Judaism and Eden and Eve

[ppp]

An arguement could be made that bringing a child into the world is dangerous in and of itself. When my first child was born 11 years ago the hospital didn't feed her for 8 hours by mistake, due to a shift change in the nursing.

Did you devise the dangers and then intentionally put your child in the path of those dangers where their encounter was inevitable? Did you design your child to react in exactly the manner that they did? Did you intentionally design the outcomes and then blame your child for the outcomes that you yourself arranged? Are you omnipotent?

If you did not answer yes to all of those questions then the situations are not just disanalogous; but antithetical.

Last point, Jewish sources are very clear that Adam and Hawwah were not ignorant nor were they underdeveloped. They had free will and this dictates that you have the ability to choose a path, even if it doesn't benefit you. (i.e. the desire to do the negative has to be just as strong as the negative or else you are just following a programming that doesn't allow you to deviate. Most humans want to choose rather than their choices forced upon them.)

You and @IndigoChild5559 seem to be in disagreement on that point. [shrug] Not my look out.

In any case, I do not know why you think that free will is relevant. That is a weirdly Christian-like tangent The question is not whether or not they had free will. The question is, were they capable of making moral assessments prior to eating of the Fruit of Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Did you devise the dangers and then intentionally put your child in the path of those dangers where their encounter was inevitable?

Having researched the realities that come along with giving birth to a child, in the various places that such an event can happen, yes I did put my child in situation where they did not choose to be born nor did they chose to be born in the circumstances that I live in. I had the power to both a) not give them life and also b) to not live in particular locations with particular circumstnces given that understood the challenges with bringing a child into the world. What I also knew is that the situations were completely survivable for my child, with the right tools, so I chose to proceed under that reality.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Did you design your child to react in exactly the manner that they did?

By teaching my children in a particular way how to survive the realities they may find themselves in, it could be said that gave my child certain options to face the reality I placed them by giving them the ability to be alive under the circumstances they were born into.

BTW, we Jews don't claim that the Creator desiged humanities reactions. There is a claim against this in Jewish text. I.e. free will dictates that you can choose to react to the circumstances in the way you choose. All choices, positive or negative have consequences. The claim is that the end result is that all consequences lead to a good result, IF, and I state IF, humans want them to.

 

[ppp]

Having researched the realities that come along with giving birth to a child, in the various places that such an event can happen, yes I did put my child in situation where they did not choose to be born nor did they chose to be born in the circumstances that I live in. I had the power to both a) not give them life and also b) to not live in particular locations with particular circumstnces given that understood the challenges with bringing a child into the world. What I also knew is that the situations were completely survivable for my child, with the right tools, so I chose to proceed under that reality.

I understand that there is an urge to squirm and attempt to re-spin. but I am completely unsympathetic. Deal with what was asked. Not what you feel comfortable answering.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Did you intentionally design the outcomes and then blame your child for the outcomes that you yourself arranged? Are you omnipotent?

In Jewish texts, Hashem doesn't blame humanity for the outcomes - Hashem makes us aware of what they potentially are. Torah based claims are that.

1. The Hebrew text of the Torah is written in the language of men, thus a Jew has to know Hebrew to get the full clarity of what the text states.
2. Hashem, the Creator, points to the potential outcomes of decisions.
3. Hashem gives options for one to acheive the good of the reality that their were created.
4. Hashem, gives the freedom, for humans, to choose to do the opposite of what is beneficial. There is also an option to what causes benefit.
5. Hashem gives humans the ability to correct mistakes, if humans want to take it.
6. There is the Olam Hazeh, this world, and the Olam Haba - there are some situations that cause benefits or the opposite in this world only, in the other world to come, or in both.

Since most humans want the freedom to choose what they can and can't do with what they have, it would stand to reason that it is beneficial to have free will than for us to be like robots with strict programming that we can't deviate from.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I understand that there is an urge to squirm and attempt to re-spin. but I am completely unsympathetic. Deal with what was asked. Not what you feel comfortable answering.

This is not squirming on my part. It is how I honestly see what I do/did/will do for my children. You have undestand I don't have a western concept about these things. There are differences in how non-westerns see the reality around them.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Are you omnipotent?

I don't need to be to influence how my children are affected by the reality I chose to bring them into.

Also, the concept of omnipotent doesn't really fit into the narrative of the Torah based text. Simply because we are more prone to say that Hashem is beyond humanity in a way that can't really be qualified by our concepts. Thus, Hashem doesn't operate the way that humans do or that we expect with our limited vision of how the reality we are born into works. There is a group of Jewish texts that claim that this was the reason that the Torah as given. I.e. to give the ability for developing the perspective to survive and excel in the reality as it exists.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

You and @IndigoChild5559 seem to be in disagreement on that point. [shrug] Not my look out.

Of course we disagree about the basic historicity of the story. If you notice how I worded what I stated and where it came from that would mark what the difference in perspective is.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

In any case, I do not know why you think that free will is relevant. That is a weirdly Christian-like tangent The question is not whether or not they had free will. The question is, were they capable of making moral assessments prior to eating of the Fruit of Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

Becuase in the Hebrew text, I can't speak for the translations into English, the entire story is about free will. There is no concept of original sin in Torah based Jewish dicussion about Adam and Hawwah. In the Hebrew text is not about morality, in the way you may understand the concept of morality. That is how all ancient Jewish commentaries address it - i.e. free will. Again, all based on what the text says in Hebrew.

Yet, if you want to concider the commands from the Creator they were given as "morality" then the answer is yes they had the ability to make moral decisions before they ate the fruit. That is actually what I stated earlier. In Jewish circles we are more specific that this was free will, but if morality is the word you prefer than we can use that word.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I understand that there is an urge to squirm and attempt to re-spin. but I am completely unsympathetic. Deal with what was asked. Not what you feel comfortable answering.

Be aware that your OP asked

Judaism and Eden and Eve​

This means that you are going to get thousands of years of how Jews approach this. It may not be comfortable and it may not be what you are used to, but what is being presented is the various ways Jews have "historically" approached the Hebrew text of the topic you asked about.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Which one or ones apply in the Eden case? Which do not?

Since none of those four words is used in Genesis 3, you are left with deciding this for yourself.

I would agree about the ethics. But sin (even in the ways you defined it above) seem laden with god belief.

There is no commandment to believe in God. Disbelief is not a sin either from the point of view of violating the commandments, nor is it a sin in terms of being an unethical violation of any principles.

Which of the definitions you provided would be a thing if there was no, and never had been, any god of any sort?

I'm not really interested in determining which word would apply. If that's something that matters to you, you have the definitions and can figure it out for yourself.

As far as I can tell, moral sentience has evolved. It derives from our instincts of empathy and sense of fairness. I personally think of "sin" as simply being any moral shortcoming. If no God existed, our sense of morality would still exist.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I didnt follow here thread back. I assumed, perhaps erroneously, that she was referring to Noachide law.

Yes. I replied regarding the seven Noahide laws. They are CATEGORIES of laws, and their application is really quite extensive.

@Rival used to be Noahide. Perhaps you can address her for more information about this, as I'm sure she has studied it in depth.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Just to make it clear, what I am presenting in this thread is a summary of Jewish perspectives on the OP. These views are derived from the following Torah based commentators:

• Rav Saadya Gaon (882/892 – 942 CE)
• Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (1040 – 1105 CE)
• Rabbi Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra (1089 –1167 CE)
• Rabbi Mosheh ben-Maimon (1138–1204 CE)
• Rabbi Mosheh ben-Nachman (1194 – 1270 CE)
• Rabbi Bahya ben-Asher (1255–1340 CE)
• Rabbi Mosheh Hayyim Luzzatto (1707 – 1746 CE)
• Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz (1937 – 2020 CE)

Be aware that I am not trying to convince anyone to accept any perspective. I am simply presenting what they are.

I also recognize that what Jewish commentaries, using the Hebrew text and Jewish transmission, state are contrast to what most westerners learn from Christians perspectives.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You and @IndigoChild5559 seem to be in disagreement on that point. [shrug] Not my look out.

Two Jews, three opinions.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

The consideration is that for the non-Jewish nations each category of the 7 mitzvoth involves development and practical application within their societies.

For example, when one says "don't steal" that allow requires what does it mean to steal. When one delves into setting systems fo justice / judicial systems that involves a lot of work especially when dealing with jurisdiction, what is considered proper evidence in a court of a law, what are the proper venues for justice, etc. That is why there are some Jewish sources that state that the 7 mitzvoth are the basis for non-Jewish society and the basis for building a system of morality.

Below are a few examples of extrapulating additional laws from the basis oft he 7 mitzvoth.

View attachment 91535

View attachment 91536

It is also recognized that most humans would conclude that setting up systems of justice, not murdering, not stealing / kidnapping, etc. are basic principles that humans build their societies on because it is built into the programming so to speak. The main issue, for Jews, is that is not our job to build these system for the non-Jewish nations nor is it our place to force the non-Jewish nations into doing them.

But don’t you have to be Jewish for those seven laws to apply to non-Jewish people?

Because if you believe only those seven laws apply then you are following the Jewish faith so they wouldn’t apply to you at that point.

Seems like an oversight on Gods part.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

That is both irresponsibly false and does not address my point.

Josephus and Tacitus

 

[Ehav4Ever]

But don’t you have to be Jewish for those seven laws to apply to non-Jewish people?

Because if you believe only those seven laws apply then you are following the Jewish faith so they wouldn’t apply to you at that point.

Seems like an oversight on Gods part.

No, a person doesn't have to be Jewish for the 7 mitzvoth to apply. Jews are bound by the 613 mitzvoth, as a nation. Non-Jews are by default of being human are considered to be bound by the 7 mitzvoth. It is simply not the responsibilty of Jews to coerce the non-Jewish world to hold by them. There is no problem with a Jew teaching them to any non-Jews wants that but we are not required to missionize the idea.

There are some who say, in modern times, non-Jews would only know about them due to the knowledge about them that exists in the Jewish nation, but there are many non-Jews who hold by most of them naturally since - they are mostly already natural to humanity.

Given that there are people around the world who have historically created socieites based on most of them, and given that there are an increasing number of non-Jews who are aware of them exactly I would not say that there is any oversight.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But don’t you have to be Jewish for those seven laws to apply to non-Jewish people?

The seven Noahide laws are an attempt to identify those moral precepts that bind all of humanity. While it is true that usually those who claim to be "Noahide" tend to accept the teachings of Judaism, that's not really necessary. For example, a Muslim keeps the seven.

 

[shunyadragon]

Agreed, but outside of the money-changers tables, Jesus was a quiet preacher that did not cause a stir among the people, but rather spoke of calming patience. However, JtB was a rabble-rouser. He was loud, demanding REPENT, REPENT. I take it Jesus did not respond to the news of JtB's imprisonment for that very reason.

Just a thought . . .

This selective peaceful view of Jesus is very selective and biased. At least, there are three parables that very violent and threatening. Aso, the Book of Revelation is a very violent absolute good versus evil. This does not even deal with the violence of God in the OT. Is the same God involved here? The problem is this is inconsistently interpreted in history at minimum an aggressive often violent actions, and vengeful laws against the LGBTQ community and those that believe differently. IT is related to to belief in a historical accurate Pentateuch and the consequences of this belief.

In the USA we are facing this problem with the resurgence of the Extreme right Conservative Republicans and the associated radical groups.

The same problems haunt Islam and their view of those that believe differently or are different based on ancient beliefs, values and morals.

It is imperative that these are beliefs and values of ancient worldviews, and we need to spiritually evolve beyond these religions.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

No, a person doesn't have to be Jewish for the 7 mitzvoth to apply. Jews are bound by the 613 mitzvoth, as a nation. Non-Jews are by default of being human are considered to be bound by the 7 mitzvoth. It is simply not the responsibilty of Jews to coerce the non-Jewish world to hold by them. There is no problem with a Jew teaching them to any non-Jews wants that but we are not required to missionize the idea.

There are some who say, in modern times, non-Jews would only know about them due to the knowledge about them that exists in the Jewish nation, but there are many non-Jews who hold by most of them naturally since - they are mostly already natural to humanity.

Given that there are people around the world who have historically created socieites based on most of them, and given that there are an increasing number of non-Jews who are aware of them exactly I would not say that there is any oversight.

Well if humans do them naturally then it makes me wonder what people need God for?

What you are saying is that just by doing what we do by instinct pleases God.