Satan gave man love. Was it worth the hate?

[Greatest I am]

Satan gave man love. Was it worth the hate?

Adam thought so. He instantly and without argument or hesitation ate of that knowledge when Eve offered love to Adam.

Without Satan causing Original Sin, mankind could no know of love or hate as love and hate are subject to being good or evil.

Would you do as Adam did?

Was Satan right in opening our eyes to love and hate?

Should we venerate Satan more than Yahweh who tried to deny mankind love?

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

There was no love before Adam and Eve ate the fruit???

Says who?

[felix dakat]

Satan gave man love. Was it worth the hate?

Adam thought so. He instantly and without argument or hesitation ate of that knowledge when Eve offered love to Adam.

Without Satan causing Original Sin, mankind could no know of love or hate as love and hate are subject to being good or evil.

Would you do as Adam did?

Was Satan right in opening our eyes to love and hate?

Should we venerate Satan more than Yahweh who tried to deny mankind love?

Regards
DL

Good question, bro. It's so hard to think to the ground of being below dualism like love and hate. To use the lingo of psychobabble love and hate are enmeshed like co-dependent lovers. Tradition has it that Eve seduced him. The traditional interpretation is androcentric. But, why do you think the serpent was Satan? The Genesis text doesn't say so.

[Ierrellus]

The Serpent is the evolving of the reptilian brain. See Paul MacLean on the tripartite human brain.

[Greatest I am]

There was no love before Adam and Eve ate the fruit???

Says who?

That is not what I said.

Is love good?
Could A & E love without the knowledge of whether love was good or evil?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Satan gave man love. Was it worth the hate?

Adam thought so. He instantly and without argument or hesitation ate of that knowledge when Eve offered love to Adam.

Without Satan causing Original Sin, mankind could no know of love or hate as love and hate are subject to being good or evil.

Would you do as Adam did?

Was Satan right in opening our eyes to love and hate?

Should we venerate Satan more than Yahweh who tried to deny mankind love?

Regards
DL

Good question, bro. It's so hard to think to the ground of being below dualism like love and hate. To use the lingo of psychobabble love and hate are enmeshed like co-dependent lovers. Tradition has it that Eve seduced him. The traditional interpretation is androcentric. But, why do you think the serpent was Satan? The Genesis text doesn't say so.

Right on both counts.

Christian dogma posits that the dragon of revelation is Satan and as the great deceiver, she was in Eden doing the first deception.

You are correct in that there is nothing in scriptures that sat the talking serpent was Satan. Dodma never matched the bible.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The Serpent is the evolving of the reptilian brain. See Paul MacLean on the tripartite human brain.

I think we evolved from a rodent, not a reptile.

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

phyllo wrote:
There was no love before Adam and Eve ate the fruit???

Says who?

That is not what I said.

Then how is one to interpret your statement : "Satan gave man love." ?

Could A & E love without the knowledge of whether love was good or evil?

Of course they could. They felt without judgement and without conscious awareness. They loved "as little children".

[Ierrellus]

The Serpent is the evolving of the reptilian brain. See Paul MacLean on the tripartite human brain.

I think we evolved from a rodent, not a reptile.

Regards
DL

Science claims otherwise. The brain base is reptilian. We do not create stories as seen through the eyes of a rodent. If that were the case and our first brain growth was rodent, the serpent in the garden would be a rat. We see what we are comprised of.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The Serpent is the evolving of the reptilian brain. See Paul MacLean on the tripartite human brain.

I think we evolved from a rodent, not a reptile.

Regards
DL

Science claims otherwise. The brain base is reptilian. We do not create stories as seen through the eyes of a rodent. If that were the case and our first brain growth was rodent, the serpent in the garden would be a rat. We see what we are comprised of.

Rodents are mammals. Hence there is no contradiction in saying we evolved from rodents and reptiles (the former itself coming from the latter)

[Greatest I am]

phyllo wrote:
There was no love before Adam and Eve ate the fruit???

Says who?

That is not what I said.

Then how is one to interpret your statement : "Satan gave man love." ?

Could A & E love without the knowledge of whether love was good or evil?

Of course they could. They felt without judgement and without conscious awareness. They loved "as little children".

Yes, who could never procreate, which is a spiritual confirmation that they know how to love fully. That is a part of our biological nature.

IOW, their could not get to a full blown love without eating of the knowledge of what true love is to a biological unit that must reproduce to sustain itself.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The Serpent is the evolving of the reptilian brain. See Paul MacLean on the tripartite human brain.

I think we evolved from a rodent, not a reptile.

Regards
DL

Science claims otherwise. The brain base is reptilian. We do not create stories as seen through the eyes of a rodent. If that were the case and our first brain growth was rodent, the serpent in the garden would be a rat. We see what we are comprised of.

I do not really care and just like the way it all worked out.

You alluded to information only.

https://www.livescience.com/60888-rat-c ... stors.html

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

Yes, who could never procreate, which is a spiritual confirmation that they know how to love fully. That is a part of our biological nature.

IOW, their could not get to a full blown love without eating of the knowledge of what true love is to a biological unit that must reproduce to sustain itself.

God gave them all the working biological bits so I don't see any reason why they would not eventually conceive a child if they had stayed in the garden.

[Greatest I am]

Yes, who could never procreate, which is a spiritual confirmation that they know how to love fully. That is a part of our biological nature.

IOW, their could not get to a full blown love without eating of the knowledge of what true love is to a biological unit that must reproduce to sustain itself.

God gave them all the working biological bits so I don't see any reason why they would not eventually conceive a child if they had stayed in the garden.

Let's see. God told them to reproduce way back min Gen 1 and just at the end of Gen 3 they know they had bits to cover up.

You think they would wait that long? Why?
That is man's strongest impulse after survival.

Procreation has both good and evil components and E & E could not know anything of procreation till after consuming the knowledge. Obviously.

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

You think they would wait that long? Why?

How long was it?

Procreation has both good and evil components and E & E could not know anything of procreation till after consuming the knowledge. Obviously.

What good and evil components?

What's obvious?

[Greatest I am]

You think they would wait that long? Why?

How long was it?

Procreation has both good and evil components and E & E could not know anything of procreation till after consuming the knowledge. Obviously.

What good and evil components?

What's obvious?

??

What I put.

Some components that come to mind are rape as compared to a love generated encounter.

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

What I put.

You put Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 3. Chapters are not units of time.

Some components that come to mind are rape as compared to a love generated encounter.

Rape?

There was nothing written about that in Genesis. And if Adam was raping Eve then God would have straightened it out. Right?

So they really did not need knowledge of good and evil for procreation.

[Ierrellus]

IMHO, the thread still lacks a credible definition of hate as applied to Adam's and Eve's awakening into consequences of behavior.

[Greatest I am]

What I put.

You put Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 3. Chapters are not units of time.

Some components that come to mind are rape as compared to a love generated encounter.

Rape?

There was nothing written about that in Genesis. And if Adam was raping Eve then God would have straightened it out. Right?

So they really did not need knowledge of good and evil for procreation.

That is not what the story says. It says they could not because they lacked the knowledge of anything that had good or evil applications. That would include procreation and sexual matters.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

One cannot know what to order when there is no menu known.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

IMHO, the thread still lacks a credible definition of hate as applied to Adam's and Eve's awakening into consequences of behavior.

If I have to define well defined words from a dictionary then you show you cannot use a dictionary.

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

That is not what the story says. It says they could not because they lacked the knowledge of anything that had good or evil applications. That would include procreation and sexual matters.

That can't be correct because it would prevent them from doing literally anything. They couldn't pick up a stick because it might be used to hit someone or poke out an eye. They couldn't use their hands because hands can be used to strangle someone. Feet ... kicking someone. Etc.

If Adam can use his hands without doing harm then he can use his penis without doing harm.

[Karpel Tunnel]

That is not what the story says. It says they could not because they lacked the knowledge of anything that had good or evil applications. That would include procreation and sexual matters.

That can't be correct because it would prevent them from doing literally anything. They couldn't pick up a stick because it might be used to hit someone or poke out an eye. They couldn't use their hands because hands can be used to strangle someone. Feet ... kicking someone. Etc.

If Adam can use his hands without doing harm then he can use his penis without doing harm.

Well said, and further they even seemed to find mere nakedness sinful, which is not evil.

[phyllo]

Yes. Why would they be ashamed of their nakedness?

God had made them naked. He had no problem with it. They had no problem with it until they ate the fruit.

It's like the fruit messed up their thinking.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Yes. Why would they be ashamed of their nakedness?

God had made them naked. He had no problem with it. They had no problem with it until they ate the fruit.

It's like the fruit messed up their thinking.

Which would mean either apple did not contain just knowledge, but also some strange irrational stuff, OR being naked is equivalent in kind, though not degree, to acts like rape. Which would be weird.

The story almost seems to imply that it is not knowledge, but the judgment of things being good and evil is the problem. Like they swallowed a concept that is harmful and not the truth. But then much of the Bible seems to clearly indicate that there is good and evil, and thus it is not a false set of categories.

The phrase in Hebrew: טוֹב וָרָע, tov wa-raʿ, literally translates as good and evil. This may be an example of the type of figure of speech known as merism, a literary device that pairs opposite terms together in order to create a general meaning, so that the phrase "good and evil" would simply imply "everything". This is seen in the Egyptian expression evil-good, which is normally employed to mean "everything". In Greek literature, Homer also uses the device when he lets Telemachus say, "I know all things, the good and the evil" (Od.20:309-10).[1]

If tree of the knowledge of good and evil is to be understood to mean a tree whose fruit imparts knowledge of everything, this phrase does not necessarily denote a moral concept. This view is held by several scholars.[1][2][3]

However, given the context of disobedience to God, other interpretations of the implications of this phrase also demand consideration. Robert Alter emphasizes the point that when God forbids the man to eat from that particular tree, he says that if he does so, he is "doomed to die". The Hebrew behind this is in a form regularly used in the Hebrew Bible for issuing death sentences.[4]

[phyllo]

I see it as the introduction of dualistic thinking. Consciously separating things into this and that categories.

It's inevitable and necessary but there are undesirable consequences.

"doomed to die" is the characterization of death as a negative and the consequence is fear of death.

Buddhist enlightenment is an attempt to shed dualistic thinking and to return to the garden