This was not a knowledge of experience or understanding, but one of awareness; self-awareness. — Possibility

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...

God indeed loved the world, He even gave up His only-begotten son so that anyone believing in Him should not perish". — Serving Zion

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?

anyone who does not love does not know God, for — 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.

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. — 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.

is to reckon that sometimes evil can serve our interests well. — 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.

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. — 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 OP’s point:
The moral reality of “The Fall” or “The Disobedience in the Garden”or the “Original Sin” is central to christian theology throughout most of its history, and certainly to contemporary evangelical christianity,. Without this, there’s no need for Christ’s sacrificial atonement.

Yet, if humans had no knowledge of good and evil before “eating the fruit” then they could not have known that it was wrong to disobey God’s 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 “punishment” implies a moral culpability that cannot be squared.

The moral reality of “The Fall” or “The Disobedience in the Garden”or the “Original Sin” is central to christian theology — Brainglitch

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.

I do not throw the baby out with the bath water either. — 3017amen

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

And if you don't know something, just say you don't know; don't let your ego get in the way! LOL — 3017amen

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 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. — TheMadFool

I don’t think we were created as robots - I think we evolved according to integrated information processing systems rather than survival or reproductive value, but that’s for another discussion, perhaps. Self-awareness is a natural development of five-dimensional integrated information processing. ‘God’ 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 it’s the very next story in the Book.

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. — 3017amen

First of all, ‘naked’ is an English translation, so we shouldn’t read too far into the choice of word. But I don’t think this suggests that nakedness is equal to unawareness at all. There is nothing ‘evil’ 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 ‘protect’ our children from the world, to pretend that we’re 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!

Harvey Cox, a Protestant theologian, says this: Adam and Eve were meant to eat the fruit of The Tree. Cox emphasizes that in His relationship to mankind, God constantly calls us to fulfill our potential as God's creation. God, Cox posits, wished that Adam and Eve would decide on their own volition to gain the knowledge the tree offered. That happy event isn't what happened. Eve, and by extension, Adam, allowed themselves to be seduced by the Serpent into eating the fruit of The Tree.

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.

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. — Bitter Crank

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.

I don’t think we were created as robots - I think we evolved according to integrated information processing systems rather than survival or reproductive value, but that’s for another discussion, perhaps. Self-awareness is a natural development of five-dimensional integrated information processing. ‘God’ 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 it’s the very next story in the Book. — Possibility

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 was pretty sure it was Augustine, but I was too lazy to double check. Thank you for confirming.

Think about God trying to get people to be good, be ethical, be honest, loving, faithful, and so on and many so forths. — Bitter Crank

I can accept that.

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. — 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)

I was pretty sure it was Augustine, but I was too lazy to double check. Thank you for confirming. — Bitter Crank

Augustine was philosophically profound but more than a streak of neurosis also which I think unfortunately got transferred along with the profound bits.

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 naïve 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.) — 3017amen

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.

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 naïve 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. — 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

1. We lack a complete knowledge of "good and evil"

2. God punished us for knowing "good and evil" — TheMadFool

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.

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. — TheMadFool

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.

If we bring omnipotence into the picture then additional problems arise because he could've easily pressed the reset button. — TheMadFool

The problem is - that denies free will.
Remember, they're not puppets; so the choice is accepted, and paired with appropriate consequences.

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. — Wayfarer

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.

The creation story is a great piece; just don't take it literally — Bitter Crank

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.

And I will make my case even further persuasive. Think about it, the Catholic Bible includes the book of Sirach (part of the Wisdom books) which is a wonderful book in the old testament. But it's deleted and omitted from the Baptist King James Bible.

Someone please square that circle for me

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. — TheMadFool

Your use of ‘disobey’ and ‘punish’ in reference to the Biblical story shows your limited viewpoint, though. It wasn’t that A&E disobeyed God - it was that they ate the fruit. And it wasn’t 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 authors’ point of view, though, it feels like punishment. Just like Cain’s reaction to God’s apparent favour towards Abel, they’re 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 ‘bad’ thing...

"And another naive judgement that death/mortality is a ‘bad’ 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".

Your use of ‘disobey’ and ‘punish’ in reference to the Biblical story shows your limited viewpoint, though. It wasn’t that A&E disobeyed God - it was that they ate the fruit. And it wasn’t 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 authors’ point of view, though, it feels like punishment. Just like Cain’s reaction to God’s apparent favour towards Abel, they’re 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 ‘bad’ thing... — Possibility

You have interesting things to say but please note the following:

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. — wikipedia

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.