexual desire as something bad in the soul that was inseparable from normal human sexual impulses.
Sexual desire was bad, he taught, because it could totally overwhelm those caught up in it, depriving them of self-control and rational thought. This disapproving view of passion was quite common among Christians of Augustine's time. Augustine thought that concupiscence was present in all sexual intercourse. He thought that it was just as bad and uncontrolled in a marriage as it was in non-marital sex, but that an excuse could be made for it within marriage because its purpose was to produce legitimate children.
This bad element in sex provides the means by which original sin is transmitted from father to child. It transmits both humanity's guilt for Adam's crime and the sickness or defect that gives human beings a sinful nature. Now from this concupiscence whatever comes into being by natural birth is bound by original sin The Council or Trent , or Trentine councils were a series of Roman Catholic theological meetings in response to the Reformation.
The Council of Trent gave the official stamp to the idea that original sin was transferred from generation to generation by propagation - which means during the sexual act that led to conception. This formalised the notion of Original Sin as part of Roman Catholic doctrine. The Council explicitly ruled out the idea that original sin was transferred by "imitation"; in order to block the idea that human beings just copied the bad example set by their parents and others.
These closely related ideas teach that original sin is passed on by copying the sinful tendencies of other people. The Council of Trent decreed that this idea was false. Many churches accept that infants can be cleansed of original sin by being baptised soon after birth. The other elements required are carried out by adults on the baby's behalf during the ceremony. In St Paul's letter to the Galatians, he wrote: "Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery".
This conception of Redemption as freedom from bondage is crucial for Judeo-Christian thought. On the face of it, original sin doesn't answer the question as to how evil got into the world; instead it leaves other questions to be answered. As one writer puts it:. Why is there original sin?
Because Adam sinned? Then why did Adam sin? If it was because of the serpent, why did the serpent sin?
- Annual Reports on NMR Spectroscopy: 78.
- The Lions Brood.
- La pluralidad narrativa: Escritores españoles contemporáneos (1984-2004) (ESTUDIOS CRÍTICOS DE LITERATURA) (Spanish Edition)?
- Helpful Resources.
If the serpent is supposed to have been a fallen angel, why did the angel sin? And so on. And there is a second, but related, question. If evil did not exist before Adam sinned, how could Adam know that what he was about to do was evil - how was he to know that it was wrong to disobey God?
For modern people the idea of being punished for a crime committed by someone else is unethical and unacceptable. The doctrine of original sin blames Eve for tempting Adam into sin and has been responsible for centuries of Christian bias against women.
On this page
Augustine's theory of original sin was so intrinsically tied up with his disapproval of human sexual love that for centuries it contaminated all sexual passion with the idea of sin. Some Christian thinkers are unhappy with the idea that human beings start out so bad that they can't become good without God's help. Science shows that the Biblical creation story is not literally true, and demonstrates that Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden are myths and not historical figures. This destroys the idea of original sin as being caused by the misbehaviour of the first man and woman, and the idea of inheriting guilt or punishment for that misbehaviour.
Most modern theologians don't think this a good reason to abandon the doctrine of the fall. They believe that although the story is not historically true, it does contain important truths about the state of humanity. The doctrine of original sin is based on the idea that God created a perfect world, and that humanity damaged it and themselves by disobeying him. Evolution, on the other hand, suggests that life in the world is steadily changing and becoming more diverse. Scientists do not tend to think of this as a moral good or evil, but in a sense evolution sees life on earth as moving closer to 'perfection' - becoming better adapted to its environment.
The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense. A more modern idea is to give an ethical spin to the evolutionary idea and suggest that humanity should not be concerned about a past fall from grace, but concentrate on becoming more ethical beings and thus bringing about a better world. Bishop Richard Holloway has described the idea that unbaptised babies go to hell as "one of the most unsympathetic of the Christian doctrines," and not greatly improved by the teaching that there is a special "limbo" for unbaptised babies on the outskirts of the inferno.
Original sin has been criticised for inspiring excessive feelings of guilt. The 18th-century politician and philosopher Edmund Burke once said: "Guilt was never a rational thing; it distorts all the faculties of the human mind, it perverts them, it leaves a man no longer in the free use of his reason, it puts him into confusion. Is the feeling of guilt a vital part of our moral lives or can it do more harm than good?