Adam Eve and the unjust punishment
According to the Book, Adam and Eve were punished with mortality and other ugly stuff after they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
This is an unjustified punishment because, if we look at all the squabbling going on in the ethics section of philosophy, we haven't figured out anything in ethics. Of course one may prefer one moral theory over another but there isn't a sound basis for it and that's why there's always the other theory one has to worry about.
Why was Adam and Eve punished for actually failing to understand good and evil?
Poor judgment.
This is an unjustified punishment because, if we look at all the squabbling going on in the ethics section of philosophy, we haven't figured out anything in ethics. Of course one may prefer one moral theory over another but there isn't a sound basis for it and that's why there's always the other theory one has to worry about.
Why was Adam and Eve punished for actually failing to understand good and evil?
Poor judgment.
Comments (219)
One who would even paint ceilings, cut grassâŚ
But this would have cost Adam an arm and a leg.
So, Adam said, âWhat can I get for just a rib?â
God said to Adam and Eve in Eden:
âDo what you like, but donât eat the appleâ.
Now we know that when you tell children
Not to touch something, they certainly will!
You're right. It's too superficial a treatment.
Nevertheless, even if it's mythical, the message seems to be knowledge of ethics is forbidden and actually the cause of all our problems. The way I parse that is God wants us to be innocent more than he wants us to understand Him.
Anyway, I read a bit more on the forbidden fruit article in wikipedia and it mentions a certain Telemachus and his interpretation of "good and evil" is "everything". That's omniscience and God probably doesn't want a worthy contender in paradise.
The tree was already in the garden, and it was growing. It was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so the knowledge of good and evil was already growing in the midst of their garden.
Can you see already, the poetry in the language? The word "ets" (??) that is used in Genesis 2:9, is mostly translated as "wood" - a thing that is useful for constructing. Of course, it is a wood that grows. So the knowledge of good and evil was a thing growing in their midst that was useful for working with (Genesis 1:28 "subduing the earth"). But God had said "do not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".
What does it mean to eat fruit? It is the source of sustenance and growth, and of pleasure. Just as Eve saw in Genesis 3:6 the fruit was "good for sustenance" and "satisfying of lusts", as well as seeing that she could become more shrewd by it (that is the real value that the tree had over the others, afterall).
So what that translates to, is a picture of a world where they were already learning of good and evil, and they were simply living according to God's expectation of them (He saw all He had made, "that it was good"). But then she was tempted, and fell to the discontentment of thinking that she could have more satisfaction if she ate of it.
In order to really understand why what she did was so bad, we need to look at what it means to eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. It isn't so simple as "missing the mark" as some might say.
To use the produce (fruit) of the knowledge of good and evil as a way of life (sustenance and pleasure), is to reckon that sometimes evil can serve our interests well. That's where the sin exists, and you can see it manifested in the ways of the world, as normal business practice.
In a paradise, we expect everyone to only do what is good, don't we? We don't expect robbers and murderers and liars etc, because those things bring hell upon the world rather than paradise.
So that is what they did. They chose to bring hell upon the earth - though, they didn't know that was exactly what they were doing, because they had been deceived and it crept in gradually. Their son murdered his own brother, and I don't imagine that anyone who had walked with God their whole life would have chosen to bring a hell like that upon the earth.
Anyhow, so we have the situation at that point in the story, that they had immediately forgotten God's character (1 John 4:8 "anyone who does not love does not know God, for God is love" and 1 John 4:18 "There is no fear in love, because fear is of torment" - yet Genesis 3:10 shows us that they had forgotten love: "I heard you, and I was afraid so I hid myself").
So if we are reading God's character consistent with the authors of the bible that say God is love, we should not be finding that Adam was right to be afraid of God, and that is your primary contention.
Remember what Jesus said "which one of you, if your child asks for bread, will give him a stone?".. and so it is, that when a child messes up, if they know that they can trust the parent's love, they confess "daddy, I broke it!" and Daddy, being one who loves his son, doesn't say "you fool! Go to the bad corner!". No, but the father full of love says "awww, now it's broken, that's sad. We have to fix it".
(But there is a type of child who doesn't confess, and there might be different reasons for that).
So we see that Adam and Eve were hiding from God - they were afraid to confess because they didn't trust Him, and it isn't uncommon for people to think that way about God - which is the main thrust of John 3:16 "God indeed loved the world, He even gave up His only-begotten son so that anyone believing in Him should not perish".
There is a useful observation in 2 Peter 2:19 "whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved". Remember what Jesus said of the devil? "he was a murderer from the beginning, and when he lies, it is his native language".
So they had been overcome by a liar and a murderer. Their minds had already forgotten that God is love, and that He desires to heal the sick and broken. So it was wisdom, not punishment, that caused God to say "what if he now reaches out to take from the tree of life, and lives forever?", and you might think about that more in context of some of the greatest villains we have known in history. There are some people that the world is better off to be without.
Don't forget too, that it is not written that they were created immortal - but that "if they should reach out, and eat of the tree of life" then they could live forever.
As for the curses "thorns and thistles shall spring up for you, and by the sweat of your brow you will eat" - a statement of a knowledge of the consequence (not punishment - authorities who use those words interchangeably are intellectually dishonest). It is what happens to a person's soul when they realise there is no escape from the system, and that the system doesn't value them personally. They are enslaved, a disposable resource, their sense of life (the "me/who I am") is stolen from them, and rather than enjoying their days, work is a chore. Likewise for the woman, who rather than seeing a baby as a bundle of joy, sees it as a burden, and rather than being fulfilled by her man, is constantly trying to fill the God-shaped hole in her heart with him - because he is no longer the image of God (1 John 4:16), he is a shell of a man that never quite makes her complete.
It is again, not a punishment of wrath to subdue God's anger (because a noble person doesn't feel that way - wrath is rooted in insecurity and it is a fallen nature that behaves that way), rather, consistent with His noble character as Isaiah 27:4 describes, He is simply saying what is to come so that His critics would trust that He is to be feared (Job 1:6, Job 1:9).
You'd be wrong.
The ingestion of the fruit is the severing of the divine symbiosis.
It appears to be more a threat against deviating from the teachings of the book. The punishment was mortality, which is telling, because the world and life are assumed to be wicked enough to serve as punishments.
Great question, but a vexing problem nonetheless (aka: the problem with evil).
I take a different view. My interpretation is that the tree of knowledge is an allegory/extended metaphor over fact that we are barred from perfect wisdom here. Evil/sin= lack of perfection.
I don't think of it as an Ontological evil being. Instead I think of it in other metaphorical ways. For instance, like an Aristotelian maxim of moderation, the 'better choices' you can make in your life, the more likely you won't suffer bad consequences. Or like the law of attraction theory; you reap what you sow. You can choose to do good or bad and you suffer or benefit accordingly. (Or even being barred from the 'perfect laws' of the universe.)
And so I think the interpretation is awareness of the aforementioned temporal nature that we have, including how volitional existence effects our happiness.
The way I read it, âknowledge of good and evilâ signifies the formation of self-consciousness, the awareness of oneself as an agent with the ability to form judgements. I think, in realistic terms, it corresponds with the advent of tool use, language and possessions.
There is good argument that the "good and evil" reference is a literary device intended to mean knowledge of everything, not just of morality (the juxtaposition of opposites to make that point). See also Genesis 3:22. Compare 2 Sam 14:17 to 2 Sam 14:20.
It seems to me to be various etiological myths wrapped up in a main etiological myth. The myth of why we are here, why we wear clothes, why we toil for a living, why giving birth is painful, why snakes are feared, etc. The main take home point is why we die rather than live forever (we shall not eat from the tree of life). It's a tale about mortality, not morality.
Depending on how you interpret the myth, it seems one or more of the following:
1. This is the Jewish version of Pandora's box, meant to explain why bad stuff exists and how it relates to knowledge and making choices. It's also an allegory for growing up.
2. They were punished for disobeying God, not trusting or believing what God said.
2b. They were punished for giving into temptation, listening to the snake instead.
3. It was a setup. God intended for the snake to deceive Adam & Eve. That way, the plan for redemption could be unfolded, and the possibility for evil choices could be worked through.
3b. God predestines everything, so it happened exactly as God wanted, because how else could it happen, given God's omni-abilities?
#2 has free will at the center, #3b is the Calvinistic view, while #3 is a mix between the two. The really interesting theological question here is the snake. Let's assume the Christian interpretation that it was Lucifer who rebelled and became Satan.
How did this happen, and wouldn't God have known about it before creating Lucifer? So why create him? How does a perfectly created being become proud? Isn't that a character defect? Wouldn't wanting to be God be a colossal misunderstanding on the part of a created being? Doesn't much sound like Lucifer was created perfectly.
Basically, if God is omni-everything, then God can choose what sort of world to create and who will populate it. God doesn't have to create anyone who will choose evil. So it's ultimate God's responsibility. The Calvinists have a more consistent theology.
Of course that means God can't be all-good in the way we humans understand good.
I found that out. Thanks for confirming that for me.
Divine symbiosis? Care to expand on that? What do you mean? Humans get to live and God gets some sycophantic tribe of worshippers? I don't understand God's need for worship. Perhaps he needed company of some kind. Anthropomorphizing God may be a complete mistake.
All the above was after the fruit-eating episode.
Why? Can you answer that as a human? Why is perfect wisdom undesirable? Is it dangerous or is it a waste of time?
High marks to you my friend!! I could not agree more with your analysis! I wish the fundamentalist's would take heed!!!!!
Now let me go and try to answer Mad Fool's great questions....
A whole tribunal elects to forge man, yet only one holds the secret 'breath of life'.
This creation method is what separates man from a mere puppet; hence the free will and divine symbiosis, as they are replicas.
The fruit then was a Trojan Horse to sever this link, illustrated through the escort out of the garden. Ultimately the new malformed man endangers the earth and so a flood is cast.
Well reminds me of something I heard a long ago: "the shortest distance between two points isn't a straight line. It's a smooth curve.".
Unfortunately no one person can answer the question as to why we are barred from perfect wisdom here. (I wish I could!) Accordingly, from an Existential point of view:
Ecclesiastes 8 English Standard Version (ESV)
8 Who is like the wise?
And who knows the interpretation of a thing?
A man's wisdom makes his face shine,
and the hardness of his face is changed
The interpretation there could be in spite of that said, we must have hope and engage with a smile. What are our choices otherwise?
As far as the 'dangers' of seeking perfection as you say; from a pathological point of view:
â˘As a person you are not okay as you are.
â˘No matter what you achieve, the feelings of satisfaction are temporary. There is always more to do, be, accomplish.
â˘Things are either black or white- no vaguely defined area of in between or close enough. Things in your life are either right or wrong, good or bad success or failure
â˘You believe that only by making everything perfect on the outside will you feel peace and serenity on the inside.
â˘If you continually achieve, acquire and look good doing it, you will be successful and happy.
â˘When things go wrong or you do not achieve at a certain level, you have failed.
â˘Effort and intention are not enough. Results must be productive and successful. Focus is on product, not process.
â˘You are extremely competitive about almost everything.
â˘You feel secretly judgmental of people who fall short of perfection.
â˘You imagine others admire and value you only for your high level of achievement and production.
Pragmatically or ethically speaking, I will say enjoy a bit of heaven everyday and incorporate moderation where possible. When a mathematician computes perfectly then returns to the ordinary life of striving, we too can engage in moments of wisdom, joy and resulting pleasure by focusing on good rather than bad (evil). We are capable of having Maslonian peak experiences that make the 'tree of life' worth living.
Proves the point in a way. Thanks.
The tree of knowledge cannot be understood without knowing what was meant by knowledge. It seems to have had something to do with producing or making, whether it was protective girdles out of fig leaves or Cain and Abel. Knowledge bring both benefits and new problems, it produces both what is good and evil.
I study consciousness and mind, and I firmly believe that religions also study consciousness, but their interpretation or theory of consciousness is called "God". So when I apply my thinking to the story of the Garden, this is what I find:
First note that Adam and Eve are symbolic names. Adam in the old original texts is "human", or man, and Eve in the old texts is "bringer of life", or woman.
Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge; therefore, Adam and Eve chose knowledge. What does that mean in terms of mind and evolution? Can any specie choose knowledge? Can a plant or any animal or bird choose to know concepts? Can they make decisions on knowledge that has been processed and thrashed around into ideas and concepts?
I don't think so. I think that a rational aspect of mind is necessary to do these things. We have always believed that the rational mind is what separates us from other species. So I see the story in the Garden as an explanation of the evolution of the rational mind, or you could say that Adam and Eve attained that level of conscciousness. So what does this have to do with good v evil? Original sin? or even mortality?
Well, the mortality question is easy. All life lives and then dies, but it takes a rational mind to understand time, math, and truly understand the limits of mortality.
What about original sin? Was there any sin before the rational mind? No. Sin requires intent, and intent requires a rational aspect of mind.
What about good v evil? Well the opposite of good is not evil, it is bad. Good and bad have always existed as long as opinions and feelings existed. Even a dog can feel good if he is healthy and bad if he is sickly, but there is no evil there.
The opposite of evil is innocence. A wolf that kills a lamb is just hungry and maybe bringing nourishment to its cubs -- that is not evil. Actual evil requires thought; it requires intent, it requires a rational aspect of mind. War is evil, genocide is evil, corrupting innocence is evil.
So religion is right; good and bad were always here, but evil did not come into the world until the rational aspect of mind evolved.
Gee
Your interpretation brings to mind two thoughts; one being fear based, and another relating to self awareness of having wisdom or knowledge.
Consider a child who is naĂŻve about many things. Consider that naivety in the face of the concept 'what he doesn't know won't hurt him' paradigm (or as adults).
It could follow that with knowledge comes pain. That with awareness comes emotional pain. (Not to mention what other's have said about the interpretation of our temporal existence; finitude, mortality and death-physical pain sort-a-speak.)
And so how that relates to the concept of fear based behavior is interesting. If we are to fear reverence (God), how do we develop that fear? I'm thinking that as the OP suggested earlier, that somehow awareness of wisdom or knowledge in and of itself imparts or results in a sense of fear too. Otherwise we are just naĂŻve and go about our business care free. The tree of knowledge then becomes a bitter sweet concept viz. the joy that wisdom imparts, but the pain it brings about accordingly.
I think some other's have alluded to that as well...
Iâll offer another interpretation of the story, if I may.
First of all, I donât see the âknowledge of good and evilâ as actual knowledge. What humanity acquired here was the propensity to judge or claim to know what is good and what is evil - without having any of the knowledge that comes from experience.
We have a naive Adam and Eve, with zero life experience, who choose to ignore instructions from God and instead listen to a serpent, seeking pleasure. The result of eating from the tree was that âthe eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.â
This was not a knowledge of experience or understanding, but one of awareness; self-awareness. And the first thing a human would notice with a sudden onset of self-awareness would be their vulnerability, that they were naked. From this initial awareness of vulnerability comes their response: to cover themselves with fig leaves, and then to hide from God. âI was afraid because I was nakedâ.
Godâs response is interesting: âWho told you that you were naked?â Again this refers to an awareness, rather than experiential knowledge. They were always naked; only now they were aware of it - and not only aware, but they had judged nakedness to be a bad thing for them.
So now Adam and Eve are making moral judgements based on nothing but their immediate and direct physiological response to the world as a vulnerable organism. Talk about poor judgement. The fact that we have yet to figure out anything in ethics just goes to show that Adam and Eve stuffed up - they jumped the gun. Judging âgood and evilâ is something that first requires a comprehensive understanding of how everything in the universe is interconnected. As a single organism, that would take some time.
So Adam and Eve werenât punished for failing to understand good and evil. They brought suffering upon themselves by acquiring a capacity which they lacked the life experience to use properly. They could have eaten from the tree of life, lived forever in a paradise with everything theyâd ever need, and eventually built up enough life experience to genuinely understand the value of everything in the universe. It would have been a cushy apprenticeship...
But you canât give that kind of capacity to a couple of two-year olds and expect them to learn any kind of humility, let alone teach them to make right judgements when any judgement is just as effective in the short term.
And that's why you don't take candy from strangers.
I was thinking thereabouts. It makes me think of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. Self-awareness, true AI, would naturally have goals which may possibly involve the annihilation of humans. Do you think we were actually created as robots and then became self-aware making/forcing God to banish us from Eden. I think we would do the same to AI if it ever became self-aware after all we couldn't kill it could we? We do kill each other you know.
I agree with your notion of self-awareness for sure! It could almost be substituted metaphorically: the tree of self-awareness (self-consciousness & conscience).
One strange question relates to nakedness though. The author/interpretation could be extended to mean or represent nakedness as being equal to unawareness, yet if one were to take it literally, then why use the term naked?
Accordingly, we so find ourselves embarrassed or shameful by actually being naked [me, not so much] in public, but do we really understand why? While it is true, young children can be on a beach or by a pool naked, yet at some point we decide to make them either aware or they naturally become self aware that it is bad.
Of course there are other significant impacts relative to psychology/self-esteem (and to a lesser degree philosophy) which all seem mysteriously contradictory. Maybe I need to re-visit my inner Sigmund Freud...
A second class and immoral solution to a self-created problem.
A human man would do the opposite and step up himself instead of sending a son to die.
Right?
Quoting Serving Zion
Love is not a genocidal god and to say that Yahweh knows how to love is not demonstrated. The opposite is in fact shown.
Quoting Serving Zion
What is bad about following an immoral command to stay stupid and too dumb to even know they were naked.
To remain with their eyes closed is what would have been stupid and immoral. That is why Jews have no original sin concept and see man as elevated by our ignoring a fools command to stay stupid and uneducated.
Quoting Serving Zion
It certainly does if you can see that little bit of evil as compared to the real evil that would be if man stopped his evolution.
We must compete to survive and thrive and that competition is the cause of all human against human evil. It creates a victim or loser to the competition.
Quoting Marchesk
It is indeed, and growing up is quite good, so we should be happy that A & E told god where to shove his really evil commandment.
Regards
DL
Bullseye on the etiological myths. A pattern readily observable in folk stories throughout history and across cultures.
_______
On the OPâs point:
The moral reality of âThe Fallâ or âThe Disobedience in the Gardenâor the âOriginal Sinâ is central to christian theology throughout most of its history, and certainly to contemporary evangelical christianity,. Without this, thereâs no need for Christâs sacrificial atonement.
Yet, if humans had no knowledge of good and evil before âeating the fruitâ then they could not have known that it was wrong to disobey Godâs command. Moral responsibility and culpability, it seems to me, requires knowledge of and conscious intent to violate moral precepts. The construal of the consequences of eating the fruit as specifically as âpunishmentâ implies a moral culpability that cannot be squared.
True, yet to the Jews who invented Yahweh, Eden was where man was elevated and not where he fell.
Christians seem to ignore how the Jews defined Yahweh and reversed the moral of the story.
That is the poor state of Christian apologetics and why Christianity is dying.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Regards
DL
GCB, I don't want to mis-read some of the banter. Taking it purely from face value, are you saying that it's prudent to have eatin from the tree of knowledge in order to gain wisdom and the like, or are you saying ignorance is bliss?
Your point with respect to the fundamentalist view is well taken. But that's problematic and the source of religious wars and/or extremism.
Why couldn't the interpretation be more Existential. Meaning the tree of knowledge being representative of the human condition which includes simple finitude/lack of perfect wisdom and temporal existence? It makes no sense to punish volitional existent beings for no reason.
It makes better sense for humans to recognize their finitude and seek Revelation in this case through Christianity.
Unlike the Fundy's, as a Christian Existentialist I do not I think the Bible is a 'perfect book' yet I do not throw the baby out with the bath water either.
There isn't much left in the bathwater as support with the fundamental babies having to be thrown out.
LOL, yep it's no secret I'm highly critical of the Fundies. In many ways religion needs a new paradigm as the sciences and humanities have uncovered a lot since the Book was first published if you will. The fundies are caught up in the old paradigm of dichotomizing their apologetic's too much. As Kierkegaard said there is danger with too much either/or. And if you don't know something, just say you don't know; don't let your ego get in the way! LOL
Please come to our church in which we don't teach any of our "maybe's" as truth, nor at all, because we just don't know and can't really preach about an invisible realm merely supposed. In lieu of all that, we offer community, fellowship, and such ideas of doing good strictly for the sake of good, not reward, with no worshipping whatsoever, and thus we are not really even a church in the old sense of the word.
I donât think we were created as robots - I think we evolved according to integrated information processing systems rather than survival or reproductive value, but thatâs for another discussion, perhaps. Self-awareness is a natural development of five-dimensional integrated information processing. âGodâ was a way of objectifying this capacity for higher awareness in order to obtain more information about it. The OT tracks the progression of five-dimensional awareness; the NT tracks our foray into six-dimensional awareness.
I think the key here is the emergence of fear, as well as pain, loss and humility - as a result of self-awareness. And yes, we do kill each other - in fact itâs the very next story in the Book.
First of all, ânakedâ is an English translation, so we shouldnât read too far into the choice of word. But I donât think this suggests that nakedness is equal to unawareness at all. There is nothing âevilâ about nakedness except that in experiencing it ourselves we cannot avoid our intrinsic vulnerability. How we respond to that reality is to cover it, to hide it. We do it to try and âprotectâ our children from the world, to pretend that weâre not as fragile as we appear to ourselves.
Please send me a PM and I'll be happy to try and schedule that in, I'm on the east coast.
This is not a political statement either. The original OP posited the concept of unjust judgement. I certainly could be missing something but my concern would be too much emphasis on being advocates for God's judgement and guessing the mind of God. Why not focus more energy on an interpersonal /inspirational relationship with The Man called Jesus.
As the story unfolds isn't that one main reason why God 'sent him' as a relatable ontological personal-being? And isn't being human what makes Christianity so relatable to the human condition? Trying to extrapolate how God is going to judge people insites anger and old world extremism...after all 9/11 was religious extremism in action.
Ok I'm done now!
So, God sees that the artificial perfection of Eden is no longer suitable to Adam and Eve. It was nice while it lasted, but now it is time for them to leave the cradle and start dealing with the kind of problem that mankind has always been dealing with. You know what kind of problems humans have to deal with, because you, being human, have to deal with all this crap too.
God keeps urging his human creation to live up to its potential.
Some time well after the death of Christ, the Church cooked up a plan of salvation which begins with Adam's and Eve's "original sin" and ends with Christ's crucifixion. Christ died to take away the sins of the world, the first of which was Eve's disobedience.
Listen, YouCrazyFool: For the time being, just forget the whole business of sin and salvation. Think about God trying to get people to be good, be ethical, be honest, loving, faithful, and so on and many so forths. That's what a lot of the Bible's prophetic speech is about: Live up to your God-given potential, people. Stop dilly dallying around in the fleshpots of the world, where you just end up getting gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, herpes, warts, and worse. "I know sex feels good," God says. "After all, I created sex as part of existence. It is meant to feel good. But pullllease, raise your standards a little, will you!" You get a stiff dick and all judgement and reason goes out the window. At least go for quality!"
You can read Harvey Cox's exegesis in his short book, "On Not Leaving It To the Snake".
Your misinterpretation of the Bible is one reason why some people say that only adults should be allowed to read it. It is a richly complex book, and the uninitiated, unguided often make a hash out of it.
Specifically, this was Augustine's contribution; the resulting 'Augustinian theology' has been hugely influential in Catholic and Protestant (especially Calvinist) doctrine; however, not so much in Orthodox theology, which doesn't accept the 'doctrine of vicarious atonement'. even though it is taken for granted as the authoritative reading in the West.
But it's likely that the tale of AI would have an expected resemblance to the Bibilcal story of man. AI would "disobey" and then get punished with death/mortality.
I can accept that.Quoting Bitter Crank
I don't deny that my reading of The Book is idiosyncratic and is probably tainted with my own personal insecurities. Nevertheless two things are obvious:
1. We lack a complete knowledge of "good and evil"
2. God punished us for knowing "good and evil"
This makes the punishment unjust especially since God is supposed to be omniscient and omnibenevolent. God should've known we didn't get it and he should've been kind enough to forgive us. If we bring omnipotence into the picture then additional problems arise because he could've easily pressed the reset button.
Can you please read this (my post)
Augustine was philosophically profound but more than a streak of neurosis also which I think unfortunately got transferred along with the profound bits.
I think you are forgetting the balance. There has been pain and fear as long as there has been life. This is evidenced through survival instincts, which all species possess, and which all work through feeling and emotion. Although it is true that knowledge and self-awareness can bring more pain and fear, they can also bring more joy and pleasure.
For example, we would not have art without the rational mind, and I know that my mind is my favorite personal playground.
Quoting 3017amen
To answer your question, that I underlined, above; my thought is that the development of the rational aspect of mind isolates us -- promoting that fear.
You can not know what is in my mind unless I tell you, or share my thoughts with you, and vice versa. The conscious aspect of mind is private, internal, and processes thought. The unconscious aspect of mind is shared, works between life, and processes emotion. Although both aspects share information, there is a serious difference in how they work. Bonding works through emotion and the unconscious, as does the reading of body language. The unconscious bonds us; the conscious isolates us.
I don't want to go too far off topic, but you could look at Jung's collective and communal unconscious to see that some of what religion studies and calls "God" is the collective unconscious. This is why "God" is unknowable.
Gee
Well, I suppose we won't have "complete" knowledge of good and evil until our time comes to an end.
Feel free to interpret the Bible however you want -- everybody else does. But in my arrogant opinion, I don't think god was punishing us for knowing "good and evil".
It doesn't make sense. Sentient beings MUST distinguish between good and evil, and nothing in the Bible suggests that we can get along without knowing what is good, and what is not good -- or evil. the Bible teaches us to do good and avoid evil. One has to know the difference.
The creation story wasn't written as biography, you know. Or history. Even if you thought the world is 6023 years old, it is OBVIOUSLY the case that nobody was walking around behind God, Adam, and Eve and taking notes. Furthermore, you know, the creation story in Genesis has common features with creation stories in adjacent cultures (in the ancient world).
The Creation story is in part the story of why there is anything at all. (God made it.). It's the story of why life is such a predictably severe pain in the ass. (A & E fucked up.).
One might think that in a world made by the hand of God that things would be a lot nicer. Instead of living in the grandeur of a spiritual 'house beautiful', we live in dismal shit holes, and carry on the way we do.
The creation story is a great piece; just don't take it literally.
If you lived in a family where you were shielded from all harsh truths of existence, and never required to take responsibility for anything you did, then you would never grow up.
The problem is - that denies free will.
Remember, they're not puppets; so the choice is accepted, and paired with appropriate consequences.
Reminds me of a cartoon about growing up. Sorry can't find it but I'll describe it for you. The child has a small brain and a big heart. As you grow older the heart shrinks and the brain acquires gigantic proportions.
There's something about "growing up" that I find suspicious. War is a grown up thing. So is rape and all the dirt anyone can find on humans.
That said, I think mature love differs from childish love. It looks like a very difficult balancing act - to mature mentally but still maintain love in some form or other.
How do you understand the fall of man in a different way? I tried but there doesn't seem to be any other hidden message apart from that Adam and Eve fed off the tree of knowledge and got punished for it.
"This makes the punishment unjust especially since God is supposed to be omniscient and omnibenevolent. God should've known we didn't get it and he should've been kind enough to forgive us. If we bring omnipotence into the picture then additional problems arise because he could've easily pressed the reset button."
This is a great point, and that is what I am frustrated over. I believe this is one error and inconsistency in the Bible.
Let's be a little more intuitive and give ourselves credit. Meaning, think of it this way during early church politics certain things could have been intentionally left out and or misread or mistranslated.. Please everyone think about that for a moment. Does everybody remember the history associated with the Lost Gospels?
Again it doesn't mean we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater either.
The Bible was inspired by God but it's a human construct right? Let's be a little more sophisticated about this and give ourselves more credit and use our God-given (Kantian) intuition.
Someone please square that circle for me
Your use of âdisobeyâ and âpunishâ in reference to the Biblical story shows your limited viewpoint, though. It wasnât that A&E disobeyed God - it was that they ate the fruit. And it wasnât that they were punished - it was that they acquired a capacity they would never learn to use in the current situation, so that situation had to be changed.
From the authorsâ point of view, though, it feels like punishment. Just like Cainâs reaction to Godâs apparent favour towards Abel, theyâre reading more into it than is there - as a threat against them, evidence that they did something wrong. And another naive judgement that death/mortality is a âbadâ thing...
If I might add, that death/mortality is the existential fact of life. However, that's in part what the issue is here... . While true the Saviour is here for redemption purposes subsequent to the fall, it doesn't explain the initial judgement that we were supposedly born into. Particularly that which the Fundies posit.
So I question that there is no amount of logic that explains that concern... (?) It's kind of like the notion of who's responsible for reparations... .
So I say quit waving the Fundy flag judging mankind and make an educated renewed paradigm. Isn't it simpler to say something along the lines of " the interpretation of the allegory is that we are not perfect beings".
You have interesting things to say but please note the following:
[quote=wikipedia]The fall of man, or the fall, is a term used in Christianity to describe the transition of the first man and woman from a state of innocent obedience to God to a state of guilty disobedience. Although not named in the Bible, the doctrine of the fall comes from a biblical interpretation of Genesis chapter 3. At first, Adam and Eve lived with God in the Garden of Eden, but the serpent tempted them into eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which God had forbidden. After doing so, they became ashamed of their nakedness and God expelled them from the Garden to prevent them from eating from the tree of life and becoming immortal.[/quote]
You can view the full juicy details here
These are not my words and what I've said is as faithful to the wiki article as I could be.
:rofl:
You make so much sense to me!
I am saying that one cannot be a decent human being without knowledge of good and evil, which is basically the knowledge of everything as everything is subject to the adjectives of good and or evil.
A & E chose wisely and perhaps that is why Christians sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to god's [plan.
Christians are conflicted on this as they call what is necessary to god's plan good, yet still call what A & E did a fall.
Stupid is as stupid thinks.
Regards
DL
Why should anyone seek what is shown to be a satanic genocidal god?
Should people not seek a good god?
Regards
DL
How about a tree? Is a tree good or bad?
Because Christianity has tied Jesus to Yahweh which makes Jesus party to the genocide of man in Noah's days.
Jesus himself is shown as having really poor morals.
Just look at his no divorce and substitutional punishment policies.
Both of those are satanic.
As a Gnostic Christian, I use one of the Jesus' shown in scriptures but you will not see the church quote that one.
Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded
Regards
DL
Especially when one is fool enough to read a myth literally.
Regards
DL
I do not agree with this.
Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;
I can almost guarantee that our morals are better than bible gods and that like 70 odd % of the population, we begin our moral sense with the Golden Rule. Most other begin with a variant of it.
Regards
DL
Any who do miss the moral of the story.
Note that the Jews see our elevation which Christianity sees a fall.
Jews are correct while Christians are conflicted as they sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.
Regards
DL
What free will could A & E have when they did not know anything of good and evil?
To make a free willed choice and not a coin flip, one must know what one is choosing from. Right?
You cannot order lunch without knowing what is on the menu. Right?
A & E could not even desire to choose without knowledge of what they were choosing.
Regards
DL
Try the original/better thinking.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/20/comparative-theodicy/
âInstead of the Fall of man (in the sense of humanity as a whole), Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendantsâ."
Regards
DL
Yes, it would be quite simplistic to take your view, given that the moral of the story is that we are perfect and evolving to a more perfect state at all times.
We are always doing the best we can withy what we have and can demonstrate that we are living in the best of all possible world, --- given the past that got us here, --- and that this is the only possible world.
Regards
DL
Show which tree and where it is growing.
In your driveway is evil but in your back yard, it could be good.
Do try harder as I do not write anything that does not logically compute.
Refute or accept.
Regards
DL
They started from a blank state - meaning no bias, meaning they were truly free.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Wrong. To make a free willed choice, one must merely choose.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
You can - and you'll be informed whether it is or isn't available.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Then how were they tempted? Because they could.
And that's the story.
Yea, but this term, "image" has always bothered me in Abrahamic scripture, at least as it is conveyed in English. The term ought to be "likeness".
"Image" denotes looks, whereas "likeness" denotes character or, maybe better stated, one's nature as a being. Its the difference between "wear what JC wore" and "be like JC in spirit", for one hypothetical example.
Iâm well aware of the traditional doctrine - I was raised Catholic, thank you.
I disagree with the standard interpretation. I think that if you read it without assuming the authors, church or doctrine actually know anything for certain about what âGodâ is or how the concept relates to humanity, the Book lends itself to surprisingly astute observations about the human experience.
Hello GCB! I see that you are a little upset, from what I can infer from your posts to me (& other's).
I'm intrigued with Gnosticism. I propose to take that same level of energy and use it to help those of us who wish to raise the bar, and maybe tweak some of those aforementioned doctrine's, dogma's, precept's and/or paradigm's if you will.
That being said, as a Christian Existentialist I have come to believe Christianity does not devote enough apologetic's to spirituality. Accordingly, what is your take? In history, do you feel that church politics overruled the value of what Gnosticism had?
Obviously you are part of the spiritual realm often referred to as the collective consciousness. Please share your thoughts on, if we had a do-over, what would YOU do differently?
Not when Satan or the talking serpent is there with a power that god gave her to deceive the whole world.
Or do you think the serpent had no role in Eden? Was she just a useless character?
Quoting Shamshir
So a coin toss as they knew not what they were choosing.
Quoting Shamshir
Another coin toss.
Quoting Shamshir
You indicated that Satan had no role. Did she or didn't she and if she did, what role?
Regards
DL
I can agree with this and accept it as an decent analogy.
Regards
DL
Yes, including the fact that humans want a powerful god and not a moral one.
That is why they choose to follow a genocidal moral monster instead of seeking a good god.
Regards
DL
Upset, no. Disappointed, yes.
I hate to see people with I.Q.s and morals that are lower than plant life.
Quoting 3017amen
I think that the literal reading of myths was the worst mistake Christianity ever made. They became idol worshipers instead of the perpetual seekers after god that Jesus preached.
Christianity should have followed it's older and wiser esoteric teachings and not accepted a genocidal prick as a god. Christians end in calling evil good.
Gnostic Christianity chose morals over power while Christians have accepted an immoral prick for a god.
Have a bit of history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D
Regards
DL
One cannot honestly preach or teach as truth what isn't known for sure, plus the divine inspiration behind Genesis is just plain wrong, as Genesis is even the polar opposite of what was found.
Quoting 3017amen
Same for "Saviour" being truth and fact as being divine.
âThe preachers claim âperhapsâ as fact and truth.â
Their ingrained beliefs the priestsâ duly preach,
As if notions were truth and fact to teach.
Oh, cleric, repent; at least say, âHave faithâ;
Yet, of unknowns neâer shown none can eâer reach.
Or say 'maybe' or 'perhaps' or 'I hope' or 'I wish' instead of that it is truth and fact for sure for all. Or 'faith', which even the churches use as an honest word, but, then, of course, go beyond it to claim truth in practice, right and left. Yeah, I know, they want what they want and they want all to do the same, yet there may be children or unsuspecting adults present.
Irrelevant. A natural consequence of their blank state free will is that they could be deceived. No bias, no prejudice.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Coin toss or not - a choice is a choice.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
As far as Edem is concerned, the title Satan is not present.
Name the three origins of the Edem story, or stop spitting.
It is well known that the Sumerian and Egyptian myths were plagiarized for the bible. That mekes your request irrelevant as I am dealing with the biblical myth.
Regards
DL
I would expect that from a fool.
Regards
DL
You fail. Go to an actual museum, instead of loitering around the forum.
I share in some of both your thought processes', however, I only have time to take issue with one element.
In Christianity there is a conscious phenomenon called Revelation. In keeping with the notion of volition/volitional existent beings, to choose as Pascal did to spiritually accept a higher ideal in order to gain wisdom...is that not a virtue?
Are you negating the benefits of such?
I can unequivocally state, but not prove to you, that transformation and revelation exists in consciousness. (Being in the engineering field and a musician), I've tried to make sense out of both sides of my brain viz. our existential existence, and agree we are logically barred from a cosmologic worldly vision. And so both of you seem to think, as I, that Jesus is the better model to follow?
Can we can agree that Jesus was a Pacifist?
Can we agree he would not endorse extremism (both politically far right or far left) or otherwise in Religion?
All moral people will give the ancient Gnostic Christians points for putting morality at the top of their list for their god and calling out Yahweh for the vile demiurge he is.
All who idol worship Yahweh are idolizing genocide and a satanic god.
Regards
DL
Halfway to honesty, but better not to imply that there is no doubt as in that the truth is for sure. A 'maybe' would be best.
There was a Big Bang. (not honest)
Maybe there was a Big Bang, because everything is moving outward, but we cannot see anything before 380,000 years because all was opaque.
Yes, I know, for invisible realms it really gets tougher, as the "maybe's" have even less support than the science example above..
No.
Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.
Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over themâbring them here and kill them in front of me.
Qur'an 8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: `Wipe the infidels out to the last.'"
That Jesus seems to be quite extreme.
Then again, that is the Rome created Jesus. Not the more eastern mystic Jesus that I follow.
My Jesus is not a pacifist although my founders were and look at how easily the inquisitions wiped them out. If Christianity ever thought Jesus a pacifist, they sure did not follow his ways.
Regards
DL
I can appreciate you sharing your wisdom about half truth's.
To this end, I will take the challenge and ask you: What I'm about to say is a false. Is that a true statement?
Or more specifically, the belief in Jesus is both a Subjective and Objective truth. Is that a true statement?
Or how about this (phenomenology); I had a religious experience yesterday. Is that a true or false statement?
What do you think about our belief systems? And please save us from a bunch of political double speak. This is simple logic LOL!
"No.
Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war."
LOL, man you got to give me something harder than this LOL!
What were the conflicts largely based upon? Self inflicted? Here's a clue: Human volitional existence.
Mmmm and throw in a little bit of human Ego, and there you have it!!!!
Yes, I am suggesting that one admits up front that it is a belief for one's self rather than to proclaim it as as so as a truth for all. It's fine and honest to just say, "I don't know", as you suggested previously.
Quoting 3017amen
No one knows. Saying true or false to unknowable unshowables is not honest.
The story is an attempt to explain why [i]life is a bitch, and then we die.[/I] It would not have escaped the notice of the biblical authors that some, many, most, or all of our problems (depending on the situation) are a result of our own unwillingness to a) follow the rules, whoever announces and enforces them, b) take responsible courses of action, c) reject the seductions of various snakes in the grass who have agendas which are not in our interest, d) avoid really stupid policy and practice, and more.
For the biblical writers who believed in a just God, there had to be a monumental cause to justify/explain the enduring disagreeableness of life. Their artistic solution to the problem of the difficulty of life was to place in the story of Eden, where Adam and Eve sacrificed their innocence to the seductions of the snake/evil tempter. the cause of our daily suffering.
The faithlessness of the descendants of Abraham, is a recurrent theme in the Bible. Again and again they display ingratitude, disobedience, wanton disregard toward God. Gross negligence followed by unpleasant consequences. It's a pattern that needed a symbolic explanation which the biblical writers placed in the story of Eden.
The ancient biblical authors weren't the only writers/compilers of myths to explain the problems of the world through various kinds of divine action. Some parts of the Bible are straightforward (if biased) history. Some parts are liturgy (the Psalms). Some parts are law. And some parts are literary. The stories in Genesis are literary, mythic. They aren't intended to be literal explanations. Take the story of the flood that ends with the promise of the rainbow. It's a second creation story with a happier ending. We don't have to go hunting for evidence that there was once a flood that covered up the whole earth. Noah and the flood is another nice story that explains our being here.
If you read Job, you would not go looking for evidence that somebody named Job actually existed. Job is another story about the evil one and suffering. It is literary material, not historical. Don't take it literally.
In the New Testament, the lovely story of Jesus born in the town of Bethlehem--stars, angels, shepherds, kings, etc. is clearly LITERARY not historical. The authors who wrote that story were separated in time and place from Israel. The Temple in Jerusalem had long since been turned into a temple for the worship of Roman (pagan) gods [referenced in Jewish literature as "the abomination of desolation"]. A good share of the Jews had been deported. It wasn't a few years of separation -- it was centuries. The authors had probably never been to the former nation of Israel, now a province of the Roman Empire.
The Christmas story places the messiah in the right place and time (per literary requirements). We don't have to take that part of the story of Jesus literally.
PU, this is what I previously said and I quote:
"I can unequivocally state, but not prove to you, that transformation and revelation exists in consciousness."
Please share what is true or false with that statement? Really !
You said "Saying true or false to unknowable unshowables is not honest."
So are you saying my experiences are simply that, my experiences? And if so, why is that "dishonest'?
Not a useful leading supposition that well promotes continuing communication, but demotes.
I agree, but too many philosophers engage in extraneous double speak. They figure the more words one uses, the more important they may look & feel. Hey, would that happen to be one interpretation known as original sin ?
good point
Not according to the dictionaries I use.
In some senses, their is a bit of truth in both statements.
Jesus can only be a subjective entity, as we all have our own view of what he represents in our minds.
Gnostic Christians say you read white while I read black.
A miracle working Jesus, to be an objective reality, would have to return to show that he is as objective as written up to be.
The subjective is a truth while the objective remains a myth.
Logos and mythos are being mixed and that sort of makes it all speculative nonsense, as must be when the supernatural is in play.
Jesus used logos, not mythos.
Regards
DL
def: in a way that leaves no doubt
So, it is still slipping in that it is true for sure.
It is that for yourself only there is no doubt and it is 100% for sure, as your own experience, which is fine, as then you are not being even close to being mistaken by any listeners as you teaching truth and fact for all.
Yes, preachers always having to say 'maybe' won't make as many converts.
You were too busy laughing.
Do try to make sense next time.
Regards
DL
It makes a huge difference in how scriptures are to be understood.
Regards
DL
I fail to see the problem as our friend is quite good at analogical thinking.
Regards
DL
We can leave 'they' to be 'them'. In my posts of prose or poems, I aim to be concise and precise, trying to fill every vein with ore, putting some meat into them.
Quoting 3017amen
Original sin is more like an innate tendency in human design rather than useless philosophical babbling due to poor definitions or whatnot.
Indeed.
Let us all thank Gaia and nature for giving us the ability to compete and sin when we are not cooperating, which is what we mostly do.
Without sin, our evolution would end and we would go extinct.
The mistake Christianity did was make the Jewish Original Virtue into a sin and the success of Eden into a failure.
Stupid is as stupid thinks.
Regards
DL
Yes, and although it's not pretty, we survived not in spite of our violence but because of it!
Even some of our cooperation became due to its necessity to help in the hunt, whether of animals or enemy tribes.
Sorry, Iâm confused - whoâs waving the Fundy flag? If youâre saying itâs me, then thatâd be a first...
The snake/serpent in Genesis is not an âevil tempterâ. Youâre dipping into doctrine here. The association between serpents and âSatanâ/evil comes from Revelations - a much later piece of writing.
Human animosity towards the snake is given âjustificationâ through this story. But the serpent simply invited Eve to doubt what she doesn't understand or cannot see, and to trust only what she sees and feels instead. This is not evil - itâs what we do ânaturallyâ, the basis of human reason.
I will have to take your objection to the identification of snake/evil tempter under advisement for now. You may be right, that the snake was not yet identified with Satan when the Eden story was composed, and I may have dipped into doctrine.
What was going on in the story is more portentous than Snake merely inviting Eve to doubt what she doesn't understand. What interest did Snake have in Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit? What was his agenda (or her agenda -- the snake could have been female; in fact, I have the distinct feeling just now that the Snake in Eden was definitely female).
Revelations is certainly later than Genesis, but where did the Revelation author get the basic idea of snakes not being reliable advisors (I don't know, I'm asking).
St. John the Divine had a kind of a pipe-dream while in prison. Not all religions accept the Book of Revelation. 666ers so marked couldn't merely be killed right away, as that was too easy on them; they had to be tortured for a long time.
The serpent in Eden is referred to as âheâ in every translation Iâve read - so NOT female. And who knows what drugs the author of Revelations was on when it was written. But the reference to Satan as a âserpentâ occurs only in Revelations (from memory only once), and nowhere else in the Bible. Isnât it interesting how doctrine drums up significance for such trivial associations? What was the churchâs agenda in this connection?
Back to the story, though - why does a serpent need an agenda in order to interact with Eve? Must we assume agency because it speaks? Or is it because without an agenda it is A&E who are responsible for their own removal from Eden? (and by âresponsibleâ, Iâm not suggesting a âfallâ of any kind, so donât read too much into it - Eden only represents the situation we wish we could be in, not necessarily where we once were)
Perhaps the words of the serpent simply represent the dynamic of humanityâs relationship with the rest of biological nature. We understand now that our connection to nature is more extensive than this, but for much of our history we saw humanity as something âotherâ than nature, so it stands to reason that the relationship here is portrayed as a dialogue between two characters.
Portentous? Perhaps. It cannot be deduced from the text whether Eve received instruction regarding the tree directly from God or indirectly from Adam, as she was not yet created when Adam was told. Still, it was clear that she did have the instruction. Then Eve put together the information received from the serpent (which, by the way, was not a deception, but an interpretation of Godâs instruction from the POV of a serpent) with what she saw and how she felt, and then acted freely - but without taking into account any relationship with âGodâ (whatever âGodâ happens to be).
To call Eveâs action âdisobedienceâ is a stretch, because there is still no indication that Eve had any direct relationship with God, whose command was specifically to Adam. Interestingly, throughout the rest of Genesis it is often the wife who represents manâs relationship with the biological nature of humanity, and acts/speaks on its behalf.
This story illustrates a naive understanding of the initial dynamics of manâs key relationships: to God, to woman (Eve) and to the rest of biological nature (the serpent). It also explores how those relationships interact with each other in a way that then impacts on man. Man is the centre of his own universe in this story. Whatever the portent, there is no objectivity to be found in its telling.
:ok:
If, as you suggest, we're to take the fall of man as a metaphor why didn't the weavers' of this tale use something else for the cause of the problem? Why the the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Why?
Is knowledge a problem? Why is innocence better than everything else? I'm not asking this because I have an answer or because I think there's an answer. I only want to understand, if possible, the direction this thought, innocence placed above all, is coming from.
I mean the narrative could've been about the tree of knowledge of evil. That would've made a lot of sense. Why was good included? What's bad about good?
Nope, you're good! It was simply more of an emphatic declaration!!
Will certainly wait for Bitter Crank's answer to your concerns. There is one item where I share your concern. Accordingly I had a similar issue that I posed to Gnostic Bishop but didn't really get his take on it.
The notion of 'ignorance is bliss' is the starting point I think, then we might could parse it from there... .
For example we do know that in our every-dayness/tension of existence we encounter thoughts of say worry or fear so that we can in turn resolve them. In those instances, would it be better for us not to have that type of awareness, is the question.
The answer is probably more no than yes. Which simply implies that the tree of knowledge could be yet another metaphor that makes the distinction between higher forms of intelligence versus lower forms/other animals. Nothing more nothing less. Nothing else to read into it.
Too much good is no good.
Indeed, and it was mostly by fighting that wives were found and that pattern was quite long until people found that a trade war killed a lot fewer than a fighting war.
Regards
DL
If you look at the Vatican's expulsion painting you will see that Satan is definitely portrayed as a female.
If you read what the church fathers had to say of women, you will understand why that was done.
If you read of all the many serpent using mystery schools, you will see why Christianity was against those as well.
Regards
DL
Let me give it as a response here.
Ignorance is bliss has a benefit for believers. It makes them a tad happier than non-religious, believers live longer although generally fatter lives. Not longer by much and non-believers would rather die a couple of days earlier if it means doing as sheeple do and put their minds into intellectual and moral dissonance.
That ignorant bliss shows the least fit in society as compared to the more mentally fit non-religious who will protect their more sound thinking.
Regards
DL
Why?
Regards
DL
What I can see in your view, is something very strong within you that has been turned sour against what you think the bible teaches. It comes as a result of having seen the bible as teaching a view that is objectionable. It is in fact a spirit that you are opposing. A spirit is what puts it's ideas to us, whether through words or music or pictures etc. So it is a spirit that you are seeing come through the scriptures, that you are opposing. Yet, what you are seeing through the scriptures is of a different spirit than what I am seeing through the scriptures, and it is drawing a different picture in your mind than what the scriptures do for me. I know there are people believing themselves to be Christian who are of a different spirit than the one whom I follow (John 10:14,4-5, Ephesians 2:2, 1 John 4:4b-c).
I will try to share with you the way I see the scriptures, but of course, if you would rather see the other spirit it is your choice and I can't force you to break free from it.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
You still need to understand the nature of God from the Christian perspective. God is spirit. (John 4:24)
How do you suppose your question fits with the doctrine in John 14:10?
"Donât you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own; but the Father dwelling in Me does His works."
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
This shows that you have gone to quite an extent to oppose me. I understand morality as "do unto others as you would have them do to you". So, for example, if you are a parent and you know that the child doesn't understand how dangerous the road is, would you say it is immoral to warn them to not go there?
You have ejected the founding facts from the story in order to express that view. The world was paradise in absence of sin (Genesis 1:31), and it becomes the opposite through it (Genesis 6:5-7).
Until you bring your views to align with the facts, you will keep making errors of the same vein, and the further we push it, the more severe they will become.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
How does it happen that you don't see it? 1 Corinthians 13 is a popular definition of love, including:
Love is patient,
love is kind,
it does not envy,
it does not brag,
it is not puffed up,
it does not behave inappropriately,
it does not seek its own way,
it is not provoked,
it keeps no account of wrong,
it does not rejoice over injustice
but rejoices in the truth;
it bears all things,
it believes all things,
it hopes all things,
it endures all things.
Every point of that list is found to vindicate Jesus, and that is the Christian view of what the bible teaches: that Messiah is the perfect man, the very image of God (Colossians 2:9, John 15:22).
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
That's a strawman fallacy. There is no indication that mankind's evolution would have stopped if they had have not brought forth sin. In fact, believers have faith because of the hope in the truth to the contrary (Genesis 3:22, Revelation 2:7, Romans 8:21, 1 Corinthians 2:9).
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
I don't live that way though, and the world wasn't like that to begin with (Genesis 2:16, Genesis 13:8-9, Matthew 5:38-48). That way is the way of the world that we become when we choose to do and defend sin (Genesis 3:19, John 8:44, James 1:14-15, 2 Peter 2:1-3, Matthew 12:43-45).
.
Weâve located the Garden of Eden. It is now underwater, unfortunately, at the head of the Persian Gulf, near Bahrain. It was into this gulf that the Tigris and Euphrates rivers spilled their waters in antiquity. Nearby, the Karun River, which bears a similar name to the Bibleâs Gihon River, flows southeast through Iran towards the Gulf. We discovered all this by using Google Earth.
We have also located the Ark of the Covenant. It is in a secret chamber deep within the Temple Mount, underneath the present-day Dome of the Rock. It was hidden there by Jeremiah immediately before the Neo-Babylonian destruction of the Temple in 586 B.C. We are leaving it there since there may have been five more commandments than previously thought, and so we may have broken some of them.
Tonightâs homework is to have a wild evening sitting around reading the Dead Sea Scrolls while drinking wine. Be prepared to act them out. See you tomorrow.
Would you or anyone care if we explore a possible 'new paradigm' ( in another thread perhaps ? ). Not that it's necessarily a new paradigm mind you, in our discussions we did nevertheless uncover other concepts relative to the tree of life such as: good and bad, finitude, temporal-ness, self-awareness, humility, imperfection, et.al.
The following is an example of what's already out there which is all part of our concerns I think:
"In the past historians of religion and other students of myth (creation narrative) thought of them as forms of primitive or early-stage science or religion and analyzed them in a literal or logical sense. Today, however, they are seen as symbolic narratives which must be understood in terms of their own cultural context. Charles Long writes, "The beings referred to in the myth â gods, animals, plants â are forms of power grasped existentially. The myths should not be understood as attempts to work out a rational explanation of deity."[22]
I don't mind starting a new thread and propose a more healthier perspective (and how it squares with judgment), something along the lines of :
The tree of life: a proposed paradigm?
God would have been so bored if A&E had stayed put, but as I wrote, he created a species that was bound and determined to try any- and everything.
?? ??? ??????? ????
With flora mystical and magical,
Edenâs botanical garden was blest,
So Eve, taking more than just the Apple,
Plucked off the loveliest of the best.
Thus itâs to Eve that we must give our thanks,
For Earthâs variety of fruits and plants,
For when she was out of Paradise thrown,
She stole all the flowers weâve ever known.
Therewith, through sensuous beauty and grace,
Eve with Adam brought forth the human race,
But our world would never have come to be,
Had not God allowed them His mystery.
When they were banished from His bosom,
Eve saw more than just the Apple Blossom,
And took, on her way through Edenâs bowers,
Many wondrous plants and fruitful flowers.
Mighty God, upon seeing this great theft,
At first was angered, but soon smiled and wept,
For human nature was made in His nameâ
So He had no one but Himself to blame!
Yet still He made ready His thunderbolt,
As His Old Testament wrath cast its vote
To end this experiment gone so wrongâ
But then He felt the joy of lifeâs new song.
Eve had all the plants that she could carry;
God in His wisdom grew uncontrary.
Out of Eden she waved the flowered wands,
The seeds spilling upon the barren lands.
God held the lightning bolt already lit,
No longer knowing what to do with it,
So He threw it into the heart of Hell,
Forming of it a place where all was well.
Thus the world from molten fire had birth,
As Hell faded and was turned into Earth.
This He gave to Adam and Eve, with love,
For them and theirs to make a Heaven of.
From His bolt grew the Hawthorn and Bluebell,
And He be damned, for Eve stole these as well!
So He laughed and pretended not to see,
Retreating into eternity.
âSo be it,â He said, when time was young,
âThat such is the life My design has wrung,
For in their souls some part of Me has sprungâ
So let them enjoy all the songs Iâve sung.
âLife was much too easy in Paradise,
And lacked therefore of any real meaning,
For without the lows there can be no highsâ
All that remains is a dull flat feeling!
âThereâs no Devil to blame for their great zestâ
This mix of good and bad makes them best!
The human nature that makes them survive,
Also lets them feel very much alive.
âThat same beastful soul that makes them glad
Does also make them seem a little bad.
If only I could strip the wrong from right,
But I cannot have the day without the night!â
A warning is good, but you forget that what god warned about was exactly want he put Satan in Eden himself, which had the ability do deceive the whole world.
That takes quite the prick of a god, especially when his warning was followed by his murdering A & R by neglect and his hiding away what would have kept A & E alive. The tree of life.
You seem to think that those murders by god to be justified. Do you?
Quoting Serving Zion
So you like that a man does not take responsibility for his own words.
No wonder you are promoting a god who wishes you to use a scapegoat.
I think that you do not want to step up to your own responsibilities as well.
You have swallowed a lie and donât care how evil you make Jesus to keep your feel good get out of hell free card.
It is a lie, first and foremost because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.
You also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
There is no way that you would teach your children to use a scapegoat to escape their just punishments and here you are doing just that.
Jesus is just a smidge less immoral than his demiurge genocidal father, and here you are trying to put him as low in moral fibre as Yahweh. Satan applauds you though as you are doing her work.
Regards
DL
So you think that man's higherst form is to be too stupid to even know we was naked and having his moral sense as bling, as scriptures state was the state of A & E.
Would you deny your children the tree of all knowledge and an education?
Would you think they were their best when as bright as bricks?
Regards
DL
There are no real facts in a book of fiction.
Only fools read myths like it was history.
Regards
DL
Sure but your god is not an example of love, according to your own definition.
Regards
DL
Are you that foolish as to believe that there were real talking serpents and donkeys?
If you are that big of a literalist fool then best to ignore me as I think you are a waste of good air if you are that mentally dysfunctional
I use this on occasion as the writer asks a good question on who is a good Christian and who is a poor one. You live in poverty while i live in wealth.
Regards
DL
.
Then you are not good at analogical thinking.
Gen 3; 22 And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil;
If you know of good and evil, that would mean you have attained moral thinking and know of the ethical actions that should be taken. Right?
If you would not say they learned ethics, what do you think is meant by their knowing and learning of good and evil?
Regards
DL
What I meant was the A&E's immediate reaction. The snake promises one thing, but after she passes it to Adam and they ate: "Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived that they were naked; and they sewed together fig leaves and made themselves loincloths" (JPS Jewish Study Bible Gen 3:7).
Then they hide from God. That's where it starts getting ethical, in my reading. When they lie to God about hiding from him is when it gets ethical.
However, prior to feeling ashamed and hiding from God, I'm fascinated by their first recognition of their private parts and the need to cover them. That part isn't ethical to me, and this is my midrash, my commentary: It's the birth of the problem of sexuality in patriarchal Judaism. The natural is seen as unnatural to A&E, so they invent clothing to cover up their private parts. I would call this a form of implicit guilt about/terror of sexual desire. This is an on-going issue shoring up the patriarchal and frequently repressive version of things all the way through the Tanakh and the rabbinic writings up until the 20th century.
Regards back atchya s
I think you are trying to read Genesis like a contemporary whodunit novel. The way I read it: A&E are banished from the garden and forced to go out and experience all the joys and pains of human life. It's kind of condensed down to farming and childbearing, but God gives them the entire gamut of human experience in the expectation that they will learn how to do it right.
God never planned to keep them like a Barbie and Ken in the garden: they wouldn't have been human if they hadn't responded to God's command with the NO of the two-year-old who is acquiring both the physical coordination and the mental calculations to make her/his own decision: "NO: I'ma do things my way. I must be fully human and make my own mistakes--not a doll, an automaton."
I believe that God had to let go completely when humans were created: God understood that it was creating a species incapable of being controlled or limited by instinct. God's still waiting for us to get it right, and repair the world, tikkun olam...
If you think humanity âlearned ethicsâ at this point, then you havenât been paying attention. We havenât even âlearned ethicsâ now.
âKnowing good and evilâ (there is no reference to learning here, which is experience-based) refers to a knowledge or awareness of self in participation with the world, and thus a perception of âgoodâ and âevilâ as it pertains to the self (ie. subjective and naive judgement). Their first sense of awareness was to recognise their vulnerability as an entity distinct from the world - their nakedness - and to fear it. From the POV of an entity interacting with the world, vulnerability is a âbadâ thing, because it exposes one to interaction from the everything that could be harmful to this entity. So the first action A&E take in interacting with the world is to yank leaves off a tree and hide their nakedness.
Knowing âgoodâ and âevilâ is different from âlearning ethicsâ. A&E may have gained an initial awareness, but they were a long way from understanding what âgoodâ or âevilâ pertain to in any objective sense of the universe. That would take a wealth of experience gained over time (something A&E had within reach).
"Knowing âgoodâ and âevilâ is different from âlearning ethicsâ. A&E may have gained an initial awareness, but they were a long way from understanding what âgoodâ or âevilâ pertain to in any objective sense of the universe. That would take a wealth of experience gained over time "
That's nice! It makes me think of the differences between lower life-forms and higher degrees of consciousness. Meaning lower life-forms work mostly from instinct. Where higher life-forms (self-aware Beings) are born with more of a blank slate. Like the brain of a computer where data is entered/received to make the software work.
I wrote it. It's the intro portion of a much longer poem, 'Flora Symbolica', about the lore and legends of the flowers and plants. I'll have to figure where to put the rest of it outâperhaps I'll put it in my 'Omar Khayyam' thread. It's one of my favorite long poems that sustains one subject.
âLife was much too easy in Paradise,
And lacked therefore of any real meaning,
For without the lows there can be no highsâ
All that remains is a dull flat feeling!
Just like Barbie and Ken. We can't know ecstasy and joy and love without knowing depression, fear and frustration. Amen.
Do you know about kanneh bosm in the Old Testament? Cannabis!! Humans' very best friend in the flora kingdom.
No, I didn't know. No wonder Sodom and Gomorrah turned to stone!
Oh, Olongapo, fleshpot of fertile flora,
Pinatubo reseals your box pandora.
Fiery ash freezes your beauty in time,
A poem in stone, like Sodom and Gomorrah.
Quoting uncanni
Similar, and like Keats' notion:
Truth & Beauty
Lifeâs hardships can be softened by beauty;
Its weaknesses can be strengthened by truth.
As roses blossom like realizations,
Beauty itself blooms from the well of truth.
When a deep truth is known so intensely
That all of its clothing falls away,
Then one has learned the beauty of truth, for
The reality of meaning is beauty.
Life, although anguishing, must be lived fully;
But if weâre alive enough to feel beauty,
Then weâre exposed to its opposite twin
Yes, Beautyâs other side is Melancholy.
When sadness brooded over the morrow,
I visited the deep well of sorrow.
There enshrined, inseparate, Beauty said,
Itâs from me that sadness you borrow.
Art and poetry enrich human experience,
But theyâre no substitutes for the living of it.
Like the figures on Keatsâ urn, should we live life less?
No!âBecause what is deathless is also lifeless!
Soft breezes blow, caressing me and you
As we kiss the roses and drink their dew.
Reason and passion soon merge into one,
As truth and beauty make their rendezvous.
I see.
Do you go about naked in front of others now that you have matured?
Do you dress because it is expected of because of your shame?
The story of A & E is a coming of age and knowledge/wisdom yarn.
It has nothing to do with sex. There is no tree of sex. Just of the knowledge of good or evil sex.
Regards
DL
You seem to think we have a free will. Your bible says differently as it says god controls, by his hardening of hearts, who will believe and who won't.
I am not reading in a who done it way.
If you cannot recognize that god murdered A & E by neglect by insuring they would not eat of the tree of life, then you are not reading the story right.
Like the J W who murder their children by denying them a life saving blood transfusion, god denied A & E their transfusion from the tree of life.
If you lock up the pantry and let your children starve, then you would be analogically murdering your children.
Regards
DL
God confirms the truth of what the snake promises with regard to knowledge:
The snake, however, is devious, duplicitous. Snakes move in one direction in order to go in a different direction. What he says regarding death is true in one way and false in other. Adam and Eve did not die when they ate of the tree of knowledge, but because they ate and became like the gods they were barred from eating of the tree of life and so as a consequence of eating of the tree of knowledge they must die in order not to become immortal gods.
Quoting uncanni
This is a complicated issue. To be naked means several different things. To be naked is to be exposed and vulnerable. The term translated as loincloths is used elsewhere to mean protective garments worn in battle. The term is often translated as 'girdle', which preserves the sense of girding, as in, girding for battle. With knowledge of good and evil comes knowledge of being vulnerable, of the possibility of having evil done to you, of being harmed. There is something inept and comic in fashioning girdles of fig leaves.
Quoting uncanni
Although the term 'ethics' is anachronistic, the problem of the ability to do and suffer both good and evil is from the start ethical.
What is seen as good for food raises several questions, as does what is pleasing to the eye. What is good for food may be bad in other ways, and acting on what is pleasing to the eye may not be the proper measure of an act. Acting on the desire for wisdom has both good and bad consequences. Desiring wisdom is problematic because without possessing wisdom one cannot know if it is something that should be desired or whether acting on that desire is something one should do. Ultimately it is a question of whether it is better to seek wisdom or remain obedient. Solomon answers the question by claiming that wisdom begins with fear of the Lord, that is, obedience. But when Solomon asks God for wisdom (1 Kings) he does not mean simply to obey. Wisdom here does not mean simply obedience, since God has not given him specific instructions as to what he should do. There is no question that Eve desired wisdom. Perhaps it would have been wise to curtail her desire, but she did not. Although the pursuit of wisdom was forbidden in Eden, once they gained knowledge Eden was no longer a suitable place for them. What was a prohibition became a responsibility. But God thwarted the attempt to build a tower to the heavens:
The problem here may have been knowledge, the ability to produce, without the wisdom of how to control the knowledge of what they were capable of. God chose to limit their capabilities. But the story repeats itself. The desire to know remains even when the capacity to know is thwarted. As a side note, we should hear in the idea of a universal language as proposed by the early modern philosophers an attempt to overcome God's attempt to thwart knowledge.
Quoting uncanni
The making of girdles was unnatural, but necessary, hence their ineptitude. Talk of what is natural, however, is misguided. The fundamental division here is not between natural and unnatural but whether the ways of man are in accord with or against the will of God.
Quoting uncanni
You are trying to stitch together the whole from the part. Sexual knowledge is only a part of the larger problem of knowledge.
Yet our secular law has surpassed the morality of the old ways and only poor thinkers will not see that.
Regards
DL
Experiments with babies show they know good and evil and how to choose from the two options.
They do not have a road map but to say they have a blank slate would be wrong. They have their instincts which is not blank at all.
Regards
DL
Yes, and this is a blinding and pure moment, fleeting like a dream. Understanding that one is living a moment of truth is a marvellous experience--whether the truth is painful or ecstatic--because to recognize a felt truth is liberating. Liberating from ambiguity, from repression, from the unconscious. Those moments breathe me: I don't breathe them, and it's one of those full, complete breaths that opens one up completely.
I have a painting by Felix Nussbaum right across from my desk; this is it. One of the most breathtakingly beautiful paintings I've ever seen.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%27Self-portrait%27_by_Felix_Nussbaum.jpg
I don't think you do.
Now that's almost fascist in its authoritarianism. You are beginning to scare me.
I think I do given that you did not refute anything I put or answer the simple question.
Thanks for your opinion though. I will give it the attention it deserves.
Regards
DL
Likely because you misuse words and might be afraid of concepts.
Christianity is an example of fascism. Not anything I put.
Regards
DL
I don't think you'd use fig leaves in battle.
Quoting Fooloso4 I'd say that the Torah is the start of ethics.
And:
If we were angels, life would be so just;
Instead, we try, we push, we climb, we lust,
We dance, we dream, we feel, and love with zest;
Yes, all this, thanks to the beast within us!
Pfft.
Read the book of the dead and know that other ideologies provide better sets of morals and ethics than Christianity and their genocidal and infanticidal garbage god.
Regards
DL
Look at what you wrote to me: If..., then... That leaves me with no response. And when someone tells me I'm not reading correctly, it conjures up images of 1984 type fascism, as if there is only one right way to read. That's totalitarian thinking in a nutshell. It shuts everyone else down. Homey don't play that game.
I seems that Mother Nature went way overboard to insure offspring, but I'll take it. And to think that even in the early 1900s swimsuits had to cover everything. Men also went nutty over petticoats then and earlier.
Yes it does.
Respond by reading the story as written and see god murdering A & E intentionally.
If you cannot judge Eden and gods actions, then you can't judge anything.
If and then statements, is a great way to make a direct point. That is why they use it in computer code.
Your reading comprehension is poor.
Have you denied your children what they need to survive?
God did.
Regards
DL
I did not date them.
Again you show a poor comprehension problem.
I actually don't care about how the modern religions copied, plagiarized the older Sumerian and Egyptian religions.
We have exceeded the knowledge of the ancients. Note how secular law is the law of the land and that few religionists are advocating for their god's vile and immoral laws.
Regards
DL
If we were meant to have our foreskins cut ------
Regards
DL
I am quite polite but do not tolerate fools well.
You have little if anything to teach me so your absence is welcomed.
Regards
DL
Not food, nor water, nor air - yet surely, reason he has denied you.
Such is the faith of babble.
The tree of life is above your petty concerns.
Thanks for showing the babble in your mind and poor thinking ability.
Regards
DL
That is the point! In their nascent knowledge they are inept. They cannot adequately protect themselves. They know that there is a need but do not yet know how to meet that need.
Quoting uncanni
'Ethics' is a Greek concept, foreign to the story. With the death of the gods, the philosophers decided questions of ethics based on reasoned thought. In Jewish thought there are commandments and God stands as the final authority.
Quoting Brainglitch
Thanks :up:
There is âknowledge thatâ as awareness: an initial physical/mental capacity to integrate complex, multi-dimensional information.
And there is âknowledge howâ as experience: education and information acquired through diverse interaction with the world over time.
Understand the difference as it applies to A&E, and leave âGodâ out of it for just a sec.
âKnowing thatâ we are naked has done us no favours. âKnowing howâ nakedness (awareness of vulnerability) affects the way one interacts with the world, both positively and negatively, needed to be acquired with experience by observing the world over time - and has long been hampered by the fears we acquired from being painfully âawareâ of our own nakedness.
âKnowing thatâ without âknowing howâ has contributed to much of the fear, hatred, oppression and destruction that humans have unleashed on the world...
Not a blank slate - rather a more complex information processing system. That we are still prone to act on instinct should be obvious. The brain of a computer describes where we perhaps might have been had we not evolved from animals - had A&E not followed the serpentâs advice. Without awareness of the self participating in the world one is learning about, the amount of information one can process is hampered only by storage capacity and time. There is no fear of harm, no need to protect oneself or pretend to be less vulnerable...
But there is also no agency, no creative capacity, no genuine participation in the world. The brain of a computer can learn about the world while it follows instruction.
Nature v. Nurture:
Are all brain functions computational, i.e. can they all be boiled down to the âinput-processing-outputâ equation which in theory can be replicated in the physical world, however complex the âprocessingâ aspect of it. Or are there parts of a human brainâs roles (like consciousness, free will, memory classification etc.) that are just not âprogrammableâ?
In an overly simplistic way I always felt that the small archaic limbic system at the base of the brain was where human sentience is located, and that everything else is programmable/ blank slate....
Sure.
Let me ask again.
Would you think they were their best when as bright as bricks?
Would you deny your children the tree of all knowledge and an education?
Regards
DL
Good luck censer.
Yep, it appears GCBishop has an axe to grind for some reason(?).
I hope I'm wrong but I think he takes the Christian Bible too literally and considers it infallible.
It's sad because he gives Gnosticism a bad name. Gnosticism provides a nice balance to Spirituality that was unfortunately left out of the Bible due to' church politics'... .
It begs the question, is he a politician of some sort?
The bible is a book of myths and that is how Gnostic Christians have always looked at it.
Our irreverent use of the term demiurge shows this.
Quoting 3017amen
I fight evil as a part of my religion. If you think that gives us a bad name, you have not compared us to Christians who used inquisitions and murder to sell Christianity as they had no sound moral tenets to grow Christianity with.
Religions are on the wane and I think I spend my time best by fighting evil than trying to push my better ideology.
Secular law already has a better ideology than most religions, (not mine IMO,) and secular law shows us the good while I show the evils within the mainstream homophobic and misogynous genocidal god worshiping garbage religions.
When my interlocutors recognize the immorality of their religions, that is when I bring out my Gnostic Christian ideology.
I have to get fools to stop idol worshiping their garbage gods before they might be open to a moral one.
Regards
DL
Yep. I proudly accept your correct view.
If you think you should live by the Golden Rule, change the labels in this quote to women, minorities, gays or children being brainwashed by religions and it shows what we should be thinking and doing for each other.
"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." â Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)â
Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.
Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.
Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk
Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.
Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes. Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.
Regards
DL
I'll have to study some of your links... .
In the meantime one thing I will agree with you on is I always felt religion gives Christianity a bad name. If Christians would focus more on what Jesus stood for and not take some of the other parts of recorded history so literally it would go a long way in updating/ improving the false and/or inconsistent paradigm's. Yes picking and choosing is okay because we are smarter now... .
Being a Christian Existentialist as you know I don't take all of the Bible literally and don't believe it's an infallible text. And apostle Paul was just a preacher and not a perfect being. But I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater either. Overall the good outweighs the bad. The Bible is an awesome book... !
No, but weâre not talking about denying this. Hypothetically, it would have been a significantly easier education if we werenât so afraid.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
No, but hypothetically I would have thought they missed an opportunity for a more efficient education here.
I will reiterate that I donât believe Eden ever existed. It represents a âperfectâ situation the authors wished they could have been in, not where they believe they once were. The problem is that Jewish and then Christian doctrine pushed for a more literal interpretation to support ulterior motives, bringing in this concept of âoriginal sinâ that I donât believe exists in this text at all.
GCB: In many ways I agree with the Gnostic viewpoint. What I donât agree with is your attitude toward those who donât agree. In my view, ignorance isnât solved by vitriol, but by compassion.
A bad name? What name? No name.
Would you label if you knew the name?
You would, lest you took the meat from the freezer and mistook lamb for lamprey.
Remember: Medicine is often bitter. Despite the omission, it heals and prevents it.
Good luck mushroom picking - care with doses.
My meat is your meat
Your meat is mine
Hunting out of season makes
Taking them a crime
Where is poetic universe when you need him!!?!!
I agree with your last.
Not the rest.
What goodness do you see in Yahweh that overshadows his genocidal and infanticidal ways?
Can Hitler be said to have a good side that would exonerate his evil genocidal side?
Can God, when he says that the vast majority of us will end in hell and death?
Would a good god kill or cure corrupted souls?
No free will arguments as they do not apply please.
Regards
DL
??
Biblical stories are about all of us.
Were you afraid when you went to school? Of what?
Regards
DL
Yo dude calm down man!
You're taking the Bible too literally. If you don't think it makes sense to you don't believe in it.
But again don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!
Think about it this way; all the translations, all interpretations, all the metaphors and allegories, books left out of different religions IE Baptist v Catholicism as well as the Lost Gospels from Gnosticism, all ought to tell you something.
Give it a rest dude!
Try that and let me know when and where you succeed in changing a recalcitrant and obtuse religious mind. I have asked this of many like you and am still waiting to see a result.
I have seen too many nice guys get shit on more than I do.
Regards
DL
Nice answer to my questions.
You calm down while women and gays, half the G D planet, is being abused by the god you think is good.
Take your self-centred ways and shove them where I shove your advice and where you have shoved the Golden Rule.
If you think you should live by the Golden Rule, change the labels in this quote to women, minorities, gays or children being brainwashed by religions and it shows what we should be thinking and doing for each other.
"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." â Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)â
Regards
DL
If it makes you feel any better the Bible is in error on gays. Ambiguous genitalia babies were either not discovered, or not taken into consideration or church politics' took it out.
Again the Bible is not a science book.
And again, take a chill pill it might do you some good!
Everyone is afraid. Most refuse to admit it - they hide their nakedness, so to speak. At school I was often afraid of being wrong, of not making friends, of being laughed at...these fears hamper the learning process both in and out of school. Courage in the face of pain, loss and humiliation is the path to knowledge.
There's a thing called The Bible
and some say it's Babel.
Bible, Babel or babble
which should you choose
What are you expecting: a written testimonial? Iâm happy to pry the occasional mind open just a smidgeon. If the response I get is silence, Iâd say Iâm making inroads.
Quoting Gnostic Christian Bishop
Iâm not so afraid to get shit on anymore. Itâs no reason to communicate hatred, anger or violence, in my book.
Political correctness empowers those religious who abuse the majority of the population.
I prefer to call a spade a spade instead of being the hypocrite you want me to be.
You go ahead and lie to evil people if you like. I will continue to speak my mind.
Regards
DL
I do not feel humiliated when I learn something new.
That gift is one of the greatest pleasures in life.
Even here. I argue hard to win while hoping to lose and thus actually gain something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8VYtk&feature=youtu.be
Regards
DL
More like babble these days.
Regards
DL
Given the number of Christians that run from me due to not being able to justify their immoral views, I would say I am a great success then.
Cowards can never be moral.
Quoting Possibility
Yes it is. It is in fact the loving thing to do if it corrects poor thinking.
Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.
You just do not like that I have to resort to tough love against the obtuse and belligerent who are selling a vile and immoral god.
For evil to grow and all that buddy.
Regards
DL
When men open their mouths, locusts come forth from them. They disturb the plants and the harvest fails to synthesize.
When they remain silent, like the moon hidden in the night, clarity settles. All manner of fruit appear and go to fill silence and the harvest is auspicious.
And those who ate of the unripe fruit were unripe themselves. They could not digest it, and their teeth and bowels ached in reminder of its bitter taste.
Oft it is then - the child stomps in disapproval, as it rushes to its grave unwittingly.
Above all things consign yourself to hope, work and patience - as fortune is a fort tune, much like rain reigns over and under.
Now, stay silent or you won't hear it - but not from me.
In modern day I see this as men who blame women for their inability to control themselves (ie. when a woman is raped it is her fault). The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is taken here as the sexual reproductive organ and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as sex.
I find the word 'Elohim' (translated "GOD") to be comprised of three components:
el - towardness
o - conduit
him - sea (as in: expanse)
which I find are the image (male: phallus who bestows) and likeness (female: ovum which receives) qualities that give rise to Adam and Eve made in the image and likeness of Elohim, and the conduit through which they operate and interact with one another, which fundamentally reduces into the reproductive organ. Thus "GOD" I would define as:
As such I find the general sentiment of the "punishment" of Adam and Eve being "unjust" as fundamentally wrong with no offense intended. If a person, rather than taking responsibility for their own actions, scapegoats the blame/shame associated with the act onto another person, this is about the worst thing I find a person could possibly do, especially when the other person is the victim of the act itself. Blaming the victim of a crime for the crime having happened is terrible, and as in the case of Adam and Eve, it reveals how Adam degrades Eve which naturally upsets what would otherwise be the two of them in a garden "knowing" good and evil, which is what the Elohim do anyways. As such I find when two human beings are in a shared will relationship (ie. both share a common will) they can become "like" Elohim and know good and evil and become "like" gods. I find this to be a thing to live for: to live as gods.
When ones "negative" (ie. evil) is acted on, but the other takes it not as "negative" but as "positive" (ie. good) one who bestows negatively is being received positively by another. This is knowing good and evil, and knowledge of good and evil is learned here in this exchange.
There should be a punishment for people who abuse this practice: justifying things like rape on the basis that the woman dresses like a whore, or eats a banana the wrong way and looks like a whore doing it etc. this is the rot of the mind of depraved Men. Because man is the archetypal bestower, women are the archetypal receiver such that all transactions good and evil are bestowed by the man (either good or evil) to the woman. Thus evil men bestow in evil and take the kingdom of heaven by force (ie. rape) and good men are at least knowing this is evil.
A good God would practice infinite patience with corrupted souls, and wait patiently for them to get well.
A good God wouldn't punish people with floods, holocausts, genocides, etc.
A good God would never reject any person on the basis of sex or sexual preference.
A good God would not give any people the right to go and slaughter everyone and take their land.
A good God wouldn't try to cut deals with people: "Accept me as the only one who can save you or, I'm afraid, you'll spend eternity in hell." A good God would allow for infinite paths to enlightenment, or the practice of kindness.
A good God would never justify any kind of "holy war." There are no infidels to a good God.
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
Adam said his actions were caused by Eveâs actions, and Eve said her actions were caused by the serpentâs behaviour. All three were âpunishedâ in their own way. Why single out Adamâs culpability or scapegoating here? Oh, wait -
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
Seriously? In modern day? I realise that it may sound like youâre sympathetic to the womanâs position here, but trust me when I say youâre a long way off. Adam is not the only one here responsible for their decision/action.
Personally, I find it very difficult to liken this story to a rape situation - unless you portray the woman as an empty, passive receptacle being enacted on by all other characters. Is that really how you see women?
Thereâs a difference between silence in the face of information that is offered with compassion for their view, and running away from insults. Cowards never learn anything, except how to run away.
And moral self-righteousness is not âtough loveâ. Tough love requires a mutually loving relationship to begin with. You canât correct someoneâs thinking with abuse - your approach is no better than the fundamentalists you hate so much.
Itâs not the mark of a âgood arguerâ (ie. one who genuinely sees benefit in âlosingâ) to stoop to abuse and belittling their âopponentâ. Collaboration cannot be achieved while you still see the discussion as an adversarial argument. You actually have to completely dismantle the war metaphor, and see others as contributors to the discussion, rather than opponents in a win-lose situation. Let them guide the language use, for instance, and argue your point from their view of the world. Your gain is not so much the win, but the ability to translate your knowledge to another perspective. And their gain is knowledge. Thatâs what you call win-win.
It's not that it must be, it's just that it is. There is no apologetics needed to discern that sex is a fundamental necessity and can be approached from two ways: in a shared will arrangement in which both are willing, and in an unshared will relationship wherein one forces the other. This establishes the dichotomy of good and evil wherein a man places more importance on the satiation of his lust than consideration for the well-being of the woman.
It is the people who are ashamed of the topic of sex that manufacture suffering for themselves and others.
Adam was the one asked whether or not he ate from the tree. As you correctly pointed out, all three were punished. You see, a reader is supposed to use their own conscience and put themselves in the perspective of Adam. You ate from the tree. God is asking you if you ate from the tree. What is your response?
Adam could have taken responsibility and not brought the woman in and all, or he could have blamed the woman. What would have happened if he took responsibility?
See knowing good and evil is in the act of sex. That is what the story is about, but it is written in a way that is sensitive for immature audiences who can not handle the topic of sex because it involves evil. It involves men who "take the kingdom of heaven by force" and treat women as Adam did:
Pay attention:
This is exactly how the religion of Islam (ie. Muhammad) views women. If a woman is raped in Islam, it is her fault as the man blames her for what she was wearing, or how she was eating a banana etc. The men who blame/shame women for their own iniquity is what is evil - and they take the kingdom of heaven by force, because they can not get it any other way.
That is the power of "belief" - when you eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you "believe" to know it, which requires "belief". "Belief" is the agency required by "satan" (ie. the agency of confusion) to confuse good and evil (ie. right and wrong), which comes thus by way of "belief".
It is for this reason that "beliefs" although they may appear pleasant to the sight and it is desirable to be wise with knowledge of good and evil, over time they *surely* manifest death. If/when a person "believes" something that is not true, and this is in an ongoing state, this is the same thing as "satan": expression of being bound in an ongoing state, which is what "believers" necessarily are. The alternative is knowing what *not* to "believe" and the rest is any other tree one desires. That is the point: creation (incl. sex) is boundless, and the only boundaries that enter are the ones Adam and Eve invite due to their own ignorance. This ignorance is "belief" in things that are not real and/or true, which would not otherwise exist if Adam/Eve were knowing of who/what/where/why/when and how *not* to "believe". The boundary is invited by themselves by their own ignorance.
Sorry, but this is deflection. Stop using the example of Islam to paint yourself as the âgoodâ guy. The religion of Islam is no more âevilâ than Christianity. This story is not a response to Islam.
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
Again, deflection. As a woman, I donât put myself in the perspective of Adam - so what would you say is the storyâs message for me?
This is not a story where the reader is meant to ask himself: Do I blame/shame or protect women? If it were, then we wouldnât have to wonder what would have happened if he took responsibility.
This is a story where we are to look at the situation weâre in, and ask: where we would like to be in our relationship with God (however we understand the concept)? We canât wish to be unaware of our fragile selves interacting with the world - we canât un-eat the fruit, and weâre past pointing the finger of blame. Whatever we suffer, weâve brought on ourselves, whether God is a âbeingâ or not.
So we cannot ignore our relationship with the physical world, but we should really be paying more attention to - and seeking to connect and collaborate with - what we donât yet understand about the universe. Whether we call it God or Gnosis or something else is irrelevant. It exists, and it has much to teach us, if weâre humble and courageous enough to learn.
You correctly identified what you are yourself doing: deflecting (away from Islam).
I am not painting myself as the good anything: that would be Islam painting Muhammad as a good guy and having Muslims "believe" he is the greatest example for all of humanity. In reality he was a genocidal warlord whose Qur'an is actually evolved from Syriac Christian strophic hymns which are neither Arabic nor Islamic and Muhammadans that "believe" it is the verbatim word of a good are "believing" something that is not true, not to mention that mosques built up until 730CE are facing nowhere near Mecca. Besides...
...both Christianity and Islam are "belief"-based states which spread by the sword. Any 'state' which forces a "belief" system onto others is 'evil' - that includes what Christianity did, and that includes what Islam did and still does. Do not try to indicate that Islam and Christianity are in the same boat: Christianity actually had an enlightenment and stopped persecuting people for ridiculing Jesus. Islam never did this: it still spills blood over criticisms of the central idol Muhammad.
If you're a woman who is unable to put yourself in the perspective of a man, that is a limitation you have. The whole point is Adam and Eve can see past each others own limitations which is how they grow together.
It may not be to you - beauty is not the only thing in the eye of the beholder. But this is a part of the beauty of creation: whatever one finds beautiful is beautiful for all intents and purposes.
That's better than most do: a lot are still trying to blame an historical Adam unaware that each is their own.
It is not about ignoring the physical, it is about transcending it, which is precisely what spirituality is. A person who only experiences the physical creation is not spiritual - they may be conscious (to a certain degree) and be animated, but not necessarily spiritual.
It is related to Adam and Eve once again: a person who lives for the physical sensations related to sex are more likely to fall into evil in pursuit of it. This is the temptation: Eve gives the fruit to Adam. The lower organ commands the higher organ, which should be the other way around. There are dimensions of sex that transcend just the physical sensations which is related to actual transmutation of energy "knowing good and evil".
Iâm simply querying the relevance of Islam to the text.
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
Donât worry, Iâm certainly able to - but when there is the perspective of a woman in the text, I often choose not to - and I shouldnât have to reject the perspective of a woman in order to not be âlimitedâ. I should ask if you are able to put yourself in the perspective of a woman - if you were, then you wouldnât be writing about women in this way...
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
This I agree with.
As Iâve mentioned before, Iâm in agreeance with much of the Gnostic viewpoint in general. But when you declare this an interpretation âin modern dayâ, then I have to call hatred, oppression and bias as I see it. Between you and GCB, I have to say, itâs not a favourable impression of Gnosticism in practice.
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
??? And I sure hope Iâm reading this one wrong...
I'll follow up with another in case it is not clear below.
Islam is relevant to everything because it is waging a war against "unbelievers" for not "believing" something that is not true. If not for this problem, world peace would be possible. Islam is not a solution to peace, it is the problem to peace. It does not understand this and perpetually accuses others of being the problem, but that is the nature of scapegoating.
I am just sensing resentment here, so my response might reflect that. I am wondering why you are reluctant to try to understand from both the man and woman's perspective? It shouldn't matter what one is themselves, human is human and the human experience involves the relationship between the two and how they become one.
Just because there is a man in the text does not mean the man should not read and understand from the perspective of the woman. As I mentioned earlier, this is not only a good thing, but practically the point. It was Adam's inability to understand from the woman's perspective what he was himself doing.
Following-up from above, Muhammad and A'isha are a good example of this: whereas A'isha indicated that she has never seen anyone suffer like the "believing" woman, Muhammad's Islam was the cause of the suffering. Islam favors men such that they are the sole beneficiaries of the system, because it is a mirror-reflection of the life of Muhammad: waging war against unbelievers, and this is what Islam is bound to do while blaming others for war-mongering. The reality is inverse to what a "believer" sees it as because they have been lead to "believe" that what they see is not coming from their own house, as it is, and it is the same from the perspective of a single 'being' to an entire 'state' such as Islam.
The problem is Islam "believes" it is a solution, which is the problem itself. As is "belief" and the reason I repeat ad nauseum: "belief" is not a virtue.
Well, if one is looking for hatred, oppression and bias, one may want to look towards the House of Islam, because that is where much of it is coming from. The hatred is against the Jews and so-called "infidels", the oppression is "believers" militarily waging war against "unbelievers" and the bias is the House of Islam perpetually attempting to blame others for the atrocities its own leaders are committing. That is the reality the "believers" do not see because they either "believe" in Islam or "believe" Islam is not the problem. It is the problem - the idol of Islam did the exact same thing Adolph Hitler did which was commit genocide against Jews. What 'gnostic' would really argue that there is *not* a connection there? Certainly not this one - the connection is simple: male central figure orator military commander who weaponizes the state against his political adversaries and uses it to commit genocide against Jews. One has to be a "believer" to that this is all coincidence. Islam blames the crimes of its own house on Jews - rather pathologically.
Wow. You and GCB make quite the pair. Iâm not going to engage in your private war against Islam. And donât try to tell me I owe it to anyone else to spread hatred towards another religion. The Muslims I know are beautiful, intelligent people who communicate nothing but peace and love to everyone they encounter.
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
Once again, well deflected. Iâm not the reluctant one here. As women, weâre well rehearsed in understanding everything from a manâs perspective.
Quoting A Gnostic Agnostic
And another deflection. Youâre really quite accomplished at it! Sure - Iâll call it when I encounter it. But Iâm not looking for it, as such.
1. If itâs unjust for someone to be punished for failing to understand good and evil, and Adam and Eve were punished for failing to understand good and evil, then God exercised poor judgement in the case of Adam and Eve.
2.Itâs unjust for someone to be punished for failing to understand good and evil.
2.a. Nobody knows what morality is proper.
2.b.One must know what morality is proper in order for their punishment to be just.
3. Adam and Eve were punished for failing to understand good and evil.
4. Therefore, God exercised poor judgement in the case of Adam and Eve.
I would like to raise an objection to your second premise, and then also make an objection to your inference.
Your second premise claims that itâs unjust for someone to be punished for failing to understand good and evil. However, the moral of the story is that God is saying people need to have a moral compass. If one doesnât have a moral compass, then theyâll more often opt for whatâs wrong, since whatâs wrong is usually more inconvenient. Second, there is no form of law seem to accept that ignorance equals innocence. As Jefferson said, âIgnorance of the law is no excuse in any country. If it were, the laws would lose their effect, because it can always be pretended.â
Finally, if you infer that it is unjust for someone to punish someone for not understanding whatâs right or wrong, and you argue that nobody knows whatâs right and wrong. Then arenât you then unable to posit that God made poor judgement. Making such a statement implies that you thereâs a right or wrong, but as you say earlier, nobody has but a preference of moral theory. How can someone accept your premises that God was wrong if 1. they donât know whatâs right or wrong, 2. God doesnât know whatâs right or wrong, and 3. You donât know whatâs right and wrong. Accepting your premises on such grounds would be impossible.
As I stated in a response to another post, if God is omniscient then God knew that Eve would be tempted and eat from the tree, my response then is a classic one. If it was immoral for Eve to eat from the forbidden tree then shouldnât it be immoral to create a forbidden tree you know will be eaten from? What responsibility then should be taken on part of God for his creation? I do not follow that a perfect God could knowingly create anything other than a perfect creation. One might argue that one could create something perfect but that does not mean that circumstances outside of your control could not make it flawed. However, God is all knowing, so if you are all knowing there is no circumstance that is out of your control. God is also all powerful, which means that he possesses the capability to ensure that nothing were to flaw his creation. God therefore knowingly created the existence of sin (sin is immoral) and permitted itâs presence, so then is God immoral?
What really happenedâŚ
Deciphered From Dead Sea Scroll: ?? ??? ??????? ????
With flora mystical and magical,
Edenâs botanical garden was blest,
So Eve, taking more than just the Apple,
Plucked off the loveliest of the best.
Thus itâs to Eve that we must give our thanks,
For Earthâs variety of fruits and plants,
For when she was out of Paradise thrown,
She stole all the flowers weâve ever known.
Therewith, through sensuous beauty and grace,
Eve with Adam brought forth the human race,
But our world would never have come to be,
Had not God allowed them His mystery.
When they were banished from His bosom,
Eve saw more than just the Apple Blossom,
And took, on her way through Edenâs bowers,
Many wondrous plants and fruitful flowers.
Mighty God, upon seeing this great theft,
At first was angered, but soon smiled and wept,
For human nature was made in His nameâ
So He had no one but Himself to blame!
Yet still He made ready His thunderbolt,
As His Old Testament wrath cast its vote
To end this experiment gone so wrongâ
But then He felt the joy of lifeâs new song.
Eve had all the plants that she could carry;
God in His wisdom grew uncontrary.
Out of Eden she waved the flowered wands,
The seeds spilling upon the barren lands.
God held the lightning bolt already lit,
No longer knowing what to do with it,
So He threw it into the heart of Hell,
Forming of it a place where all was well.
Thus the world from molten fire had birth,
As Hell faded and was turned into Earth.
This He gave to Adam and Eve, with love,
For them and theirs to make a Heaven of.
From His bolt grew the Hawthorn and Bluebell,
And He be damned, for Eve stole these as well!
So He laughed and pretended not to see,
Retreating into eternity.
âSo be it,â He said, when time was young,
âThat such is the life My design has wrung,
For in their souls some part of Me has sprungâ
So let them enjoy all the songs Iâve sung.
âLife was much too easy in Paradise,
And lacked therefore of any real meaning,
For without the lows there can be no highsâ
All that remains is a dull flat feeling!
âThereâs no Devil to blame for their great zestâ
This mix of good and bad makes them best!
The human nature that makes them survive,
Also lets them feel very much alive.
âThat same beastful soul that makes them glad
Does also make them seem a little bad.
If only I could strip the wrong from right,
But I cannot have the day without the night!â
So it was that with fertile delight Eve
Seeded the lifeless Earth for us to receive.
Though many flowers she had to leave behind,
Most we have from the Mother of Mankind.
⌠(flower lore and legend descriptions) âŚ
Maybe this, maybe that, of a âGodâ,
On and on, of worn ideas long trod,
Trying to show natureâs not what it does,
Spouting this and thatâdust into the sod.
Knowledge of good and evil is not knowledge of ethics - itâs simply awareness of their own capacity for judgement, without any experience or subsequent understanding of the world. Itâs like crowning a two year old as king.
Possible! I, nevertheless, like my interpretation which, to my reckoning, is literal and so not open to multiple interpretation which would, I feel, open up a giant can of worms. Let's not get too creative, oui?
Literal interpretation of biblical text is proven to be an ignorant route, either way. Iâll not go down that road with you, if thatâs your aim.
To each his own I suppose. It's either literalism or flights of fancy. In other words, it's either incoherence, allegedly, or fantasy. They say...all roads lead to Rome. We're free! Yippee!
[quote=Aliester Crowley]Do what thou wilt[/quote]
A bit Kantian but looks more like a mirror-image of the Categorical Imperative.
I take it to mean that they had the knowledge to do or make or produce or procreate (Adam knew Eve), the results of which are both good and bad.
Well, Iâd say itâs either a âliteralâ modern interpretation of a translation of a translation of a transcription of a verbal tradition - or itâs a contextual understanding of an ancient cultural record. But you go ahead...
[quote=Cratylus]:zip: Wriggle finger[/quote]
[quote=Donalbain (Macbeth)] The near in blood, the nearer bloody.[/quote]
:fear:
The paradox is that if A&E possessed the knowledge of good and evil, they would have known not to eat from the tree knowledge of good and evil, but they didn't know so they ate from it. It was a set-up from the start and there was no other possible outcome.