The First Moral Human - - is first an innocent child


(George Brooks) #1

In pondering the various ways to interpret the story of Adam as a metaphor or symbolic story, I attempted
to isolate what might be considered the basic building blocks of the story - - from a religious viewpoint of
course:

  1. The Presence of Non-Human Animals.
  2. The arrival of the first “Morally Responsible” Animal - the first Man.
  3. The Initial Innocence of this man.
  4. Man errs; revealing his moral inadequacy.

These four elements seem to accommodate the spiritual foundation of the story of The Fall.

So how would this work in connection with a Theistically guided evolutionary scenario?

  1. Over the course of eons, primate communities appear and evolve. The first primates have
    little to connect them to humanity as we understand it to be. They are animals that walk on
    two legs.

  2. At some point, either through divine manipulation of cosmic rays, or other factors,
    a primate gene pool evolves to the point where the child of two unusually intelligent primates
    is born. In his DNA the mental and spiritual equipment of humanity are provided. But of course,
    he is an infant, and so none of this is initially revealed.

  3. Like all babies and toddlers, there is an innocence about him. He may even seem unusually
    compassionate and kind compared to his primate peers. He will be the ideal “first man” with
    whom God can commune and to whom God can reveal the mysteries of the Universe.

  4. The child grows into a young man… confronted by an endless chain of moral choices…
    how to treat his parents; how to treat his friends; how to treat his enemies. And by the time
    he arrives at adulthood, the perfection of his moral state of mind has been found wanting.
    He sometimes does wicked things. Sometimes he does things that others might even
    approve of - - but for which he secretly regrets.

But he IS the “first man” of God’s design. As imperfect as he may be, it is on his
shoulders that all the future generations of humanity will stand.

CONCLUSION: It is relatively easy to imagine the “first human” in any evolving primate community.
And it is easy to imagine that “first human” enjoying an ideal and innocent youth. But then the Fall
comes. He is an adult - - an adult who must fight and compete to survive in the world filled with
his peers - - who are not blessed with the spiritual architecture of “humanity”.

Over time, the descendants of the “First Man” become the only humans left on earth.
And they come to dispute the meaning of a book one of them wrote - - called Genesis.

George Brooks


(Christy Hemphill) #2

@gbrooks9
So my question is this: Why is having the capability to make moral decisions presumed to be the equivalent of moral responsibility before God? I am very skeptical of this premise that comes up again and again in these Adam and Eve discussions. Some people argue that moral behavior can be observed in other intelligent animals. Are they morally responsible to God then? Young children are capable of moral behavior. But, we don’t always hold them “morally responsible” for their actions until they are more mature.

Convince me that I should equate the first creature to arrive at moral awareness and capability of moral decision making with the first person God decided to hold morally responsible. Why is it so obvious to some people that God is somehow obligated to commune with the very first creature it was possible for him to have a relationship with?


(George Brooks) #3

@Christy

You write: "Convince me that I should equate the first creature to arrive at moral awareness and capability of moral decision making with the first person God decided to hold morally responsible. "

Well… you are in luck. You don’t have to accept that criteria as the test criteria for having moral responsibility before God! But in this age of freewheeling spiritual principles - - it is going to be up to YOU to decide what exactly is the “first” criteria that makes a primate into a HUMAN.

I’ve heard people insist that FREE WILL is the “sufficient criterion” for becoming a moral agent.

But others might counter that some other mammals ALSO have Free Will (I don’t know how you would prove
or disprove that point) … and so some OTHER factor is the “sufficient criterion”.

What do you, Christy, think is the sufficient criteria to be held morally responsible before God?

George Brooks


(Christy Hemphill) #4

God making known his standard through direct revelation. I think humans probably existed as moral beings for thousands and thousands of years before God decided to directly engage.


(George Brooks) #5

@Christy

I have no quibble with that criteria…


(system) #6

This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.