What I'm getting at is a unique way of gaining knowledge - not by reading/listening to books/lectures but, dare I say it, by eating and touching and smelling, and so on.
To illustrate: Just by touching a crystal, I could figure out it lattice structure, the molecules present, the forces at play, etc.. By smelling a gas, I could divine the chemical composition of that gas, its concentration, etc. You get the idea. — TheMadFool
You seem to be suggesting that scientific approach gives insights into areas which religious forbids. — SpaceDweller
I think central point in the story of "The Fall Of Man" isn't to give any secular insights, but rather spiritual ones. Insights which can't be empirically measured or proved. — SpaceDweller
What you describe is belief (as heuristic) by acquaintance and not knowledge (as algorithm), so ... — 180 Proof
Why not. — TheMadFool
Because that apple in the garden of Eden was just an ordinary apple, the act of physically eating those apples isn't what's wrong, instead it's disobedience toward God's commandment not to eat them what is wrong. — SpaceDweller
Why choose that particular tree of knowledge of good and evil then? Why not something else? — TheMadFool
IF God so commanded, but none of the God's commandment command such a thing as far as I know.Your theory also seems to lead to rather dangerous conclusions - if God so commanded that we murder, rape, plunder, atrocities of all kinds, it would be wrong to disobey Him? — TheMadFool
Why choose that particular tree of knowledge of good and evil then? Why not something else?
— TheMadFool
In other words, why is Genesis written using imagery? why not just telling straight away what happened, why not just telling straight that Adam and Eve defied God and then God punished them.
Those texts are thousands of years old, so what you're asking is why literature in that time was different from literature as we know today?
Or why did God inspire holly writers to write using imagery. — SpaceDweller
IF God so commanded, but none of the God's commandment command such a thing as far as I know. — SpaceDweller
That is the whole meaning of this story, painful and shameful apostasy from God because of disobedience, ex. who are you to tell me what to do? I'm know better than you, I don't need God. — SpaceDweller
“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.
Important to note that the two had no concept of shame before attaining the knowledge.Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
This is displayed right here. They become conscious of their bodies that have been created by god - in the image of god(!) - and deem it as "bad", worthy of shame.Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.
But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
“Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
Banishment from the paradise of Eden is ultimately caused through the act of attaining knowledge. What does this mean? Life, Creation is very good, as God would say - but through self-awareness, through their consciousness, the humans notice and realize shame, fear of death and the hardship that is necessary to sustain life. Ignorance is bliss.So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.
Why indeed? — TheMadFool
That's debatable. — TheMadFool
I'm not historian or literate to give answer to literacy or history of texts, but I know valid answer is given later by Jesus when disciples asked him, why does he speak in parables instead of telling what he means straight away so that everybody would understand his message. (Mt 13, 10-17) — SpaceDweller
Indeed it is, and it wouldn't help much with you original post — SpaceDweller
Spoke in parables, eh? Why indeed? Was it a necessity or was it a preference? A lot depends on the answer. — TheMadFool
11Jesus replied, “Because they haven’t received the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but you have. 12 For those who have will receive more and they will have more than enough. But as for those who don’t have, even the little they have will be taken away from them. 13 This is why I speak to the crowds in parables:
Jesus is the truth, that is, ransom for sins which started with the fall of man.Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
Because we are talking about 1K+ pages that are subject to debate, framework of which I hopefully laid out above.Why not? — TheMadFool
From at least the time of Galileo, a division was introduced between what Wilfrid Sellars called the “manifest image” and the “scientific image” — between, that is, the phenomenal world we experience and that imperceptible order of purely material forces that composes its physical substrate. — The New Atlantis
Because we are talking about 1K+ pages that are subject to debate, framework of which I hopefully laid out above. — SpaceDweller
We've all reenacted the fatal mistake Adam and Eve made that fateful day in Eden - we've all eaten apples. With each bite, we've taken into our mouths a chunk of apple, munched on it, felt the texture of its flesh, tasted its sweetness, felt its juice bathe the inside of our mouths. In other words, if we view ourselves as a scientific instrument, what we have in our mouths is a specimen/sample of apple - everything that is an apple (chemistry, biology, physics, etc.) is being analyzed by our mouths, then the digestive system. Why is it then that we don't gain knowledge of apples in this process? We should be able to know the chemicals, their structure (I mentioned sweetness), the biological properties of the cells, their architecture, so and so forth; after all we do have a sample in our GI tract? — TheMadFool
We all have reenacted a fatal mistake of eating an apple? Have lost the innocence of not knowing how it tastes? — GraveItty
Then the matter is controversial enough to make your pronouncements very weak. — TheMadFool
I don't treat disobedience per se a sin. — TheMadFool
To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’
What you call controversial I call comprehensive or broader context, my pronouncements are abstraction of that broader context.
The central topic here is the garden of Eden, don't you think knowing broader context is essential to unlock the garden of Eden? Isn't that reasonable? — SpaceDweller
commandment violation. — SpaceDweller
And then, also, there are those more than abstract — in fact, transcendental — orientations of the mind, such as goodness or truth or beauty in the abstract, which appear to underlie every employment of thought and will, and yet which correspond to no concrete objects within nature. And so on and so forth.
— David Bently Hart
Morality has an other-worldly feel to it! The laws of nature are not aligned with morality. In fact morality goes against the grain - why is being good liking walking uphill? Unnatural! Nonphysical! Kant might be relevant.
Commit the most heinous crime imaginable and you will, at no point, violate the (physical) laws of nature. No wonder God! — TheMadFool
loss of innocence sounds sensible, however it can't be subject to anger God, for example, before Adam and Eve committed their sin God told them to procreate which involves los of innocence (and discovery of pleasure) — SpaceDweller
Morality has an other-worldly feel to it! The laws of nature are not aligned with morality. In fact morality goes against the grain - why is being good liking walking uphill? Unnatural! Nonphysical! Kant might be relevant. — TheMadFool
Same as it's so much harder to build the house vs taking buldozer and raze everything to the ground.why is being good liking walking uphill? Unnatural! Nonphysical! — TheMadFool
Why not using same perspective toward this problem but from different angle, imagine 2 extremes:
1. Doing everything as God commands
2. Doing everything the opposite, defy God in every aspect
Which one of these 2 extremes would be natural?
Complete anarchy, madness, pain and destruction vs opposite of that. — SpaceDweller
If I'm not aware of good and evil, then do I have to believe building is harder than razing? yes I do because if I do the opposite and raze what will happen? — SpaceDweller
You're assuming God's commands will always be good. I'm not making that assumption and hence reserve the right to defy Him. — TheMadFool
You think there is a secret knowledge that Adam and Eve obtained.There are different kinds of building though, and the scientific way is evil. It came into being after Eve bit the Luciferian apple. — GraveItty
Not necessarily assuming,
If definition of God is "omnipotent, omniscient and all benevolent", then there is no reason to assume God would command contrary to that definition. — SpaceDweller
Considering garden of Eden, if God could give evil commands then there was no need for the snake to harass man, that same task could have be done by God instead. — SpaceDweller
I think the real problem here is something else, that same God which wanted good to Adam and Eve is the same God that wages wars later right?
Therefore you change the definition of God to just "omnipotent and omniscient" excluding "all benevolent" — SpaceDweller
Even if you're able to somehow prove that theory it still won't fit in because of same question again, what's the role of the devil then?
A God that is not all benevolent would raise many questions impossible to answer. — SpaceDweller
I don't think modern day science can be given same significance as knowledge of good and evil. — SpaceDweller
Science as we know it was born around 16th century and it still develops today. — SpaceDweller
Religion (written one) on the other side started 3000 years BC and ended 100 years AD.
Therefore taking completely unrelated time spans into account, one has nothing to do with the other, Religion does not deal with science neither does science deal with religion. — SpaceDweller
You think there is a secret knowledge that Adam and Eve obtained.
I'm open minded to hear that wisdom — SpaceDweller
You mean that God is OOB, or that He posseses these three qualities? I assume the last, as assigning these qualities to our own species doesn't make us God. If defined as such he can never command contrary to that definition. Which makes Him non-OOB. How can He escape? If OOB, you expect He could. But how? — GraveItty
Yes. A natural knowledge. Satan ordered, by means of the apple, to divert from it, with all horrible consequence. — GraveItty
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.