NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems to me that the most telling concept of the Bible is found at the beginning, yet is hardly addressed in any satisfactory way in the scripture (at least in my opinion.

That concept, of course, is the title of my thread. So many questions arise as to the nature of God and the nature of man when we consider the Tree of Knowledge.

For example:

Did God intend for mankind to be without a will of our own?
Was the first sin necessary for God's plan, did he create us with intentions of testing us and ultimately damning most of us?
Should Adam and Eve (even Satan) be both reviled for introducing us to sin and suffering, but also praised for introducing us to virtue and glory?

What meaning do you draw from the creation and sampling of the Tree of Knowledge?

It seems to me that the most telling concept of the Bible is found at the beginning, yet is hardly addressed in any satisfactory way in the scripture (at least in my opinion.

That concept, of course, is the title of my thread. So many questions arise as to the nature of God and the nature of man when we consider the Tree of Knowledge.

For example:

Did God intend for mankind to be without a will of our own?
Was the first sin necessary for God's plan, did he create us with intentions of testing us and ultimately damning most of us?
Should Adam and Eve (even Satan) be both reviled for introducing us to sin and suffering, but also praised for introducing us to virtue and glory?

What meaning do you draw from the creation and sampling of the Tree of Knowledge?

Did God intend for mankind to be without a will of our own? no. Adam and Eve choose to sample the fruit against God's instructions not to. a prime example of Free Will. after all, they could've said no to the serpent.

Was the first sin necessary for God's plan, did he create us with intentions of testing us and ultimately damning most of us? good question. My answer? no. but he has to judge us for our actions.

Should Adam and Eve (even Satan) be both reviled for introducing us to sin and suffering, but also praised for introducing us to virtue and glory? that's up to each person. I don't Revile Adam nor Eve for their action. I do, however, revile satan for destroying the innocence within Adam and Eve. the same as I would revile anyone who abuses or rapes a child.

I tend to look at the whole "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" thing a lot like Star Wars. Eve didn't pay attention to the deal, she already knew good, now if she broke the rule and ate of the tree she would know evil, then she would know good and evil. See?

It's like on Star Wars in Episode I, they say (a few times I think) that there are no more sith, because the Jedi got them all, so the whole place is overrun with Jedi. Well, then they meet Anakin and they are all happy because "wow, he will balance the force!!!!!!!", they are so freaking stupid........I wanted to shout at the screen THE FORCE IS UNBALANCED IN YOUR FAVOR! DON'T SCREW WITH IT!!!!!!!
:headbang:
idiots.

I find it telling that the primary sin of mankind, according to Christianity, was that of trying to gain knowledge. The whole Tree of Knowledge thing always bothered me: people should never be punished for attempting to learn, and no one (not even a god) should make any information forbidden.

the way i interpret it is, satan was the saviour of the human race, and god threw a hissy fit cuz satan liberated his playthings.

I find it telling that the primary sin of mankind, according to Christianity, was that of trying to gain knowledge. The whole Tree of Knowledge thing always bothered me: people should never be punished for attempting to learn, and no one (not even a god) should make any information forbidden.

I don't think it's the knowledge in the sense of knowing about it, but more the experience of......you know?

well, anyway, I take all kinds of liberty with Genesis so, don't pay attention to me. ;)

Well, mankind had to have had free will in order to disobey God in the first place; however, since they lacked moral knowledge they couldn't know that their decision was wrong and instead went with their instincts, which were to take what they wanted and not worry about the consequences since it was apparently free for the taking.

If anything, it seems to be a metaphorical interpretation of the struggle between our biological instincts and moral knowledge; we developed the latter, but at the cost of having to deal with the stresses and difficulties associated with that knowledge.

the way i interpret it is, satan was the saviour of the human race, and god threw a hissy fit cuz satan liberated his playthings.

"The Bible, which is a very interesting and here and there very profound book when considered as one of the oldest surviving manifestations of human wisdom and fancy, expresses this truth very naively in its myth of original sin. Jehovah, who of all the good gods adored by men was certainly the most jealous, the most vain, the most ferocious, the most unjust, the most bloodthirsty, the most despotic, and the most hostile to human dignity and liberty - Jehovah had just created Adam and Eve, to satisfy we know not what caprice; no doubt to while away his time, which must weigh heavy on his hands in his eternal egoistic solitude, or that he might have some new slaves. He generously placed at their disposal the whole earth, with all its fruits and animals, and set but a single limit to this complete enjoyment. He expressly forbade them from touching the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He wished, therefore, that man, destitute of all understanding of himself, should remain an eternal beast, ever on all-fours before the eternal God, his creator and his master. But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.

We know what followed. The good God, whose foresight, which is one of the divine faculties, should have warned him of what would happen, flew into a terrible and ridiculous rage; he cursed Satan, man, and the world created by himself, striking himself so to speak in his own creation, as children do when they get angry; and, not content with smiting our ancestors themselves, he cursed them in all the generations to come, innocent of the crime committed by their forefathers."
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State

The serpent was the liberator that gave us freedom and knowledge.

I find it telling that the primary sin of mankind, according to Christianity, was that of trying to gain knowledge. The whole Tree of Knowledge thing always bothered me: people should never be punished for attempting to learn, and no one (not even a god) should make any information forbidden.That always really bothered me too. In other religions, say the Greek pantheon, the bringer of knowledge to mankind is revered. In Christianity they are reviled.

That always really bothered me too. In other religions, say the Greek pantheon, the bringer of knowledge to mankind is revered. In Christianity they are reviled.

really? wasn't Prometheus (http://messagenet.com/myths/bios/promethe.html) chained by Zeus and had his liver eaten out by an eagle only to have that liver regenrate to be eaten again... endless torment.

doesn't sound much like being Revered by the Greek Patheon to me..

He wasn't revered by the Greek pantheon, but by mankind. The Greeks at least have the sense to see their gods fucked up.

So you are saying that the stories are written by the Gods and not by man?

"The Bible, which is a very interesting and here and there very profound book when considered as one of the oldest surviving manifestations of human wisdom and fancy, expresses this truth very naively in its myth of original sin. Jehovah, who of all the good gods adored by men was certainly the most jealous, the most vain, the most ferocious, the most unjust, the most bloodthirsty, the most despotic, and the most hostile to human dignity and liberty - Jehovah had just created Adam and Eve, to satisfy we know not what caprice; no doubt to while away his time, which must weigh heavy on his hands in his eternal egoistic solitude, or that he might have some new slaves. He generously placed at their disposal the whole earth, with all its fruits and animals, and set but a single limit to this complete enjoyment. He expressly forbade them from touching the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He wished, therefore, that man, destitute of all understanding of himself, should remain an eternal beast, ever on all-fours before the eternal God, his creator and his master. But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.

We know what followed. The good God, whose foresight, which is one of the divine faculties, should have warned him of what would happen, flew into a terrible and ridiculous rage; he cursed Satan, man, and the world created by himself, striking himself so to speak in his own creation, as children do when they get angry; and, not content with smiting our ancestors themselves, he cursed them in all the generations to come, innocent of the crime committed by their forefathers."
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State

ah yes bakunin. i knew i'd got that from somewhere.

shit, busted for plagiarism again!

really? wasn't Prometheus (http://messagenet.com/myths/bios/promethe.html) chained by Zeus and had his liver eaten out by an eagle only to have that liver regenrate to be eaten again... endless torment.

doesn't sound much like being Revered by the Greek Patheon to me..He wasn't revered by the Greek pantheon, but by mankind. The Greeks at least have the sense to see their gods fucked up.

I tend to look at the whole "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" thing a lot like Star Wars. Eve didn't pay attention to the deal, she already knew good, now if she broke the rule and ate of the tree she would know evil, then she would know good and evil. See?

It's like on Star Wars in Episode I, they say (a few times I think) that there are no more sith, because the Jedi got them all, so the whole place is overrun with Jedi. Well, then they meet Anakin and they are all happy because "wow, he will balance the force!!!!!!!", they are so freaking stupid........I wanted to shout at the screen THE FORCE IS UNBALANCED IN YOUR FAVOR! DON'T SCREW WITH IT!!!!!!!
:headbang:
idiots.

I didn't realize how stupid that was until later. They said he failed...pshh. Vader brought balance to the force by bringing back the Sith.

So you are saying that the stories are written by the Gods and not by man?
OMG- Timewarp.

Exactly where do you get that?
All mythology is made by man. The Greeks just structured theirs a little differently. Instead of the gods being all wise they were as big of fuckups as mankind. None of that "Yes, he is all good and just, we just haven't figured out the part about him turning into a swan and raping someone or having however many people killed because he has a census phobia."

I didn't realize how stupid that was until later. They said he failed...pshh. Vader brought balance to the force by bringing back the Sith.

off tangent, but I've always believed that it wasn't Anniken who was to bring balance to the force, but Luke.

1) they never said that Anniken was the chosen one. only that his Miti count was the highest. Did they test Luke?

2) while Anniken did bring balance by removing the Jedi, it was Luke that removed the Sith in Anniken and allowed him to kill the Emperor.

3) assuming that all the Jedi were killed, Luke is actually starting from point 0. no Jedi Council, no Sith overlord. and an abridged training session with Yoda and Obi-wan. thus he's closer to the center than anyone... including Anniken.

OMG- Timewarp.

Exactly where do you get that?
All mythology is made by man. The Greeks just structured theirs a little differently. Instead of the gods being all wise they were as big of fuckups as mankind. None of that "Yes, he is all good and just, we just haven't figured out the part about him turning into a swan and raping someone or having however many people killed because he has a census phobia."
yet Prometheus was punished by the Gods... and who wrote that? man.

thus, even in Greek mythos, the bringer of knowledge was punished. Remember, the Titans in Greek mythos were not the good guys, they made the olympian gods look like the good guys. Prometheus was a titan. so in Greek Mythos, the bringer of knowledge was 1) a Titan, 2) punished for eternaty and 3) written by man.

really? wasn't Prometheus (http://messagenet.com/myths/bios/promethe.html) chained by Zeus and had his liver eaten out by an eagle only to have that liver regenrate to be eaten again... endless torment.

doesn't sound much like being Revered by the Greek Patheon to me..

Yes, he was punished by the gods, but he is still a revered figure to the Greeks themselves for having given them fire.

After all, it's not like the Olympian Gods are the paragons of virtue.

Oh god, all this time-warping just made me dizzy. I need to stop drinking so much.

Yes, he was punished by the gods, but he is still a revered figure to the Greeks themselves for having given them fire.

After all, it's not like the Olympian Gods are the paragons of virtue.

but my point is, if he is to be Revered by man, why did man punish him so within their tales. killing him would still show the evil of the Gods (and there are stories of the Gods killing the Titans) and still shows (through the storytellers) that Prometheus was favored among the mortals.

not even the Reviled Satan wasn't punished so.

but my point is, if he is to be Revered by man, why did man punish him so within their tales. killing him would still show the evil of the Gods (and there are stories of the Gods killing the Titans) and still shows (through the storytellers) that Prometheus was favored among the mortals.

not even the Reviled Satan wasn't punished so.

Because Prometheus' act was the only act of the ancient Greek pantheon to have a permanent and lasting effect on the development of man (Discounting Hades' marriage to Persephone and the subsequent creation of winter, as in Olympian Logic, it's his Underworld, he'll do with it whatever the hell he wants). Therefore, Prometheus' punishment is an equally eternal one.

And the Greeks are well known for assigning permanent penalties for infractions with the Olympian Gods. Just ask Sisyphus, Lycaon, Ixion, and Tantalus.

but my point is, if he is to be Revered by man, why did man punish him so within their tales. killing him would still show the evil of the Gods (and there are stories of the Gods killing the Titans) and still shows (through the storytellers) that Prometheus was favored among the mortals.

Perhaps it was considered a noble sacrifice. A certain other religious figure was said to have sacrificed himself for the good of humankind (even if the consequences only lasted a few days).

Because Prometheus' act was the only act of the ancient Greek pantheon to have a permanent and lasting effect on the development of man (Discounting Hades' marriage to Persephone and the subsequent creation of winter, as in Olympian Logic, it's his Underworld, he'll do with it whatever the hell he wants). Therefore, Prometheus' punishment is an equally eternal one.

And the Greeks are well known for assigning permanent penalties for infractions with the Olympian Gods. Just ask Sisyphus, Lycaon, Ixion, and Tantalus.

(memory fails me, but the godling that stole Apollo's chariot...) funny he wasn't punished yet the effects were permanent.

the only problem is. that the Greek Gods were blamed for everything. it was never the human's fault. Man was only the helpless pawn for the God's amusement.

Christianity puts sin where it belongs. on man. on the choices and free will man excercises.

and Christianity also puts salvation onto the responsibility of man. again, our choice.

Because Prometheus' act was the only act of the ancient Greek pantheon to have a permanent and lasting effect on the development of man (Discounting Hades' marriage to Persephone and the subsequent creation of winter, as in Olympian Logic, it's his Underworld, he'll do with it whatever the hell he wants). Therefore, Prometheus' punishment is an equally eternal one.

And the Greeks are well known for assigning permanent penalties for infractions with the Olympian Gods. Just ask Sisyphus, Lycaon, Ixion, and Tantalus.

Pandora's box? (Though that is admittedly a subset of prometheus's actions per the hesiod; but not an inevitable outcome nevertheless ).

Anyway, an erudite post on NSG. It is not welcome here. :mad:

Perhaps it was considered a noble sacrifice. A certain other religious figure was said to have sacrificed himself for the good of humankind (even if the consequences only lasted a few days).

Prometheus didn't sacrifice himself. he was caught and tortured.

the other religious figure was also tortured but eventually he died. So his torture ended.

(memory fails me, but the godling that stole Apollo's chariot...) funny he wasn't punished yet the effects were permanent.

the only problem is. that the Greek Gods were blamed for everything. it was never the human's fault. Man was only the helpless pawn for the God's amusement.

Christianity puts sin where it belongs. on man. on the choices and free will man excercises.

and Christianity also puts salvation onto the responsibility of man. again, our choice.

Not exactly. If salvation were our responsibility, we'd have to actually work for it, rather than submitting to the will of a higher power.

Not exactly. If salvation were our responsibility, we'd have to actually work for it, rather than submitting to the will of a higher power.

before Jesus's sacrifice, we did have to work for it. sacrifices and rituals.

now we just have to make the effort to pray and repent.

before Jesus's sacrifice, we did have to work for it. sacrifices and rituals.

now we just have to make the effort to pray and repent.

Which never really seemed like much to me. I just don't get it, which is why I've never seen the Abrahmic religions as a viable religion for me (Judaism not being viable because it's a pain in the ASS to convert).

But that's an issue of faith, not...whatever it is we're discussing.

Did God intend for mankind to be without a will of our own? no. Adam and Eve choose to sample the fruit against God's instructions not to. a prime example of Free Will. after all, they could've said no to the serpent.

While I was typing out the OP, a contradiction occurred to me: How could God punish Adam and Eve (and all of humanity) for an action they committed before they knew the difference between good and evil?

"The Bible, which is a very interesting and here and there very profound book when considered as one of the oldest surviving manifestations of human wisdom and fancy, expresses this truth very naively in its myth of original sin. Jehovah, who of all the good gods adored by men was certainly the most jealous, the most vain, the most ferocious, the most unjust, the most bloodthirsty, the most despotic, and the most hostile to human dignity and liberty - Jehovah had just created Adam and Eve, to satisfy we know not what caprice; no doubt to while away his time, which must weigh heavy on his hands in his eternal egoistic solitude, or that he might have some new slaves. He generously placed at their disposal the whole earth, with all its fruits and animals, and set but a single limit to this complete enjoyment. He expressly forbade them from touching the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He wished, therefore, that man, destitute of all understanding of himself, should remain an eternal beast, ever on all-fours before the eternal God, his creator and his master. But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.

We know what followed. The good God, whose foresight, which is one of the divine faculties, should have warned him of what would happen, flew into a terrible and ridiculous rage; he cursed Satan, man, and the world created by himself, striking himself so to speak in his own creation, as children do when they get angry; and, not content with smiting our ancestors themselves, he cursed them in all the generations to come, innocent of the crime committed by their forefathers."
- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State

It was my reading of God and the State that inspired this post.

Well done Soheran.

While I was typing out the OP, a contradiction occurred to me: How could God punish Adam and Eve (and all of humanity) for an action they committed before they knew the difference between good and evil?

Look, you miss the point. Eating the fruit is not about good or evil, it is about obedience.

God, who walked with adam, told him specifically not to eat from that tree, yet adam did. He wasn't punished for a good/evil thing but for a disobedience to god thing.

In other words you are missing the point of the story. It's about man's relationship with god, not a test of good or evil. See abram, later on.

(At least that's how my jewish relatives tell me).

Look, you miss the point. Eating the fruit is not about good or evil, it is about obedience.

God, who walked with adam, told him specifically not to eat from that tree, yet adam did. He wasn't punished for a good/evil thing but for a disobedience to god thing.

In other words you are missing the point of the story. It's about man's relationship with god, not a test of good or evil. See abram, later on.

(At least that's how my jewish relatives tell me).

And then it returns to my original question of free will. Does God intend us to be slaves with no will of our own?

And then it returns to my original question of free will. Does God intend us to be slaves to his will?

No. Not quite.

Look, I see where you are coming from, but it is a post enlightenment viewpoint.

To a really religious jew there is nothing supernatural about god, he is as much the part of the universe as gravity.

It's hard to explain, but look at it metaphorically: you can throw yourself off a tall building. You know what will happen if you do, right? Jam pudding on the ground! Still even though the 'laws' of the universe cannot be avoided in this case you still have free will about them. You can still choose to jump.

To a religious jew, the laws of god are the same.

(I'm an atheist BTW, so probably the wrong person to explain this. Also I was raised C of E.)

No. Not quite.

Look, I see where you are coming from, but it is a post enlightenment viewpoint.

To a really religious jew there is nothing supernatural about god, he is as much the part of the universe as gravity.

It's hard to explain, but look at it metaphorically: you can throw yourself off a tall building. You know what will happen if you do, right? Jam pudding on the ground! Still even though the 'laws' of the universe cannot be avoided in this case you still have free will about them. You can still choose to jump.

To a religious jew, the laws of god are the same.

(I'm an atheist BTW, so probably the wrong person to explain this. Also I was raised C of E.)

We are a slave to natural forces, but I hardly consider them benevolent.

C of E?

Church of England.

But does that clear the free will thing up?

No. Not quite.

Look, I see where you are coming from, but it is a post enlightenment viewpoint.

To a really religious jew there is nothing supernatural about god, he is as much the part of the universe as gravity.

It's hard to explain, but look at it metaphorically: you can throw yourself off a tall building. You know what will happen if you do, right? Jam pudding on the ground! Still even though the 'laws' of the universe cannot be avoided in this case you still have free will about them. You can still choose to jump.

To a religious jew, the laws of god are the same.

(I'm an atheist BTW, so probably the wrong person to explain this. Also I was raised C of E.)

C of E?

To a religious jew, the laws of god are the same.

How can that be, if they are violable?

How can that be, if they are violable?

They aren't. Not really.

You break them and the consequence will flow therefrom. Now we could argue whether or not these things actually happen, but that's a different inquiry.

You break them and the consequence will flow therefrom.

But then there's still a moral judgment being made.

God, after all, is perfectly just and all-loving, so the punishments He bestows must similarly be just. It follows that disobedience in and of itself, even disobedience prior to understanding good and evil, deserves to be punished - a view incompatible with respect for human liberty.

We are a slave to natural forces, but I hardly consider them benevolent.

Where does benevolence come into this?

God, after all, is perfectly just and all-loving, so the punishments He bestows must similarly be just. It follows that disobedience in and of itself, even disobedience prior to understanding good and evil, deserves to be punished - a view incompatible with respect for human liberty.

Where in torah does it say that?

Where does benevolence come into this?

I guess it need not, but I have always understood the Judaic God as being a rather stern, but still benevolent being.

I guess it need not, but I have always understood the Judaic God as being a rather stern, but still benevolent being.

Look, I'm probably the wrong person, but as far as I know benevolence isn't really part of it. It's more sort of: "Obey me, And I shall make A MIGHTY nation" type stuff.


But in terms of post enlightenment morality, you can't really make sense of the whole thing. God is not part of the renaissance.

Look, I'm probably the wrong person, but as far as I know benevolence isn't really part of it. It's more sort of: "Obey me, And I shall make A MIGHTY nation" type stuff.

I am hardly well versed in Judaism, but that is not contradictory to what I understand of God. He was a real asskicker for the most part.

But in terms of post enlightenment morality, you can't really make sense of the whole thing. God is not part of the renaissance.

Well, he was, but thinkers did do much to reason him away.

Where in torah does it say that?

Does it say what?

as far as I know benevolence isn't really part of it.

And you're wrong.

God is referred to as "righteous", "compassionate", "just", "merciful" etc. countless times in the Bible.

Furthermore, Jewish tradition has always regarded Him as such.

But in terms of post enlightenment morality, you can't really make sense of the whole thing.

"Post-enlightenment morality" is directly rooted in Judeo-Christian morality.

Actually, I shouldn't say that - I should say it is directly rooted in universal morality, of which Judeo-Christian morality is a part.

Does it say what?

That god is all loving and just. I mean I could be wrong, because I don't give a shit, but all I can remember is the jealous god thing?

"Post-enlightenment morality" is directly rooted in Judeo-Christian morality.

Actually, I shouldn't say that - I should say it is directly rooted in universal morality, of which Judeo-Christian morality is a part.

No it isn't. Post enlightenment morality is rooted in Epicurus and Kung fu tze. It has nothing to do with a theistic viewpoint.

And you're wrong.

God is referred to as "righteous", "compassionate", "just", "merciful" etc. countless times in the Bible.



And you know what, I've never claimed to be a biblical scholar, but I would like references from the pentateuch wherin god is given the just appellation.

It has nothing to do with a theistic viewpoint.

I find that very hard to believe. Justify it.

And you know what, I've never claimed to be a biblical scholar, but I would like references from the pentateuch wherin god is given the just appellation.

The first example that comes to mind is Genesis 18.

23 And Abraham drew near, and said: 'Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 Peradventure there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt Thou indeed sweep away and not forgive the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? 25 That be far from Thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked, that so the righteous should be as the wicked; that be far from Thee; shall not the Judge of all the earth do justly?'

The first example that comes to mind is Genesis 18.

And who was arguing for justice there? God? No.

And who was arguing for justice there? God? No.

God could easily have ignored the challenge. He didn't.

I didn't want to quote the whole passage, but:

26 And the LORD said: 'If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will forgive all the place for their sake.' 27 And Abraham answered and said: 'Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD, who am but dust and ashes. 28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous; wilt Thou destroy all the city for lack of five?' And He said: 'I will not destroy it, if I find there forty and five.' 29 And he spoke unto Him yet again, and said: 'Peradventure there shall be forty found there.' And He said: 'I will not do it for the forty's sake.' 30 And he said: 'Oh, let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak. Peradventure there shall thirty be found there.' And He said: 'I will not do it, if I find thirty there.' 31 And he said: 'Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD. Peradventure there shall be twenty found there.' And He said: 'I will not destroy it for the twenty's sake.' 32 And he said: 'Oh, let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak yet but this once. Peradventure ten shall be found there.' And He said: 'I will not destroy it for the ten's sake.'

I find that very hard to believe. Justify it.

No you are right. Only people with the benefit of judeo-christian tradition can be moral as we understand it.

No you are right. Only people with the benefit of judeo-christian tradition can be moral as we understand it.

That is not at all what I said.

Indeed, I said quite the opposite:

Actually, I shouldn't say that - I should say it is directly rooted in universal morality, of which Judeo-Christian morality is a part.

Morality is rooted in empathy and compassion, and those are natural human traits shared by all.

God could easily have ignored the challenge. He didn't.


He still destroyed he city.

He still destroyed he city.

Because He judged that there weren't even ten righteous people in the city. So He let the righteous ones - Lot and his family - escape, and destroyed the rest.

That is all in perfect keeping with a reasonable conception of justice.

Because He judged that there weren't even ten righteous people in the city. So He let the righteous ones - Lot and his family - escape, and destroyed the rest.

Those are all in perfect keeping with justice.

And so where does it say he was just? Would you condone that today? I think not.

Morality is rooted in empathy and compassion, and those are natural human traits shared by all.

Tell that to the Spartans.

And so where does it say he was just?

Abraham says it, and God accepts his claim.

Would a deity uncaring about justice care about protecting the innocent?

Would you condone that today? I think not.

No, because undoubtedly the Biblical God's standards of what is "wicked" and my own differ significantly.

Tell that to the Spartans.

So you claim that the Spartans lacked empathy and compassion?

So you claim that the Spartans lacked empathy and compassion?

I think that was one of their defining points, don't you?

Μολὼν Λαβέ, and all.

I think that was one of their defining points, don't you?

No. It would have made basic human relations very difficult.

Abraham says it, and God accepts his claim.

Would a deity uncaring about justice care about protecting the innocent?

Did he protect the innocent because he felt that he ought to protect the innocent, or did he protect the few innocent (disregarding that there may have been others which he did destroy) because he was asked? Clearly he was prepared to burn the innocent with the guilty in the first place. You cannot therefore claim that he is a just god from this passage.

No, because undoubtedly the Biblical God's standards of what is "wicked" and my own differ significantly.

Which is what I have been saying all along.

Clearly he was prepared to burn the innocent with the guilty in the first place.

No, He wasn't. The purpose of the argument is simply to demonstrate this to Abraham.

Why do you think He saved Noah?

Which is what I have been saying all along.

No, it isn't.

God, after all, is perfectly just and all-loving, so the punishments He bestows must similarly be just. It follows that disobedience in and of itself, even disobedience prior to understanding good and evil, deserves to be punished - a view incompatible with respect for human liberty.

You objected to this on the basis that God is never described as just - meaning not that standards of justice differ, but that it is not fair to say that religious justice mandates punishment for disobedience.

The one thing God never is in the Bible is arbitrary.

He gives to people what they are said to justly deserve. We may disagree, but He is operating by a standard of justice.

No. It would have made basic human relations very difficult.

And it did, and that is why there are no more spartans.

In answer to the original post, the following is how I understand the Tree of Knowledge, and its subsequent purpose. It's fairly draft-like, there is a lot of information I could go into, but for the purposes of not having to write for hours upon hours, managed to come up with the following.


God creates humankind.
God prefers humankind WANT to follow him, rather than have to. [institition of free-will]
God includes Tree of Knowledge into the garden of Eden; grants man that option to either follow or not follow Him.
Satan tricks man into thinking that he can be like God, by eating from the Tree of Knowledge.
Man chooses rebellion against God.
God (not wanting to, but having to according to his perfect law), places judgement on man for 'treason'.
God begins to make way for a means in which man can be justified before him.
--> Insert Old Testament
God breaks the power of Sin (past, present, and future) through the death of Jesus. [Jesus dies, accepting the Sins of the world and their subsequent condemnation to be placed against him]
Resurrection [Jesus proves himself victorious over Death]
--> Insert New Testament

off tangent, but I've always believed that it wasn't Anniken who was to bring balance to the force, but Luke.

1) they never said that Anniken was the chosen one. only that his Miti count was the highest. Did they test Luke?

2) while Anniken did bring balance by removing the Jedi, it was Luke that removed the Sith in Anniken and allowed him to kill the Emperor.

3) assuming that all the Jedi were killed, Luke is actually starting from point 0. no Jedi Council, no Sith overlord. and an abridged training session with Yoda and Obi-wan. thus he's closer to the center than anyone... including Anniken.

Yeah, you make a lot of good points. They probably both balanced it.

And it did, and that is why there are no more spartans.

No, there are no Spartans around because a Macedonian King decided to take over all of Greece, and then push eastward further and further into Persian, ultimately arriving at the border of India before dying of a cold.

Then what was left of Greece was overrun by the Romans, who instituted their own laws upon the Ancient Greek city states, undermining the existing social norms in favor of their own.

Then the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, and what was once the independent city state of Sparta became a Christianified city in the Roman Empire, with a new set of morals and social norms.

This, incidentally, is also the reason why there are no Athenians, no Tyrians, no Helicarnassians, etc.

In answer to the original post, the following is how I understand the Tree of Knowledge, and its subsequent purpose. It's fairly draft-like, there is a lot of information I could go into, but for the purposes of not having to write for hours upon hours, managed to come up with the following.


God creates humankind.
God prefers humankind WANT to follow him, rather than have to. [institition of free-will]
God includes Tree of Knowledge into the garden of Eden; grants man that option to either follow or not follow Him.
Satan tricks man into thinking that he can be like God, by eating from the Tree of Knowledge.
Man chooses rebellion against God.
God (not wanting to, but having to according to his perfect law), places judgement on man for 'treason'.
God begins to make way for a means in which man can be justified before him.
--> Insert Old Testament
God breaks the power of Sin (past, present, and future) through the death of Jesus. [Jesus dies, accepting the Sins of the world and their subsequent condemnation to be placed against him]
Resurrection [Jesus proves himself victorious over Death]
--> Insert New Testament


But what about Satan? Was he not created by God also? That's the part I can't get my head around. I mean he obviously knew the difference between good and evil. Why did he choose evil?

Trilby63;12392151']But what about Satan? Was he not created by God also? That's the part I can't get my head around. I mean he obviously knew the difference between good and evil. Why did he choose evil?

I think the general concensus is Pride. Though God also gave him that Pride, so we haven't really gotten any closer to a real answer.

I think the general concensus is Pride. Though God also gave him that Pride, so we haven't really gotten any closer to a real answer.

Yeah, I guess it's like Pratchett say..

"God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of his own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players (i.e Everybody), to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time."


Bloody God..:rolleyes:

This, incidentally, is also the reason why there are no Athenians, no Tyrians, no Helicarnassians, etc.

There are still Athenians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens).

There are still Athenians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens).

There is also a modern Sparta, with modern Spartans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta#Modern_Sparta). You're funny.

It seems to me that the most telling concept of the Bible is found at the beginning, yet is hardly addressed in any satisfactory way in the scripture (at least in my opinion.

That concept, of course, is the title of my thread. So many questions arise as to the nature of God and the nature of man when we consider the Tree of Knowledge.

For example:

Did God intend for mankind to be without a will of our own?
Was the first sin necessary for God's plan, did he create us with intentions of testing us and ultimately damning most of us?
Should Adam and Eve (even Satan) be both reviled for introducing us to sin and suffering, but also praised for introducing us to virtue and glory?

What meaning do you draw from the creation and sampling of the Tree of Knowledge?

God should be at least as intelligent as the average parent.

Any parent knows that if you really want a kid to take something you put it on a table, tell them, "don't touch that while I'm not here," and then leave. Come back in 2 minutes and they'll have eaten it.

Every other religion on the face of the earth praises women for bringing humanity consciousness, like Shamanastra who tames the man-beast Enkidu. Judaism however went through a protracted misogynistic phase in which almost anything that praised anything feminine was expunged. Including the fact that early Hebrew beliefs held that God had a Wife.

In answer to the original post, the following is how I understand the Tree of Knowledge, and its subsequent purpose. It's fairly draft-like, there is a lot of information I could go into, but for the purposes of not having to write for hours upon hours, managed to come up with the following.


God creates humankind.
God prefers humankind WANT to follow him, rather than have to. [institition of free-will]
God includes Tree of Knowledge into the garden of Eden; grants man that option to either follow or not follow Him.
Satan tricks man into thinking that he can be like God, by eating from the Tree of Knowledge.
Man chooses rebellion against God.
God (not wanting to, but having to according to his perfect law), places judgement on man for 'treason'.
God begins to make way for a means in which man can be justified before him.
--> Insert Old Testament
God breaks the power of Sin (past, present, and future) through the death of Jesus. [Jesus dies, accepting the Sins of the world and their subsequent condemnation to be placed against him]
Resurrection [Jesus proves himself victorious over Death]
--> Insert New Testament


The serpent was NOT Satan. Satan is later described as one of God's servants. In the new testament he becomes the devil, but that split must happen somewhere between the time of Job and the time of Christ.

If you interpret the exile from the Garden as punishment for treason then your translation is lacking a lot of perspective. Centuries of misogyny have made the "women fucked it up for us" interpretation popular, but still flawed. A more accurate translation of phrases like "I will increase the pains of your childbirth" would be "the pains of your childbirth will be increased."

He is not pronouncing judgment, he is explaining the difficulties of their newfound consciousness. He ends this speech with two acts of mercy. One is to make them clothes to keep them warm and protect their newfound modesty. The other is to send them out of the garden of eden because creatures as frail as conscious mortal humans could never be strong enough to bear eternal life. Remember, the ancient Hebrews got a lot of their mythology from the Babylonians, whose mythology makes it much more explicit that the reason people can't be immortal is that they're just not strong enough to endure it, so they are spared the pain of immortality, but must endure the lesser pain of foreknowledge of their death.

Your interpretation of Christ's function is one that was invented by peasants who did not understand the fairy tale they were told. Christ's purpose was to show people how to connect with the eternal part of themselves. If you think of "you" as the part made of meat that likes to drink and have sex and watch TV, then you're still going to die, whether or not you say "yeah, that sounds good" when people tell you about Christ.

As Christ himself says "in the afterlife we are as the angels, neither male nor female..." i.e. if you identify with the eternal part of your consciousness, then when you die you will not worry about your upcoming death. You know that something more meaningful will continue. If you think you're going to be sipping tea with harp players on the clouds... Well then you just don't get Christ.

The serpent was NOT Satan. Satan is later described as one of God's servants. In the new testament he becomes the devil, but that split must happen somewhere between the time of Job and the time of Christ.

If you interpret the exile from the Garden as punishment for treason then your translation is lacking a lot of perspective. Centuries of misogyny have made the "women fucked it up for us" interpretation popular, but still flawed. A more accurate translation of phrases like "I will increase the pains of your childbirth" would be "the pains of your childbirth will be increased."

He is not pronouncing judgment, he is explaining the difficulties of their newfound consciousness. He ends this speech with two acts of mercy. One is to make them clothes to keep them warm and protect their newfound modesty. The other is to send them out of the garden of eden because creatures as frail as conscious mortal humans could never be strong enough to bear eternal life. Remember, the ancient Hebrews got a lot of their mythology from the Babylonians, whose mythology makes it much more explicit that the reason people can't be immortal is that they're just not strong enough to endure it, so they are spared the pain of immortality, but must endure the lesser pain of foreknowledge of their death.

That interpretation makes a lot more sense than any I've previously heard. Where did you get this from? Or was it of your own devising? And how does this fit in with Christianity?

It seems to me that the most telling concept of the Bible is found at the beginning, yet is hardly addressed in any satisfactory way in the scripture (at least in my opinion.

That concept, of course, is the title of my thread. So many questions arise as to the nature of God and the nature of man when we consider the Tree of Knowledge.

For example:

Did God intend for mankind to be without a will of our own?
Was the first sin necessary for God's plan, did he create us with intentions of testing us and ultimately damning most of us?
Should Adam and Eve (even Satan) be both reviled for introducing us to sin and suffering, but also praised for introducing us to virtue and glory?

What meaning do you draw from the creation and sampling of the Tree of Knowledge?

Yes, blame Adam and Eve. But God the all-knowing and all-seeing was the one that let that evil talking snake into his garden.

But I think putting them in the Garden of Eden and telling them not to eat from one of the trees in it was stupid. I don't leave clothes on the floor of my room while my cat is in here because I know she's going to pee on them. If she then does, I go do the laundry and curse myself for being an idiot, not throw the cats out of the room.

So, basically, I think that whole Tree of Knowledge thing was put in the bible by the author to establish that the character of God was, in actuality, cruel and manipulative.

A more accurate translation of phrases like "I will increase the pains of your childbirth" would be "the pains of your childbirth will be increased."

Where do you get that idea from?

Whose "more accurate" translation are you using, and how does the Hebrew indicate the passive voice?

What meaning do you draw from the creation and sampling of the Tree of Knowledge?

This is what I think: the Tree is a symbol of the unity of god, with its roots beneath the ground and its branches in the heavens. That is the knowledge that it represents: unity.

Mankind was never without will, and it's not a story about our will or the choice that was made. It's a story about moving away from unity into an existence of duality, where the tree becomes just a tree, and god nothing more than a symbol (because in duality, unity is lost). It's a story about the birth of consciousness.

Mankind in duality has awareness of self and other, me and you, man and woman, happiness and sorrow, suffering and joy, respect and shame, good and bad, do and do not. These things do not exist in [the existence that is] unity. God is unity. Man, in duality, in consciousness, has separated himself from unity. "Sin" is the state of separation. It's neither a good thing nor a bad thing --it just is.

God has no intentions in the story: unity can have no intention. Intention is part of the world of duality.

God includes Tree of Knowledge into the garden of Eden; grants man that option to either follow or not follow Him.
Satan tricks man into thinking that he can be like God, by eating from the Tree of Knowledge.
Man chooses rebellion against God.


Isn't a catch 22 for Adam and Eve. They do not know the difference between good and evil, so they cannot understand the "sin" of disobeying God, yet they are punished all the same.

The serpent was NOT Satan. Satan is later described as one of God's servants. In the new testament he becomes the devil, but that split must happen somewhere between the time of Job and the time of Christ.

If you interpret the exile from the Garden as punishment for treason then your translation is lacking a lot of perspective. Centuries of misogyny have made the "women fucked it up for us" interpretation popular, but still flawed. A more accurate translation of phrases like "I will increase the pains of your childbirth" would be "the pains of your childbirth will be increased."

He is not pronouncing judgment, he is explaining the difficulties of their newfound consciousness. He ends this speech with two acts of mercy. One is to make them clothes to keep them warm and protect their newfound modesty. The other is to send them out of the garden of eden because creatures as frail as conscious mortal humans could never be strong enough to bear eternal life. Remember, the ancient Hebrews got a lot of their mythology from the Babylonians, whose mythology makes it much more explicit that the reason people can't be immortal is that they're just not strong enough to endure it, so they are spared the pain of immortality, but must endure the lesser pain of foreknowledge of their death.

Your interpretation of Christ's function is one that was invented by peasants who did not understand the fairy tale they were told. Christ's purpose was to show people how to connect with the eternal part of themselves. If you think of "you" as the part made of meat that likes to drink and have sex and watch TV, then you're still going to die, whether or not you say "yeah, that sounds good" when people tell you about Christ.

As Christ himself says "in the afterlife we are as the angels, neither male nor female..." i.e. if you identify with the eternal part of your consciousness, then when you die you will not worry about your upcoming death. You know that something more meaningful will continue. If you think you're going to be sipping tea with harp players on the clouds... Well then you just don't get Christ.

Then why is it explicitly referred to as the first sin?

I can also understand most of the references in the context of gaining knowledge, but why would it greatly increase the pangs of childbearing?

I haven't read the thread so am just throwing this in.

I see most of Genesis as a parable. A way for God to explain concepts that we wouldn't understand at the basic level of abstraction.

I see to "knowledge of good and evil" on two levels. On level one, the human animal gained a knowledge of good and evil that no other animal has. This evolutionary step is explained in a way for humans to understand.

On a second level, it shows how humans grow from a baby with no knowledge of anything to a human that understands good and evil. When a child reaches this point in development, it goes from being innocent to a human responsible for its own actions. There is no set age in which this happens but it happens to all with the possible exception of mentally retarded.

why would it greatly increase the pangs of childbearing?

The pain of child birth is due to the increase in the size of a baby's head compared to other primates. The increase in head size might be related to the increased knowledge, part of that knowledge is good and evil. Because of an increased head size, the human is the only animal that routinely needs assistance in birth. The female really isn't designed to deliver such a large head. The birth process needed to get that head out is completely different in humans as compared to other primates.

That interpretation makes a lot more sense than any I've previously heard. Where did you get this from? Or was it of your own devising? And how does this fit in with Christianity?

I can't remember their names were, but I've come across a few translations of the exile from the garden in which the consequences of eating the fruit (not the apple) were stated in the passive tense ("your pains will be increased..." rather than "I shall increase your pains").

Biblical and Rabbinical scholars are well aware that a deliberate, politically motivated, effort was made to diminish women's roles in the religious hierarchy. The book "Misquoting Jesus" (written by a devout Christian) has some great sections on that subject. A lot of it was subtle changes in the way passages were translated, like the example above.

There's also the matter of every single body of mythology having a story that represents the emerging of human consciousness. The Viking's have Loki's role in building the wall around Asgard. The Greeks have Prometheus stealing fire and Epimethius marrying Pandora (their names mean forethought and afterthought, so it is explicitly about consciousness.) The Babylonians explicitly make the emergence of human consciousness the result of a man who is at one with the animals (like Adam) get seduced by a priestess of the Sun God and become conscious. Tell anyone not already familiar with Christian mythology the story of Genesis and they will tell you "you know it wasn't really an apple right? They had sex."

Very many Jewish folktales were lifted lock stock and barrel from Babylonian because they were conquered by them for so long. Genesis does not seem to be such a blatant rip off, but it was heavily influenced. And in the Babylonian it was a snake who deprived Gilgamesh of the herb (also translated in the Bible as 'tree') that would give him everlasting life. Genesis just stuck the two together and ran it through a misogynistic babelfish.

Then why is it explicitly referred to as the first sin?

I can also understand most of the references in the context of gaining knowledge, but why would it greatly increase the pangs of childbearing?

It is explicitly referred to as the first sin because it is politically more useful to tell people that they are born evil and that only you and your priests can fix them.

Remember what I said about misogyny in the early (and recent) church? A woman did it to a man, it must be bad. Set aside the fact that every other group of people on the face of the earth says that it's a good thing that feminine qualities were introduced to the male character. Judaism, and Christianity that grew out of Rome, had nothing but disdain for women and what they represent. So stories that already have events similar to those described in Genesis had to be co-opted to something Christian-friendly and misogynistic.

Just like Easter, Saturnalia, and Samhain got co-opted. The Church was never very creative until it came time to figure out how to torture people.