Not really…
Hello Greatest
God told Adam not to eat from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (yet no such rule was made about the tree of life). The serpent’s does not ask about the rule about a tree of knowledge but whether God had told them not to eat from the trees in the garden. When she corrects the serpent she reveals that she is aware of the location of the prohibited tree, but not of the name/magical quality of the tree. Let’s remember that she was not present in the conversation God had with Adam, but was aware of the consequences of eating from that tree at the center. This could be interpreted as what she remembered from what Adam told her (her mistake), or as what Adam remembered from what God told him (his mistake). Probably the latter. But moving on, the serpent informed them that they would not die but would gain knowledge of yada, yada. This is the second time that they have been told about the magical powers of the tree’s fruit and yet (Gen 3:6) Eve is more impressed by the fruit as fruit than by the fruit as a magical fruit (“and also”).
Adam and Eve, in my opinion, like you, never quite made the connection between learning and eating, not in the way that God and the serpent knew. Now remember that this is a mythical story so are normal-thinking objections are not applicable.
The question I find more interesting is why wasn’t the tree of life also off-limits? Consumption of that became problematic after the pair gained knowledge of God and Evil. Does that mean that it is an either/or situation? Is our childlike innocence necessary to enjoy utopia? Wouldn’t be the first time I heard that. After the resurrection, in heaven, will we retain our knowledge? Do angels know of good and evil? I think that knowledge of good and evil would have no place in Heaven, the New Garden of Eden.
That is a good question. I guess it depends on the maturity of the child. Having “the talk” with a 3 year old seems cruel to me. All things in all seasons. Let a child be a child when they are a child.
Is there really a distinction to be made or is it really the same phenomenon? I wouldn’t but for my own reasons. That still does not deny that pleasant people did buddy up to Hilter, Stalin, Trumpy… could go on. Yahweh is the least problematic if you ask me. Without God, Job had nothing. He swallowed his moral high ground to capture the power his fidelity to God would procure, and this scenario has played out in the history of christian theology.
Omar
Adam and Eve, as you and I would do, rejected the tree of life, as we would know that life without knowledge of everything is not worth living. We would be ever so stupid.
That is why the scribes ignore it.
You seem to think A & E were children, which means you have ignored Yahweh telling them to reproduce way back in Gen 1.
As to Job, in Job 2;3 you have Yahweh saying that the devil made him do it, thus admitting that he is also under Satan’s control.
She move Yahweh to do harm, as Yahweh admits, without a just cause.
We sort of took off in a number of directions. Choose your poison.
Regards
DL
Omar
This old O.P. will show my views and notionsl
Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?
Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God’s culpability as the author and creator of human nature.
Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose “A” or “B” (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of “being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent” and “desiring to eat a forbidden fruit” must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and “free will” means nothing as a response to this problem.
If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.
Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.
Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.
Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.
Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.
This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.
Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.
There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.
This link speak to theistic evolution.
smithsonianmag.com/smart-new … 66/?no-ist
If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.
Doing evil then is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is to cooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note that we default to good as it is better for survival.
youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA
Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?
Regards
DL
Greatest I Am,
You’re insane. The Bible doesn’t mean shit to this cosmos, Christ doesn’t mean shit to this cosmos, god doesn’t mean shit to this cosmos (at least not like you think it does).
I’m going to tell you the perfect fucking truth right now, and you can choose to ignore it:
None of us were ever born and none of us will never die. This entire reality that we’re currently in took trillions of years to plan, and all of us as souls living FOREVER said, “sure, why the fuck not? We have nothing better to do with FOREVER! We’ll try a different plan later if we like it.”
You are so fucking misinformed about existence.
Too stupid to merit a reply.
Thanks for peeking out. Now put your head back up the ass of your genocidal prick of a god.
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
Knowledge is simply a tool so in and of itself, it is neither good nor evil. It depends on how it is used. A hammer can be used to help build a house or it could be used to crack someone over the head and murder them. It kind of swims In the same waters as does power.
So, how do we go about judging that when we all have our own preconceptions, opinions, desires, et cetera? How do we judge what is moral and ethical when there may be someone who is harmed or sacrificed for the so-called greater good?
I think that judging what is good and creates the most positive results can be a very messy and dirty affair and “the most positive results” may still be in the eye of the beholder.
Ultimate truth, if there be such a thing, demands the concert of many voices. – Carl Jung.
…and even then we may not get it right.
On judging moral, you might know that better than 70% of us start with some form of reciprocity rule, so most of us are not that far from the norm, be you on the right or left.
We can usually get consensus if we use straight logic and reason, but unfortunately we tend to be polarized to our right or left and that has us ignore logic and reason for out tribal affiliations and opinions.
I see that a lot in homophobes and the misogynous that say they live by the Golden Rule, even as they break it.
Regards
DL
Regards
DL