• bcccampello
    39
    The Garden of Eden is one of the most misunderstood passages in the history of the Bible. When it comes to knowledge of good and evil, it is the divine knowledge of good and evil. There was no other. Is God’s knowledge of good and evil a purely cognitive knowledge? Where does He look at good and evil, recognize that good is good and evil is evil? No. He determines good and evil. So, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not knowing how some things are bad and others are good — if it were this sense it would be absolutely self-contradictory.

    If the knowledge of good and evil were only to know good and evil, that would be incompatible with the idea of God giving them an order. If God has given a commandment, it is clear that obeying the commandment is good and disobeying it is evil. So, God cannot give an order and, at the same time, forbid the guys from knowing good and evil (in the human sense of this knowledge). So it is obviously not a question of this — of mere discernment. God cannot forbid them (Adam and Eve) to know good and evil and then complain because they listened to the serpent… This cannot be the point.

    It is divine knowledge, therefore the ability to determine by its very nature what is good and evil

    On the contrary, man cannot do this, he lives within a field where there is good and evil predetermined by God; this knowledge he can have, what he cannot have is divine knowledge and that is why it is said that the tree of good and evil was at the center of paradise. So what did they try to do? Usurping the divine authority to determine good and evil… God does not arbitrarily determine good and evil, but according to the expression of His nature.

    You are not forbidden to know the truth humanly or to know good and evil (humanly). You are prohibited from trying to be the cause of all things and the generating factor of good and evil, which is exactly what modern culture is trying to do by saying that “good and evil is your choice. There is no morally condemning act… They are cultural creations, etc.”

    Now, if you understand that the prohibition against touching the tree of good and evil is a prohibition of knowledge, then you will fall into the Gnostic interpretation — that God made Adam and Eve two idiots (who could not know anything) and that from there came the saving serpent and showed them the horizon of knowledge. They had no precedent for human knowledge of good and evil; only God knew good and evil. So, if it didn’t have a human precedent, it could only be divine knowledge.

    The knowledge of good and evil is not a discernment operated by conscience, but the controversial action of trying to obtain that knowledge in a self-sufficient way. When God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2: 17), He respectfully positioned human freedom as the sole parameter of discernment between good and evil, not mattering that actually eating the fruit of the said tree would contain some kind of cosmic revelation. Not even the tempting serpent identified itself with “evil”, it just exploited the intelligence of Adam and Eve saying: “You will be like gods” (Genesis 3: 5), revealing what actually drove original sin, and which was less a lie than a suggestion. Once the effects of sin were released, man remained ignorant of the nature of evil until the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, who alone became aware of good and evil on the Cross, when the fruit returned to the tree, man became the image of God and the evil of man was redeemed, but still, without any intervention of human intelligence.
  • JerseyFlight
    782
    There is no morally condemning act… They are cultural creations, etc.bcccampello

    There are many morally condemning acts, such as spanking children, we now know this is destructive to their development as healthy humans. (Good luck refuting this with religion!)

    Further, all morality is cultural, even the morality which claims to be Divine! The only difference is whether we allow man's unconscious superstition to dictate morality, or whether we use knowledge, as mentioned above, to construct a morality of intelligence.

    The old moral arguments are dead, and it was not the philosophers, but the psychologists who killed them! And so far from, "wiping away the horizon with a sponge," to use Nietzsche's terms, we have unshackled the species from its own stupidity.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    :naughty: Preliminary throat-clearing:

    Categorically Unjust "teachings"
    1. inherited guilt (re: "the fall")
    2. vicarious redemption (via human sacrifice re: "crucifixion")

    re: OP

    A. "Eve" was told by "the Serpent" that eating the "forbidden fruit" would make them "like G"; after "G" found out that they'd disobeyed, "G" admits, in effect, they ("Adam & Eve") have become like us (me) ...

    B. Scripture recounts that "G" tells them "you shall die" for disobeying but doesn't tell "Adam & Eve", who've only ever eaten from the "Tree of Life" up to that point and know nothing of death (let alone birth), that they will die because "G" will be the direct cause of their deaths - in effect, be their torturer & executioner - by forever blocking access to the immortality-granting/sustaining "Tree of Life" - i.e. forced 'starvation'.

    In sum: "G" made "Adam & Eve" sick - too weak to freely choose to obey even under the most favorable circumstances (i.e. "paradise") - and yet commands them (& us!) to be well - perfectly obedient and repentent; "the Serpent" tells the truth about the "fruit of the Tree" whereas "G" dishonestly, manipulatively - like a sociopathic soccer mom tells the children not to go into the refrigerator or else something bad will happen to them, then burns the little ones with cigarettes and feeds them only dog food for naively disobeying - sets up "Adam & Eve" just to  (given enough time, inevitably) "fall". Deus vult, right?

    The bible is textbook sadomasochism
    (i.e. commands "love me" - consent to rape - to which stockholm syndrome-like PTSD'd rape-casualities "submit" to the "all-seeing, unseen", rapist like "martyrs"), itself "fruit of the Tree" ... as Milton slyly insinuates.
  • JerseyFlight
    782

    That was so hard hitting I need to collect my teeth from the floor. Damn. :strong:
  • Gregory
    4.7k


    That story merely reminds us of birth. Missing out on the "free of life" makes us want to return to the womb, and feeling guilty about "original sin" is properly understood in relation to birth. There is no super father in the skies anymore than there is a super mother up there. Which brings me to my question: why is God always called a He instead of a She?
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    I count fifteen uses or direct references to "God." Surely you must know what the the word means. What does it mean? It seems to me your OP depends on your knowing.
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    I've always felt that Christians equivocate when asked if God is male or female. The question is simple. Does it have a male or female presence. Would theists be open to the idea that God is entirely female?
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    Presence= aura, air, ambience, spirit, feeling, feel, flavor, vibe, scent
  • JerseyFlight
    782
    Would theists be open to the idea that God is entirely female?Gregory

    If they in any way use nature to form their conclusion I don't see how they could possibly get around it.
  • Nils Loc
    1.4k
    Does it have a male or female presence. Would theists be open to the idea that God is entirely female?Gregory

    The consort of the precursor of Yahweh in the Caananite pantheon was Asherah. Guess he couldn't deal with her cramping his style.

    Despite her association with Yahweh in extra-biblical sources[citation needed], Deuteronomy 12 has Yahweh commanding the destruction of her shrines so as to maintain purity of his worship. — Wikipedia:Asherah

    Not that this answers any questions. Religion evolves like everything else in time.
  • Kenosha Kid
    3.2k
    Yeah, I've never felt this sorry for religious people.

    NIETZSCHE: [offering hammer] You should argue with-
    180 PROOF: [taking hammer] Thanks! [Starts hammering nails into a baseball bat while the cordless chainsaw battery charges]
  • SophistiCat
    2.2k
    The Garden of Eden is one of the most misunderstood passages in the history of the Bible.bcccampello

    This is theology, not general philosophy. Wrong forum.
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    Christians have long wondered how original sin can get on the soul since God is supposed to create each soul new. Anyway, I remember Alan Watts saying that it was attributed to the Buddha that he said we.must take responsibility for even our own births. A lot of protestant Christians believe all sins are equal. So being born would be as bad as whipping Jesus for them.
  • Hanover
    13k
    When God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2: 17), He respectfully positioned human freedom as the sole parameter of discernment between good and evil, not mattering that actually eating the fruit of the said tree would contain some kind of cosmic revelation.bcccampello

    I don't read it that way. It states: "And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”

    It doesn't say "if" you eat from the tree, you'll die. It says the day you do, you will die. That sounds like a when not an if. I don't see this implicating free choice or even sin. God was just telling Adam that when he eats that apple, that's going to make him mortal. Sounds like from the wording that God knew what Adam was going to do, which makes sense, because God is posited as the knower of everything. Had it said "If you do X, then Y will follow," then that sounds like free will and a being with divine power beyond the knowledge of God. It doesn't say that though.
  • Outlander
    2.2k


    What if the garden is a metaphor for thought, and the trees are metaphors for disciplines or schools of thought.

    Also, does it necessarily preclude an "if" just because it's not explicitly mentioned?

    If I say to some random dude: "when you drink too much, you black out." Am I presuming to know in absolute omniscience he will do so? No, right?

    Now it does imply there is knowledge this has been done before .. somehow slightly more than just saying "if" instead of "when" .. ie. if you heard something often as true yet never seen or experienced it yourself you may offer a warning using "if" but if you have seen it use of the word "when" seems more natural .. but not as a requisite is what I'm saying.
  • Hanover
    13k
    It's open to considerable interpretation, but I think if you're going to assert God's omniscience, then when he says that you will one day eat from the tree, then you will.

    The Eden story is central to Christianity because it asserts original sin, which then proclaims everyone born a sinner, which then requires Jesus to cleanse you of that sin. Alternate interpretations of the original sin account result in problems for Christianity, at least for those who consider that story foundational for their belief system.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.