Malus Scientia
Even non-Christians know the rather tragic tale, The Fall Of Man. The story goes that Eve was enticed by Satan in serpent form to eat the forbidden fruit - most often depicted as an apple (malus domestica) - from the The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil. Eve did chomp down on and Adam followed suit. The rest is, as we all know, history.
Now this story of Adam & Eve and their subsequent banishment from The Garden Of Eden is, seems to be, metaphorical but there are so-called Bible Literalists and it is in that I find lurking an intriguing possibility:
We've all reenacted the fatal mistake Adam and Eve made that fateful day in Eden - we've all eaten apples. With each bite, we've taken into our mouths a chunk of apple, munched on it, felt the texture of its flesh, tasted its sweetness, felt its juice bathe the inside of our mouths. In other words, if we view ourselves as a scientific instrument, what we have in our mouths is a specimen/sample of apple - everything that is an apple (chemistry, biology, physics, etc.) is being analyzed by our mouths, then the digestive system. Why is it then that we don't gain knowledge of apples in this process? We should be able to know the chemicals, their structure (I mentioned sweetness), the biological properties of the cells, their architecture, so and so forth; after all we do have a sample in our GI tract?
What I'm getting at is a unique way of gaining knowledge - not by reading/listening to books/lectures but, dare I say it, by eating and touching and smelling, and so on.
To illustrate: Just by touching a crystal, I could figure out it lattice structure, the molecules present, the forces at play, etc.. By smelling a gas, I could divine the chemical composition of that gas, its concentration, etc. You get the idea.
Comments...
Now this story of Adam & Eve and their subsequent banishment from The Garden Of Eden is, seems to be, metaphorical but there are so-called Bible Literalists and it is in that I find lurking an intriguing possibility:
We've all reenacted the fatal mistake Adam and Eve made that fateful day in Eden - we've all eaten apples. With each bite, we've taken into our mouths a chunk of apple, munched on it, felt the texture of its flesh, tasted its sweetness, felt its juice bathe the inside of our mouths. In other words, if we view ourselves as a scientific instrument, what we have in our mouths is a specimen/sample of apple - everything that is an apple (chemistry, biology, physics, etc.) is being analyzed by our mouths, then the digestive system. Why is it then that we don't gain knowledge of apples in this process? We should be able to know the chemicals, their structure (I mentioned sweetness), the biological properties of the cells, their architecture, so and so forth; after all we do have a sample in our GI tract?
What I'm getting at is a unique way of gaining knowledge - not by reading/listening to books/lectures but, dare I say it, by eating and touching and smelling, and so on.
To illustrate: Just by touching a crystal, I could figure out it lattice structure, the molecules present, the forces at play, etc.. By smelling a gas, I could divine the chemical composition of that gas, its concentration, etc. You get the idea.
Comments...
Comments (82)
You seem to be suggesting that scientific approach gives insights into areas which religious forbids.
I think central point in the story of "The Fall Of Man" isn't to give any secular insights, but rather spiritual ones. Insights which can't be empirically measured or proved.
One aspect of your thread question on knowledge gained by smelling and touching etc is the aspect of sensory pleasure. The reason why I say this is because in the story of the fall of mankind in the Biblical account of Genesis, this is probably central. In a way, it is about the experiences of sexuality, but probably in connection with the whole range of pleasures of the senses and how they provide 'temptations', probably in contrast to rationality.
Perhaps Kant's philosophy is relevant somehow because he speaks of a priori logic, and his whole philosophy was based on puritanical values. Recently, I was reading Nietzsche's view in 'The Dawn of Day' , that Kant developed his ideas about rationality to back up his own views about morality.
But, in connection with knowledge, the sensory world comes with pleasure. William Blake critiqued this in his understanding of the philosophy of John Milton, who developed the myth of the fall of the angels.
One possible interpretation, yes.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Why not.
:ok:
Quoting 180 Proof
:ok:
Update (to all posters above and below)
It seems my post has multiple points of interest and please feel free to explore them all.
My main objective though was to explore the different methods by which we could gain knowledge. Perhaps a short clip will get my point across than words. Vide infra:
The woman in the scene is a terminator (T-X) and she sees a blood-soaked cloth on the floor. Scientifically, that's a sample/specimen. She then "tastes" it but what's actually happening is she's doing a chemical analysis of the specimen - actually a DNA analysis - and is able to identify the person ( John Connor) the blood came from. Couldn't we do the same? :chin:
Because that apple in the garden of Eden was just an ordinary apple, the act of physically eating those apples isn't what's wrong, instead it's disobedience toward God's commandment not to eat them what is wrong.
This is confirmed later, Adam and Even hide them self in garden later when God come, not because they were poisoned by those apples or anything similar, but rather because of a shame and fear of what would Gad say or do now?
That is the whole meaning of this story, painful and shameful apostasy from God because of disobedience, ex. who are you to tell me what to do? I'm know better than you, I don't need God.
You mean to say it's just the act of defiance that God was angered by? Why choose that particular tree of knowledge of good and evil then? Why not something else? Your theory also seems to lead to rather dangerous conclusions - if God so commanded that we murder, rape, plunder, atrocities of all kinds, it would be wrong to disobey Him?
In other words, why is Genesis written using imagery? why not just telling straight away what happened, why not just telling straight that Adam and Eve defied God and then God punished them.
Those texts are thousands of years old, so what you're asking is why literature in that time was different from literature as we know today?
Or why did God inspire holly writers to write using imagery.
Quoting TheMadFool
IF God so commanded, but none of the God's commandment command such a thing as far as I know.
Why indeed?
Quoting SpaceDweller
That's debatable.
Cheers!
I have a very different understanding of the story. The apple is not an apple at all. The fruit of the knowledge of good and evil is just that - knowledge of "good" and "evil". Let's explore the key phrases relating to the matter and what "knowing" in this context may mean.
Not literal death is meant but knowledge of death - the awareness about our own mortality - something that holds a formative influence over ever human and our culture. The fear of death is a curse that operates simply through knowing it.
Important to note that the two had no concept of shame before attaining the knowledge.
The snake speaks truth. They became like God, capable of judging creation. As God's creation was already deemed and labeled good by God himself though ("God saw all that he had made, and it was very good"), it becomes clear that the human understanding of "good" and "evil" is not the same understanding as God has.
This is displayed right here. They become conscious of their bodies that have been created by god - in the image of god(!) - and deem it as "bad", worthy of shame.
They do not hide out of fear for punishment - but simply because they are ashamed. Because they became self-conscious, they do not want to be seen the way they see themselves.
Now, at many places, the Bible is proto-scientific, attempting to explain the world in the framework it establishes. This is what happens when God deals out his "punishments". The punishments are simple facts of life. What is offered is an explanation why these things are the way they are.
Last but not least, there is banishment.
Banishment from the paradise of Eden is ultimately caused through the act of attaining knowledge. What does this mean? Life, Creation is very good, as God would say - but through self-awareness, through their consciousness, the humans notice and realize shame, fear of death and the hardship that is necessary to sustain life. Ignorance is bliss.
I'm not historian or literate to give answer to literacy or history of texts, but I know valid answer is given later by Jesus when disciples asked him, why does he speak in parables instead of telling what he means straight away so that everybody would understand his message. (Mt 13, 10-17)
Quoting TheMadFool
Indeed it is, and it wouldn't help much with you original post.
Spoke in parables, eh? Why indeed? Was it a necessity or was it a preference? A lot depends on the answer.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Why not?
After this new apple was bitten (reminding of the famous quantum apple, which, once bitten, makes us guilty as hell, so some physicist once claimed), the knowledge of science imposes a birthing upon us. In trying to retain the perfect scientific knowledge, the same harm is done as after the biting of the moral apple, after having perceived a knowledge of what the good and bad mean (,so not the explicit incarnation, but the feeling of bad and good itself, which was supposed not to be present in mankind). All in an effort to know the science, as was not intended by God, but by Lucifer. The Bible, in this case, is replaced by books containing the scientific system.
The fall of man in the garden of eden is man's first sin, as descendants we all inherited that knowledge of good and evil, which resulted in apostasy from God, Jesus comes as ransom of that fall, that is reconciliation with God.
"The secrets of the kingdom of heaven" is that salvation from sin, from the fall of man. (apostasy from God)
"For those who have will receive more", That is on top of inheritance of the old testament law and prophecies they are given the fulfillment of it (new testament)
Old testament is nothing else but preparation to revert the damage done in garden of Eden.
"For those who donât have, even the little they have will be taken away from them."
That is those who don't accept Jesus as ransom stay with the law (old testament), however since the law does not bring salvation, they now lost everything.
This is the meaning of
Jesus is the truth, that is, ransom for sins which started with the fall of man.
And to "set you free" is freedom from sin that the fall of man introduced.
To be free from sin means to return back to God. (not that we can't sin anymore)
basically it all starts with the fall of man, and ends with salvation from that fall, that is what the message of the whole Bible is.
Hence Jesus savior (Christ).
Quoting TheMadFool
Because we are talking about 1K+ pages that are subject to debate, framework of which I hopefully laid out above.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Then the matter is controversial enough to make your pronouncements very weak.
We all have reenacted a fatal mistake of eating an apple? Have lost the innocence of not knowing how it tastes? If felt just as innocent after I had smoked my first cigarette, an act unconcieved of in Paradise. I think you lost innocence after you were served the scientific apple. Giving rise to the pretty disturbed picture of an apple, and viewing ourselves as a scientific instrument. What a devastating influence that apple had. Oooh blissful ignorance! Free us from our sins....
If the knowledge of good and evil is the original sin, then belief in sin is itself the original sin.
Somehow this would be connected to the advent of language, which could be the fruit. But, like, animals don't experience the mental anguish we do at being able to describe our emotions. A fleeing gazelle may feel fear, but makes no higher judgment of it's being unpleasant.
Similarly, the lion is innocent of being a cold blooded killer.
So really I think it's just the somewhat artful tale of the ascent of man rather than the fall of man.
I do believe we should disavow the knowledge of sin, perhaps, as that which separates us from God. But we can't return to being wild unevolved animals either who simply experience and make no judgment and aren't aware of death.
loss of innocence sounds sensible, however it can't be subject to anger God, for example, before Adam and Eve committed their sin God told them to procreate which involves los of innocence (and discovery of pleasure)
Nowhere does God blame people for loss of innocence but rather for committing sin and disobedience.
For example building the tower of babylon angered God, however there is no shame involved, no secret knowledge etc. the only thing that both stories have in common is commandment violation.
God commanded not to worship other God's, the motive of babylonians however was to raise a temple for other gods.
Quoting TheMadFool
What you call controversial I call comprehensive or broader context, my pronouncements are abstraction of that broader context.
The central topic here is the garden of Eden, don't you think knowing broader context is essential to unlock the garden of Eden? Isn't that reasonable?
Quoting TheMadFool
Fine but, how does that fit into the rest of the scriptures?
It's obvious God was angry because his commandment wasn't obeyed (Gen 3,17-19):
God didn't [s]curse[/s] (throw them out) for obtaining the knowledge but rather because of commandment violation.
Violation of commandments is what angers God trough out the rest of scriptures, rather than people learning and exploring.
Take it other way around, God knew knowledge of good and evil would hurt people, so he didn't want them to be aware of it, but snake being enemy of people and God wanted to destroy God's plan, Adam and Eve made their choice to listen to snake rather than God.
Fine by me. To each his own I suppose but I wouldn't call disagreement comprehensive or broad with respect to knowing what happened in the Garden of Eden.
Quoting SpaceDweller
You might want to read Kant and this seems relevant :point:
Quoting TheMadFool
I was merely responding to the image thrown up in the post.Lucifer made Eve aware of good and evil. Especially
the evil was loved by that devilish SOAB. But isn't the knowledge of the good a gift of God? What if Eve hadn't bitten the apple? Wouldn't the Bible be superfluous an mankind be reduced to a collection of amoral beings? I meant that if the apple is bitten, and in the place of knowledge of good and bad we get the kinda knowledge as is contained in science, wouldn't that distance us from a more divine kind of knowledge? If we have lost that child-like innocence, that child-like purity of knowledge, to be replaced by a Luciferian kinda knowledge, as I see western scientific knowledge, we are all guilty by birth, after Eve would have eaten it. Different knowledge systems could then free us from our sin.
Why not using same perspective toward this problem but from different angle, imagine 2 extremes:
1. Doing everything as God commands
2. Doing everything the opposite, defy God in every aspect
Which one of these 2 extremes would be natural?
Complete anarchy, madness, pain and destruction vs opposite of that.
Quoting TheMadFool
Same as it's so much harder to build the house vs taking buldozer and raze everything to the ground.
If I'm not aware of good and evil, then do I have to believe building is harder than razing? yes I do because if I do the opposite and raze what will happen?
I will know what I did was wrong, but it doesn't stop here, the consequence of that is my house is now razed and it will take a lot of work to build it again, and my knowledge of good and evil won't help me at all except to realize what I did. the snake tricked me.
Morality doesn't distort physical laws, but in this allegory it does, something is physically destroyed because of evil.
You're begging the question. You're assuming God's commands will always be good. I'm not making that assumption and hence reserve the right to defy Him.
If you are not aware of good and evil, you know what will happen too, when razing down or building up. There are different kinds of building though, and the scientific way is evil. It came into being after Eve bit the Luciferian apple. Lucifer gave her the knowledge not of good and bad, which would be ridiculous, as good is regarded then as a gift of that sneaky fallen angel too. To be counteracted upon by the moral system of the Bible. That moral system won't help you in constructing a house, while the Lucifer-given knowledge of the scientific construction of a house (evolved of mental images of houses of a future in a Luciferian-driven scientifically constructed society, possessing weird structures like connectivity to a 5G global system, electrical structures to create light and give power to all kinds of realty detached structures, possibilities to store huge amounts of material products, including that for a car, animals, food, equipment to make you move your body move in the most strange ways, a television and computer to investigate the external world, garbage containers, guidance structures for water and electricity, spaces to put water in and have fun in (swimming pools), structures to enjoy the kids ((toys), equipment spaces to cook, rooms built for personal hygiene, containing the weirdest stuff imaginable, sleeping rooms to contain stuff of which a difficult choice has to be made between the particulars it contains ("Gucci or Lagerfeld? Fluorid tooth paste or naturally based? Lemon shampoo or seasalt? Green leather shiny boots or black plastic ones? How big a TV shall we choose? What brand of car shall we put in the garage? What medicin shall we buy to put in the medicin closet? What art shall cover the walls? Magritte, with his abstract philosophical view on reality, Mondriaan with his abstract linear formal system, abstract color explosions, hyper-real photographs, being just as abstract, etc. etc. Embedded in a nature depleted society having left Nature long ago, to be replaced by a world that fights that very base of its existence, waiting for total destruction by its own means or Natural disaster. Where Nature is tortured and considered an enemy, or at most ignored. Where Nature is questioned endlessly and knowledge applied for material gain. Where diseases are fought bases on an abstract and detached and distorted image of people and people the.selves are reduced to machines or vessels containing selfish genes and memes with a desire to procreate. Where the universe is looked back upon until a Planck second after creation. Where God is absent and the whole of mankind must conform to the ways of science. Placing other domains of knowledge within fenced terrain. Where people get mental health problems and animals are confined in cages. Where you can't take a walk without noticing its influence, except in the dark of the night, and even then artificial light pollutes or satellites spy above us. And on and on I can go...Blah blah blah, as Iggy Pop sung. Venus in furs). Satan rules suppreme. And his churches are forced stuff for the newly born, the new arrivals. "How glad should they be and rejoyce that Beëlzebub gave them this opportunity", so propagate the grown-ups and wise mainly men. Segregation, division, compartimenalization, integration and differentiation, problem-solving, formal systems, reduction, linearalization, patternization, atomification, mathematicalization, programmation, artification,
ratification, justification, argumentation, objectivication, standardization, metrification, abstraction, discretization, framing and fencing, identification, materialization, creativity, instrumentalist, falsificationism and provability, statistics, knowledge gathering, spacification, determination, moralization, systemization, axiomization, mass-communication, iteration, valuation, information, rule suppreme and are imposed by institutions of the scientific knowledge. The imposed system is guided by abstract law systems, working in a holy concordance and synchronicity with the powers of enslavement. A holy duality forming a holy trinity with the institutionalized bodies of the knowledge-gathering and knowledge-applying structures. Moral is reduced to an abstract notion. Yes. Satan rules suppreme. Good and bad shrink into insignificance, when compared to the new orthodoxy, which considers different views superstitious, non-real, self-deceptive, fairy tales, aberrant, ridiculous, psychotic, wrong, subjective, or irrational. Now there is nothing wrong with that, but people all around the globe are forced to dance scientifically. By means of the fruits hanging scattered in the tree of science, to be picked, normally prematurely, and used in Satan's attempt to impose his wicked game of the scientific approach. People just can be good or bad. That's a fact. Good and bad cannot exist without each other. The biblic Satan (or the one supposed in the Tora or Khoran) the envious fallen angel must have given Eve, besides the sense of bad, the sense of good too. Let us, as her descendants, defend humanity from the True Evil that's done by that Evil Devil playing that self-righteous game of his. What's so important about being good or bad? It's better and more humane to let them both exist than trying to create a world in which the bad is non-existent. So let's all pray. Seems to be the only way to escape the modern, global, science-based panopticon. Let's pray people can
act (or non-act!) in time. The clock is near-twelve, and when the damage is done, there is no turning back, except in some very limited situations. In principle it is so easy,. But in practice, the simple solution is hindered by forces defending the status quo. When we have succeeded in the short time.e left, Paradise can be reclaimed (though in an impoverished form), after having been lost for centuries, the lost having its origins in ancient Greece.
Not necessarily assuming,
If definition of God is "omnipotent, omniscient and all benevolent", then there is no reason to assume God would command contrary to that definition.
Considering garden of Eden, if God could give evil commands then there was no need for the snake to harass man, that same task could have be done by God instead.
I think the real problem here is something else, that same God which wanted good to Adam and Eve is the same God that wages wars later right?
Therefore you change the definition of God to just "omnipotent and omniscient" excluding "all benevolent"
Even if you're able to somehow prove that theory it still won't fit in because of same question again, what's the role of the devil then?
A God that is not all benevolent would raise many questions impossible to answer.
I don't think modern day science can be given same significance as knowledge of good and evil.
Science as we know it was born around 16th century and it still develops today.
Religion (written one) on the other side started 3000 years BC and ended 100 years AD.
Therefore taking completely unrelated time spans into account, one has nothing to do with the other, Religion does not deal with science neither does science deal with religion.
Quoting GraveItty
You think there is a secret knowledge that Adam and Eve obtained.
I'm open minded to hear that wisdom.
You mean that God is OOB, or that He posseses these three qualities? I assume the last, as assigning these qualities to our own species doesn't make us God. If defined as such he can never command contrary to that definition. Which makes Him non-OOB. How can He escape? If OOB, you expect He could. But how?
Quoting SpaceDweller
There would be. The snake could propagate, by means of the apple, the mores to disobey any order given by God. Act contrary all the time, especially in relation to God.
Quoting SpaceDweller
IWrong. Partially. It depends on the war. It's generally Satan who is responsible. Like the Stones musically explain. God will be partially BOO. Because Lucifer's evil devil, satanic play. You could make God interfere in wars, if He's omnipotent, but that destroys the war itself and shows no mercy to those happily waging it.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Lucifer's, when God is OOB, is, as I explained, to induce disobedience. Go being not all benevolent, or even all malevolent would raise many questions impossible to answer indeed. But many answerable too. So what's the point here? If God orders bad things to be done, can't He turn them into orders to do good? Yes. He is omnipotent.
No indeed. It has even greater importance.
[Quoting SpaceDweller
Wrong. It was born in ancient Greece.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Did written religion ended 100 years after the birth of Christ? The original writings, accompanied by the scribs, maybe. We'll never be sure. There are more bibles and holy Khoran books than ever though.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Yes. A natural knowledge. Satan ordered, by means of the apple, to divert from it, with all horrible consequence.
Good point but doesn't such wisdom lead to "If God is omnipotent let him make stone so heavy it won't be able to raise it again"?
Both available solutions make God not omnipotent nor in possession of such quality, which is not helpful to analyze the garden of Eden.
Quoting GraveItty
According to book of Enoch, Satan rebelled against God in an attempt to be grater than God, his failure to do so resulted in God throwing him out of his kingdom.
Satan doesn't stop or repent, his hatred continues distorting God's plans and attacking God's creation.
Garden of Eden depicts Satan's attack on God's creation which is Adam and Eve.
According to church teaching (which btw. makes my statement about disobedience toward God less accurate), knowledge of good and evil is before all proper to God, knowledge which God didn't want people to know, that is essential.
First if you want to draw any conclusions about secret knowledge you need to start wondering why differentiating good and evil should have been better kept as secret.
And secondly, what ever conclusion you come out with, it should not oppose scriptures because this only makes it less credible.
Basically you ask here if, as God is omnipotent, he can make Himself omni-incapable. By definition, He can, leaving Himself paralyzed and incapable of ever doing one more thing. So, and here lies the fallibility, being omnipotent harbors a omni-helplessness. Which has the potential to surface in every situation, lurking in the dark, waiting for its chance Hence the intrinsic potential uselessness of omnipotency.
As you implied, the Garden of Eden myth seems to be intended as a warning against "evil" Science, which trusts its sensory extensions and rational conclusions more than the absolute Word of God : "apple bad, trust me". That's also why the Bible repeatedly indicates that physical Flesh (including taste & touch) is corrupted, and only the non-physical Spirit is pure & good, and a direct link to God --- so, trust, and don't bother to verify..
Of course, in the Garden, those child-like humans had direct sensory experience with God, who walked in the garden, making sounds that frightened the babes-in-the-woods. Today, we are bereft of that intimate contact, and the original words of God, are now -- reportedly -- recorded in man-made books, after passing through the fallible minds of many generations of sinful fleshly humans. Therefore, it follows that the self-reliance of Science may be the product of a Satanic plot. Hence, your label "malus scientia" seems to be appropriate. Unless, human reason is the only remaining reliable Word (Logos) of the Creator. :chin:
Just because you can start punching people on the streets, doesn't mean you would actually do it because you know how that would end.
Omnipotence is not God's only property.
Since God is also omniscient he knows doing so is self destructing.
Since God is also omnibenevolent he knows doing so is not good.
Therefore if God makes him self omni-helplessness then that God is contradictory to itself, that is contradictory to it's omnibenevolent nature, which is no longer a God that we speak of.
When we began, you said it was only obedience that mattered - the morality of what was being commanded of zero relevance. I objected.
Then you set up a scenario in which you offered two choices: 1. always obey God or 2. always disobey God.
I told you I would still keep my option to disobey God open.
Your response was God is good (omnibenevolent).
So, it's not just obedience is it that matters? The moral nature of God's commands also counts.
You're begging the question because when I rejected your position that only obedience matters, God's goodness is an open question i.e. it needs to be proved and then the scenario you set up is so crafted as if God is good.
Indeed. There is even a law against it. Wars are waged far away, and a simple street fight is punished with a fine or an imprisonment.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Gods are just as potent as human beings. In every realm. That's what is meant with that they created us in their image. But their potentials have an energy that exceeds that of people by far.
Quoting SpaceDweller
God is omni-contradictory because He is omnisapient. His omnibenevolency stands apart from is but his omni-contradictiveness acounts for Him being omni-malevolent.
Now you start to talk nonsense, fine, wikipedia definition of God is same as God described in the bible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
Quoting TheMadFool
I don't consider that relevant because God being good already is the definition of God.
wikipedia gives an abstract and clear definition, while the bible does not give it clear.
Your allusion of God being sometimes good and sometimes bad seems to be based on God waging wars or asking Abraham to kill his son, which I told you it doesn't help to debate to grasp the garden of Eden because of the sheer size of the content that in the end leads to same definition anyway.
Quoting TheMadFool
I still say so, but I also consider my self not all knowing because later I tried to redirect my position on that:
Quoting SpaceDweller
Now, if you're interested into unlocking the meaning of "knowledge of good and evil" as much as I am then what we should focus on is, why knowledge of good and evil is bad for people, because if there is an answer to this then we'll know whether God is indeed good or not.
I suggest we try to figure out what happens if we are able to distinguish good and evil?
First thing that come to my mid is that we are able to judge.
Does that tell you anything?
Nonsense from your POV. Calling something nonsense is usually done when the sense of the competing POV (mine) is in contradiction with the POV it contradicts. I merely use the vocabulary of infinite potentiality (be it moral, physical, or semantic) and make a kin of reductio ad absurdum to reveal the shortcomings the POV. That's all it is: a point of view. It's not mine though.
Pardon the intrusion, but I just copied this Dilbert cartoon from Steven Pinker's Rationality, and was looking for a place to put it. Just kidding! :joke:
It pictures exactly what's going on here! Right place to put it! No kidding! :razz:
Except I didn't "label" @Graveltty because of disagreement with me, but because of contradictory definition of a God.
What sense does it make to distort well established definition? except to undermine entry discussion?
edit:
If you want my apology fine, I apologize.
So what or who is God?
Do we agree on definition of God or not?
This is a moot point that needs to be resolved.
Then you're irrelevant because it describes your position, not mine.
Quoting SpaceDweller
There's more than one way to skin a cat.
Then what's your definition of God to make your position relevant?
I apologize, if the cartoon was not an accurate portrayal of the disagreement. As I said, I had just copied the Dilbert for future reference, since name-calling is common on this forum. I hadn't followed your dialog, but the "nonsense!" epithet was close-enough for me to use the 'toon as a "cool-down" warning.
FWIW, my own personal definition of "G*D" does not agree with Wiki for "God". But the Wiki def for PanEnDeism is close. And that's OK : there are dozens of variations on a definition of deity. Most ancient images of gods were un-apologetically anthro-morphic. And even modern Catholicism uses icons of humans & animals --- Jesus & Mary & Holy Spirit (e.g. dove) --- to represent different aspects of an otherwise inconceivable deity.
Therefore, on this forum, we need to address the proposed definition that is in question. We are not obligated to agree on a single interpretation, but we should only critique the one under consideration. It's par-for- the-course for one person's imaginary concept to sound like non-sense to another person. However, a philosophical discussion is supposed to accept each postulated opinon as fodder for rational discourse. :smile:
Universals are a class of mind-independent entities,
https://iep.utm.edu/universa/
Note -- "God" is typically assumed to be universal & singular. But "gods" are usually specific & multiple. Yet, my "G*D" may be considered a little bit of both : Pan + En + Deism.
I see, but we are here talking about specific God, God in the garden of Eden is Abrahamic God which has all the properties that wiki defines.
Also let's keep in mind that God ? deity.
Therefore changing the definition of that specific God would distort the meaning of the garden of Eden as well.
@TheMadFool said it is relevant to know whether God can go or do wrong, since that specific God has property of being omnibenevolent, I think is therefore irrelevant to argue over something that is already known, there is no assumption or personal position here.
So why don't we just focus on the knowledge of good and evil?
:100:
The God that Wikipedia defines? How ever can you define God? That's blasphemy. If Wiki means that almighty, all-knowing, only-doing-good God, then the picture is a truly disturbed one. Keeping out of touch with human reality infinitely. Although it gives a certain sense of feeling protected. Nevertheless, it's an inhuman God. If he could do anything he wants, who knows what terrible things can happen? In the name of his absolute knowledge of the good. If he was omnipotent, why he couldn't he have prevented an angel from falling? It should be possible, if he knows everything.
Indeed, you're correct.
And you position is "the Garden of Eden myth seems to be intended as a warning against "evil" Science..."
But that doesn't hold because:
1. It doesn't fit into the rest of scriptures
2. In time when this story was written there was no science.
What you ask requires theology.
Then this whole thread is useless.
There was a whole lot of knowledge! That's what science is about: knowledge. How else were houses built, roads constructed, or wine be packed?
It's not secret that this story was written somewhat later than other books that chronologically follow it but still not before discovery of letter.
Pentateuch for example is older, therefore the story of Adam and Eve must have been transmitted orally from generation to generation.
Surely there was error during that transmission hence we have 2 versions of the garden of Eden both of which are part of the Bible.
Knowing that Genesis was written much much later than Adam and Eve become to be, there is no reason to reject presence of some knowledge, therefore you're correct.
But what is your approach to discover what that is?
I don't have an approach to discover what that is. I asked why you claim that there wasn't science in the time it was written.
I think knowledge of good and evil can be taken either literary or figuratively.
Literary, If you know what's good and what's evil then aren't you able to judge?
According to church teachings, knowledge of good and evil is proper to God, and so is judging.
That's essential, now consider nobody has this knowledge except you, it's secret, how would you use it to your advantage?
You mean I play the devil? Should I make others know? Eeeeehhh.... if I were the only one knowing it, as God had in mind that only He should know this, I would make everybody know, if I were the devil. To spread the evil, as I love (being the devil) evil. But I would at the same time give the knowledge of good. As the devil, I would make people human!
Absolutely not! by exposing the secret you lose the power of knowledge because you make competition and thus lose monopol.
Notice what serpent said to woman:
There is only one God, and knowledge of good and evil is proper to God hence why serpent said and you will be like God, because that knowledge is divine.
Knowledge of good and evil lets you judge, you can't judge if you don't know what are you judging.
God is the only judge, but now you're like God and you can do the job that is proper to God which is judging.
I already told you, when the story of garden of Eden was written, in that time letter was already discovered, human civilization is therefore already advanced and there is a lot of knowledge around.
Think again, how was "judging" used in that time? or how is it used today? or how it was used before that period?
Who is your judge for example?
God, alone in His Power, had no fun,
So He made Sapiens out of His One,
Our image reflecting His Loveâs Knowing,
As His mirror of Divine Perfection.
âGodâs image reflects the mottled colors
Painted by human artists upon the air
Where the wormed apple was before the fall
That rotted away truthâs tree of knowledge.
Edenâs fresh market carried everything;
The shiny red apples called from the Tree,
âTouch me, take me, eat meâ, and soon trouble
Was at hand, although it was crispy, sweet.
Shirking responsibility, The Blamer
Cited humans as the culprits of his err,
And cast them out of Eden, to this dayâ
This evil being Godâs own Original Sin.
âCoercedâ is to follow Godâs willâor burn,
Thus feeding the Fires of Hell in turn,
But humans had local laws long before
Moses brought down the Ten of lore.
Edenâs sinful Apple, causing our shit,
Made for harsh apple cider, but when it
Was heated with sulfurous brimstone it
Soon turned smooth, the Hell taken out of it!
Bless your soul with tongues of fire; Holy Spirit burn;
Leave no trace of manâs desire; Holy Spirit turn.
Oh, man, why detest thy constitution;
Doth thou think Nature has a lot to learn?
So Nature got it wrong, the pious say,
In manâs constitution, erring its essay,
Granting so many ways to go astray.
Well, then, Who, do they say, penned this worldâs play?
âGodâ, Divine Human, and Spirit, to boot,
All structured on wishesâwhat a hoot!
Angels added, too, and Devils haunting.
All as supposed, so, their doings are moot.
âGodâ changed His mind, so it would work better,
From err of His deluge wet and wetter,
Neâer to kill again by water His kin;
Jesus gave Original Sinâs Redemption.
I found the Garden in the Amazonâs heart,
Wherein lie massive fields of Ladyâs Slippers
And all of the rare flowers of ParadiseâŠ
And there I put the apple back on the tree.
But what if God only possessed the knowledge of good and bad. Why should the devil give this knowledge to Eve? What did he gain? Why giving the knowledge of the good too?
Devil's biggest sin is rebellion against God, the devil doesn't want to serve God, instead he want's to be grater than God and to be worshiped as God.
Hence first God's commandment is "I am your God, don't have other Gods..."
God made people, and the biggest sin people can do is to rebel against God and to take the job of a God akin to be Gods them self.
The devil is basically telling Adam and Eve to rebel against God (like he did), and is telling them "and you will be like God", but that's just his pretense to seduce them.
Neither Adam and Eve nor the Devil were able to become Gods, but just like Gods.
It's important to keep in mind that knowledge of good and evil is proper to God because he is a judge, God didn't give that knowledge to people because he didn't want them to be judges.
For example, if I'm judge and you're judge but we don't agree then who is right? or who is God? There can be no 2 Gods. either I'm God or you rebel against me.
What the devil gained is rebellion of people against God and to take judgement into their hands, which is proper to God.
Quoting DecheleSchilder
2 explanations that come to my mind:
1. If you don't know what's good then everything is evil and vice versa.
2. God being just judge, may use good deeds to annul evil deeds of same weight.
Very Gnostic in spirit. I read about Gnosticism yesterday on Wikipedia and this - matter & flesh as evil, the spirit & soul as good - figures in its teachings. Gnosticism was declared heresy by the church and stamped out therefore.
Quoting Gnomon
And then some say religion has no bone to pick with science.
God is supposed to have endued us with free will. That's the solution to the problem of evil. He also (the Fall of Man) has a zero tolerance policy towards disobedience. Either God is evil or God should be ok with disobedience.
But we still have free will, it was not taken away from us, I don't see anything evil in that.
It would be evil to be slaves of God's will, to worship him even though we don't want that, however God made us free to choose which is good.
Otherwise, I think free will depends on why God created people and everything else in the first place.
Theologically God is love, to express his love he gave life, out of his love he creates people.
However if all that God cares about is being loved and worshiped in return, then he could simply create robot-like people that say "I love you, I love you...", but that's no longer outward (creational) love then.
It's rather preprogramed self love or self worship which is contradictory to love toward creation.
I think that's the reason why free will is necessary, to rule out self love, not because of hatred toward it's creation.
Quoting TheMadFool
Zero tolerance policy would mean to kill Adam and Eve, destroy everything and possibly start over.
Yes. The "problem of evil" remains to this day the primary argument against the omnipotent & loving Bible God. Even so, I still infer, from the off-setting positive & negative values of Good/Evil, that the First Cause, whatever it might be, did not create an idyllic Garden of Eden, but something more like a Science experiment pitting Self-determination against Determinism;; Reason against Randomness ; and Virtue against Violence. The final outcome of this vital & volatile alchemy remains to be determined. But, we-here-now, must choose between the eye-opening Apple of Science, and obfuscated Obedience to Fate. :joke:
[i]Like the winds of the sea
Are the waves of time,
As we journey along through life,
âTis the set of the soul,
That determines the goal,
And not the calm or the strife.[/i]
___Ella Wheeler Wilcox (1850â1919)
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Contradictory statement.
God is omniscient so he knows good and evil therefore that's God's own original sin and thus makes him evil.
Which is contradictory to God being omnibenevolent.
EDIT:
Basically this leads to omniscience and omnibenevolence being incompatible which begs the question.
Or simply put you are what you know, God knows good and evil so he's both of that.
Free will, but also cause and repercussion.
God gave Adam and Eve free will:
but also told:
Using same rhetoric we can conclude:
They disobeyed but didn't die, doesn't that make God a liar?
Because he said:
I suppose I can say at this point that I finally got it.
Free will was bestowed upon humanity (Adam & Eve too) so that we could be good or bad (sans free will morality is meaningless).
When God, all-good as defined, warned Adam & Eve not to partake of the forbidden fruit, it was to be understood that doing so was evil.
The two, Adam & Eve, despite God's express instructions not to, ate, heartily I assume, the forbidden fruit, succumbing to Satan's vile machination. Adam and Eve then were, became, truly bad (they had, of their own accord, freely, committed an evil deed). Hence God had to penalize the two.
Having said that, Adam and Eve, before having taken the disastrous step that doomed them, were innocent - they didn't know what morality was. Why did God then punish the hapless couple? That God is all-good wouldn't have made any sense to them and so they wouldn't have known eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was bad.
The only logical explanation is God was ticked off by Adam's & Eve's disobedience. This suggests to me that evil inheres in disobedience. To be good is to be obedient. Why? I can't quite put my finger on it at the moment.
Another, far better, way to make sense of God's actions is with the help of the legal principle ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law excuses not). True Adam & Eve were innocent and didn't know right from wrong but they did commit evil (as explained above). Hence God did what an moral authority would do - punish!
I would call them helpless only if God didn't command them not to eat, in which case there would be no reason to punish them. ex. only serpent should have been punished in that case.
That command could also be interpreted as protective.
Quoting TheMadFool
Good question, I'm not entirely sure whether I know an answer to this.
I think the answer lies in free will but more importantly in motive behind giving the free will.
If God didn't gave free will then we would have master-slave relationship.
Since God did gave free will then we have master-servant relationship.
master-servant relationship is more compatible with God's omnibenevolent nature than master-slave so it's a valid choice.
As for motive behind giving the free will, surely there must be reasonable answer.
Quoting TheMadFool
Why not rephrasing as:
To be obedient is to do good deeds, because commandments are there to protect from evil that is lurking .
Yes. But it was anathematized presumably, not because un-scriptural, but because It allowed direct contact with God, and bypassed the Church as mediator & translator. Later, the Protestants likewise claimed the right to know the written word of God in vernacular language. And at the same time, gave license to empirical scientists to consult the creation of God directly, Again, making an end run around the Holy Mother Church, with its ancient authorized scriptures, and again violently resisted. From then on, Catholic Mystics (closet Gnostics) tried to fly under-the-radar of the Inquisition, so they could have it both ways : direct divine visions and church sacraments. :halo:
That was a poetic expression of the theological "Problem of Evil", not a statement of fact.
Quoting SpaceDweller
I agree. That all-in-one understanding is the core concept of my personal BothAnd philosophy. The Creator is assumed to be Omnipotential, in addition to Omniscient. But not necessarily Omni-benevolent, since that is a matter of opinion for those affected by such super-human powers. Omnipotential includes the possibility of both Good and Evil.
That's why our temporal & relative world evolves along a Hegelian zig-zag path, alternating between extremes of Positive & Negative. But, fortunately for us, those oppositions tend to neutralize each other (Yin_Yang). So most of the time we are able to enjoy the sweet spot in the middle between demonic Bad and angelic Good. That's what we call "life in an imperfect world". Even when it's not ideal, it's not so bad. :joke:
BothAnd Principle :
G*D (All; BEING ; Cosmos ; Logos ; etc.) is the Eternal Necessary Whole of which our world, and ourselves, are Temporary Contingent Parts. Hence G*D is like the Yin/Yang symbol : both black and white.
Example of POSITIVE -- NEGATIVE DIALECTIC
YIN YANG
Nice comparison but fundamentally incorrect:
1. It makes the serpent redundant and insufficient.
2. It's not in line with the story of garden of Eden, and not even whole scriptures.
Basically if I would be to compare yin yang to the garden of Eden (or even whole bible) then God would be yang and the serpent would be yin.
However if we remove the serpent such that this applies to God only, then same should be valid for the serpent which is doesn't because if the devil is yin (evil) then where is his good side? (the devil is insufficient)
Quoting Gnomon
And the opposite of that would be, the Creator is assumed to be omnipotent in addition to omnibenevolent. But not necessarily omniscient, since that is a matter of opinion of those affected by modern day science which is as limited as our understanding supernatural.
Interestingly enough though! we can not apply same semantic to God's omnipotent nature because scientific theory of big bang claims infinitely dense mass of matter as the creation of the universe.
So infinitely dense it even exceeds the laws of physics!
Well God also exceeds the laws of physics so what's the point?
I don't this such rhetoric is useful for this discussion.
Sadly, Wikipedia reports that almost all Ngostic texts were destroyed by the Church and its henchmen. I guess we'll never know how much wisdom or truth they did or did not contain with the former being more interesting and that much more painful to bear.
There are valid reasons why gnostic texts do not contain any truth or wisdom.
Gnostic texts (unless I'm wrong) originate around 1st century AD, mostly concerning the life of Jesus and his teachings.
If we draw hypothesis that there were gnostic texts that somehow "annul" belief of Jesus' divinity, this still does not rule out God or scriptures written before that time which depict that event.
Apocryphal book of Enoch for example is not destroyed but it's story predates times of Jesus, so it makes more sense to destroy something that is older rather than younger because it makes no theoretical sense for older text (older by content) to contradict newer one.
My understanding of why it is not part of cannon is because the book was not old enough rather than because of contents of the book.
You can read it here if you wish and see for yourself, a good understanding of the bible will surely help to decode it.
Also a lot of logical (but not obvious) information that cancels out "secret knowledge" of gnostic texts is contained within the bible as well, for example in Galatians 1,6+ St. Paul said:
Therefore logical conclusion here is that Paul and other church leaders knew these gospels and they surely wanted to know what these gospels are about, what's so powerful about them.
What I'm saying is that they surely knew that "secret knowledge", and that's where one interesting question arises:
If they knew, why would they accept martyrdom? as if dying alone isn't worst thing in human life.
I think because that truth just wasn't powerful or true enough and as such there must be some other motive behind to write them, which is the key to the question that you asked:
Why did the church burn these books?
The dilemma (for God) is this: Morality is about restricting our freedom - we can't go around doing anything and everything we want. However, morality is also about giving us our freedom - it's meaningless without being able to do anything and everything we want. Either we're free (can do whatever we want) or we're moral (can't do whatever we want) but not both.
Agree, but this doesn't answer martyrdom question.
Does it make sense to be willingly tortured in the name of morality?
Even after knowing the "secret knowledge".
I don't think so, and this tells me there really is no secret knowledge or morality alone thereof that would be worth it.
Taken as a whole, the Old Testament presents at least two, maybe three or more, different models of deity. Among Hebrews, their tribal-god was merely a member of a god-family, Elohim, similar to the Greek Oympians. In that case, each family member had a specific role in ruling the world. For example, Yahweh was originally a lightning-spear-weilding weather-god, similar to Zeus. But. by the time tribal Hebrews had morphed into the short-term kingdom of national Jews, their minor local deity was promoted to an all-powerful singular universal eternal deity YHWH, who was so fearsome that it was dangerous to even say or write his name.
Ironically, the theologians among the prideful monotheistic priests & scribes were forced to address the philosophical Problem of Evil, which seemed to make the one-and-only deity of The Chosen People responsible, not just for the all-good Garden of Eden, but for for the blood, sweat & tears of the post-garden world. So, apparently they subtly & surreptitiously adopted a concept from polytheistic states, and promoted the snake (god's mouthpiece) in the garden, to a full-time tempter and legalistic adversary, as the anti-god Satan.
Later, as the Jews again morphed from a minor city-state into a world-empire in Roman Christianity, the mono-deity was again split into several personalities : abstract YHWH, personal Jesus, motherly Mary, mystical Holy Spirit, and demonic Satan. Hence, their belief system had come full-circle from Olympian Elohim to Cosmic Lord of Hosts. Therefore, if this condensed overview is close to correct, there was always a need for someone to blame for the imperfections of the divinely-created world. It was only the general deity's specific traits that evolved over the span from Genesis to Revelations. Some people today, imagine that Jesus and Satan were brothers in Heaven, who later became mortal enemies on Earth.
But that's just one of many myths that humans have imagined to explain : A> the contingent existence of the space-time world, and B> the existence of Evil in a world created by a supposedly benevolent ruler of the universe. Hence, an evil-god has always been a Necessary Being for mythology. So it seems that, just as we resolve black & white in the Yin-Yang symbol, we try to resolve the Problem of Evil in the notion of opposed deities in Heaven & Hell, while retaining the concept of One Omniscient, Omnipotent, Eternal Being. :cool:
Yahweh :
In the oldest biblical literature, he is a storm-and-warrior deity who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
YIN_YANG DEITY :
GOOD vs EVIL GODS :
Quoting Gnomon
I see, what you're referring to are "traditions" (English is not my native but here's hopefully accurate translator output), relevant traditions are:
1. Yahwistic tradition
2. Elohistic tradition
3. "Priesthood" tradition
First key difference for this discussion is that Elohistic tradition starts from Abraham onward, while Yahwistic tradition starts from garden of Eden.
Second key difference is that neither of these 2 include legal texts, legal texts belong to priesthood tradition.
To make things even more complex, the garden of Eden is made of 2 intertwined reports from 2 different traditions, Yahwistic and Priesthood. (Gen 1-2,4a;2,4b+)
All these traditions and reports however have same roots (ex. use same sources), but to say that Elohim and Yahweh are 2 different Gods or to say that they are deities is incorrect.
I don't know what to comment on the rest of your post because it would take a lot of investigation so I'll abstain, but it sound interesting. :up:
Where did that come up?
Quoting SpaceDweller
It doesn't I guess but maybe that's the whole point! I dunno!
Quoting SpaceDweller
I read in a paper quite a many years ago of a contract killing in a third-world country. The bounty: $66. If someone's willing to kill for $66...what are the possibilities?
Yes. Like most cultural traditions, the origins of Yahweh myths fade away into pre-history. Some refer toYahweh as a storm god, similar to Greek Zeus, but others trace his beginnings as an iron-working volcano deity, similar to Hephaestus & Vulcan. But,after the emergence of civilizations, in most middle-eastern traditions, those "minor deities" were not assumed to be omnipotent, but merely specialists in certain phases of natural functions, and served as members of a Pantheon (god family or race).
Prior to the rise of city-states though, and communication between regions, each minor deity was typically the tribal-god of small groups, and were often pictured as war-lords. So, their natural functions were more general --- although the dry environment of desert people would emphasize the vital importance of rain, while mountain-people would find other functions more important. Yet, early multicultural middle-eastern empires began to pattern their gods after their emperors, who typically had officers from disparate regions. Thus, began the myths of remote emperor-gods, whose children, or appointees, ruled over local domains of their own.
The point of this recitation is to say that the rank & role of each deity varied over time. Some. such as
Baal (Lord of rain & dew for Canaanites), and chief deity of his own Chosen People, was for a while one of the tribal gods of Hebrews --- along with the female tree-goddess Asherah ( Astarte, Ishtar). But later, in the kingdom era, the Priests of Yahweh, demoted him to a "false-god" or demon-god, and began a campaign to stamp-out Asherah worship among Jews. So, there was a lot of myth-borrowing among the various tribes & nations of the middle east. For example the Jewish Asherah may have been originally the consort of El (Father of the Elohim family), and the mother-goddess of her people.
Therefore, to say that these mythical figures were deities, depends on the place & time. Their rank & role varied from place to place, and from time to time. And that includes Elohim & Yahweh, who may have been father & son in some myths. But later, in the Jewish traditions, El (proper name) may have inspired the notion of the single abstract formless deity of Monotheism (un-nameable). That name is still reflected in modern Islam as Al-lah. Anything else you want to know? :nerd:
PS___BTW, what does this have to do with "Maleus Scientia"?
Later, psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud suggested that Mount Sinai was an erupting volcano in an uncharacteristic monograph, Moses and Mono- theism, and that Yahweh was certainly a volcano-god.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309089214536484?journalCode=jota
The cult of YHWH as god of metallurgy originated among semi-nomadic copper ... This new desert kingdom would leave its mark on the main building at Timna:
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-jewish-god-yahweh-originated-in-canaanite-vulcan-says-new-theory-1.5992072
Asherah is identified as the consort of the Sumerian god Anu, and Ugaritic ?El, the oldest deities of their respective pantheons. This role gave her a similarly high rank in the Ugaritic pantheon. Deuteronomy 12 has Yahweh (Jehovah) commanding the destruction of her shrines so as to maintain purity of his worship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah
Hebrew "El" and Islamic "Allah" "
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Hebrew-word-Elohim-and-the-Arabic-word-Allah-etymologically-related
Yes. Insightful book. And Harari is just one of many modern Jews, who acknowledge the assimilated, rather than revealed, regional & mythical foundations of Judaism, and ultimately of Christianity. :smile:
No but thanks, It appears not easy to verify credibility of your sources :meh:
Quoting Gnomon
Likely none, looks like this whole discussion ran out of context :gasp:
Ironically, we now have access to a zillion libraries of information on the internet. But there's also a lot of "fake facts" mixed in. And, in the Trump era, even academics & experts are distrusted. So, ultimately, your own common sense & philosophical skepticism may have to make the judgment of trustworthiness.
I have personally consulted only a fraction of available sources, though. And, my understanding could be misconstrued. So, don't take my word for it. Test if for yourself. Just don't cherry-pick your sources to fit your preconceptions. Pilate's retort to Jesus still applies : "what is Truth". That's an open-ended philosophical question, not a final scientific consensus. :sad:
PS__This is not a situation where you can just "trust your gut", because you're looking for facts, not feelings.
The truth is there can be only one truth, and no matter what one may think the truth is, it will take belief that's truth :100: