Yo dude calm down man! — 3017amen

Nice answer to my questions.

You calm down while women and gays, half the G D planet, is being abused by the god you think is good.

Take your self-centred ways and shove them where I shove your advice and where you have shoved the Golden Rule.

If you think you should live by the Golden Rule, change the labels in this quote to women, minorities, gays or children being brainwashed by religions and it shows what we should be thinking and doing for each other.

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

Regards
DL

If it makes you feel any better the Bible is in error on gays. Ambiguous genitalia babies were either not discovered, or not taken into consideration or church politics' took it out.

Again the Bible is not a science book.

And again, take a chill pill it might do you some good!

Biblical stories are about all of us.

Were you afraid when you went to school? Of what? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Everyone is afraid. Most refuse to admit it - they hide their nakedness, so to speak. At school I was often afraid of being wrong, of not making friends, of being laughed at...these fears hamper the learning process both in and out of school. Courage in the face of pain, loss and humiliation is the path to knowledge.

The bible or the babble?

There's a thing called The Bible
and some say it's Babel.
Bible, Babel or babble
which should you choose

Try that and let me know when and where you succeed in changing a recalcitrant and obtuse religious mind. I have asked this of many like you and am still waiting to see a result. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

What are you expecting: a written testimonial? I’m happy to pry the occasional mind open just a smidgeon. If the response I get is silence, I’d say I’m making inroads.

I have seen too many nice guys get shit on more than I do. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I’m not so afraid to get shit on anymore. It’s no reason to communicate hatred, anger or violence, in my book.

And again, take a chill pill it might do you some good! — 3017amen

Political correctness empowers those religious who abuse the majority of the population.

I prefer to call a spade a spade instead of being the hypocrite you want me to be.

You go ahead and lie to evil people if you like. I will continue to speak my mind.

Regards
DL

loss and humiliation is the path to knowledge. — Possibility

I do not feel humiliated when I learn something new.
That gift is one of the greatest pleasures in life.

Even here. I argue hard to win while hoping to lose and thus actually gain something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8VYtk&feature=youtu.be

Regards
DL

The bible or the babble? — Shamshir

More like babble these days.

Regards
DL

If the response I get is silence, I’d say I’m making inroads. — Possibility

Given the number of Christians that run from me due to not being able to justify their immoral views, I would say I am a great success then.

Cowards can never be moral.

I’m not so afraid to get shit on anymore. It’s no reason to communicate hatred, anger or violence, in my book. — Possibility

Yes it is. It is in fact the loving thing to do if it corrects poor thinking.

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

You just do not like that I have to resort to tough love against the obtuse and belligerent who are selling a vile and immoral god.

For evil to grow and all that buddy.

Regards
DL

When men open their mouths, locusts come forth from them. They disturb the plants and the harvest fails to synthesize.
When they remain silent, like the moon hidden in the night, clarity settles. All manner of fruit appear and go to fill silence and the harvest is auspicious.

And those who ate of the unripe fruit were unripe themselves. They could not digest it, and their teeth and bowels ached in reminder of its bitter taste.

Oft it is then - the child stomps in disapproval, as it rushes to its grave unwittingly.

Above all things consign yourself to hope, work and patience - as fortune is a fort tune, much like rain reigns over and under.

Now, stay silent or you won't hear it - but not from me.

I find that Adam tried to blame his own iniquity on the woman. He was asked a question by god regarding his own conduct, and he could have either taken responsibility for his own decision/action or scapegoated the problem onto the woman who handed him the fruit. He chose to scapegoat the problem onto the woman.

In modern day I see this as men who blame women for their inability to control themselves (ie. when a woman is raped it is her fault). The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is taken here as the sexual reproductive organ and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as sex.

I find the word 'Elohim' (translated "GOD") to be comprised of three components:

el - towardness
o - conduit
him - sea (as in: expanse)

which I find are the image (male: phallus who bestows) and likeness (female: ovum which receives) qualities that give rise to Adam and Eve made in the image and likeness of Elohim, and the conduit through which they operate and interact with one another, which fundamentally reduces into the reproductive organ. Thus "GOD" I would define as:

the activity of the reciprocation of bestowal and reception in perpetuity

As such I find the general sentiment of the "punishment" of Adam and Eve being "unjust" as fundamentally wrong with no offense intended. If a person, rather than taking responsibility for their own actions, scapegoats the blame/shame associated with the act onto another person, this is about the worst thing I find a person could possibly do, especially when the other person is the victim of the act itself. Blaming the victim of a crime for the crime having happened is terrible, and as in the case of Adam and Eve, it reveals how Adam degrades Eve which naturally upsets what would otherwise be the two of them in a garden "knowing" good and evil, which is what the Elohim do anyways. As such I find when two human beings are in a shared will relationship (ie. both share a common will) they can become "like" Elohim and know good and evil and become "like" gods. I find this to be a thing to live for: to live as gods.

When ones "negative" (ie. evil) is acted on, but the other takes it not as "negative" but as "positive" (ie. good) one who bestows negatively is being received positively by another. This is knowing good and evil, and knowledge of good and evil is learned here in this exchange.

There should be a punishment for people who abuse this practice: justifying things like rape on the basis that the woman dresses like a whore, or eats a banana the wrong way and looks like a whore doing it etc. this is the rot of the mind of depraved Men. Because man is the archetypal bestower, women are the archetypal receiver such that all transactions good and evil are bestowed by the man (either good or evil) to the woman. Thus evil men bestow in evil and take the kingdom of heaven by force (ie. rape) and good men are at least knowing this is evil.

Would a good god kill or cure corrupted souls? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

A good God would practice infinite patience with corrupted souls, and wait patiently for them to get well.

A good God wouldn't punish people with floods, holocausts, genocides, etc.

A good God would never reject any person on the basis of sex or sexual preference.

A good God would not give any people the right to go and slaughter everyone and take their land.

A good God wouldn't try to cut deals with people: "Accept me as the only one who can save you or, I'm afraid, you'll spend eternity in hell." A good God would allow for infinite paths to enlightenment, or the practice of kindness.

A good God would never justify any kind of "holy war." There are no infidels to a good God.

I find it amusing how a story with a naked man and woman must be about sex. There’s exegesis, and then there’s apologetics...

I find that Adam tried to blame his own iniquity on the woman. He was asked a question by god regarding his own conduct, and he could have either taken responsibility for his own decision/action or scapegoated the problem onto the woman who handed him the fruit. He chose to scapegoat the problem onto the woman.

In modern day I see this as men who blame women for their inability to control themselves (ie. when a woman is raped it is her fault). The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is taken here as the sexual reproductive organ and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as sex. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Adam said his actions were caused by Eve’s actions, and Eve said her actions were caused by the serpent’s behaviour. All three were ‘punished’ in their own way. Why single out Adam’s culpability or scapegoating here? Oh, wait -

Because man is the archetypal bestower, women are the archetypal receiver such that all transactions good and evil are bestowed by the man (either good or evil) to the woman. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Seriously? In modern day? I realise that it may sound like you’re sympathetic to the woman’s position here, but trust me when I say you’re a long way off. Adam is not the only one here responsible for their decision/action.

Personally, I find it very difficult to liken this story to a rape situation - unless you portray the woman as an empty, passive receptacle being enacted on by all other characters. Is that really how you see women?

Given the number of Christians that run from me due to not being able to justify their immoral views, I would say I am a great success then.

Cowards can never be moral. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

There’s a difference between silence in the face of information that is offered with compassion for their view, and running away from insults. Cowards never learn anything, except how to run away.

And moral self-righteousness is not ‘tough love’. Tough love requires a mutually loving relationship to begin with. You can’t correct someone’s thinking with abuse - your approach is no better than the fundamentalists you hate so much.

Even here. I argue hard to win while hoping to lose and thus actually gain something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTN9Nx8VYtk&feature=youtu.be — Gnostic Christian Bishop

It’s not the mark of a ‘good arguer’ (ie. one who genuinely sees benefit in ‘losing’) to stoop to abuse and belittling their ‘opponent’. Collaboration cannot be achieved while you still see the discussion as an adversarial argument. You actually have to completely dismantle the war metaphor, and see others as contributors to the discussion, rather than opponents in a win-lose situation. Let them guide the language use, for instance, and argue your point from their view of the world. Your gain is not so much the win, but the ability to translate your knowledge to another perspective. And their gain is knowledge. That’s what you call win-win.

I find it amusing how a story with a naked man and woman must be about sex. There’s exegesis, and then there’s apologetics...

It's not that it must be, it's just that it is. There is no apologetics needed to discern that sex is a fundamental necessity and can be approached from two ways: in a shared will arrangement in which both are willing, and in an unshared will relationship wherein one forces the other. This establishes the dichotomy of good and evil wherein a man places more importance on the satiation of his lust than consideration for the well-being of the woman.

It is the people who are ashamed of the topic of sex that manufacture suffering for themselves and others.

Adam said his actions were caused by Eve’s actions, and Eve said her actions were caused by the serpent’s behaviour. All three were ‘punished’ in their own way. Why single out Adam’s culpability or scapegoating here? Oh, wait -

Adam was the one asked whether or not he ate from the tree. As you correctly pointed out, all three were punished. You see, a reader is supposed to use their own conscience and put themselves in the perspective of Adam. You ate from the tree. God is asking you if you ate from the tree. What is your response?

Adam could have taken responsibility and not brought the woman in and all, or he could have blamed the woman. What would have happened if he took responsibility?

See knowing good and evil is in the act of sex. That is what the story is about, but it is written in a way that is sensitive for immature audiences who can not handle the topic of sex because it involves evil. It involves men who "take the kingdom of heaven by force" and treat women as Adam did:

Seriously? In modern day? I realise that it may sound like you’re sympathetic to the woman’s position here, but trust me when I say you’re a long way off. Adam is not the only one here responsible for their decision/action.

Personally, I find it very difficult to liken this story to a rape situation - unless you portray the woman as an empty, passive receptacle being enacted on by all other characters. Is that really how you see women?

Pay attention:

unless you portray the woman as an empty, passive receptacle being enacted on by all other characters. Is that really how you see women?

This is exactly how the religion of Islam (ie. Muhammad) views women. If a woman is raped in Islam, it is her fault as the man blames her for what she was wearing, or how she was eating a banana etc. The men who blame/shame women for their own iniquity is what is evil - and they take the kingdom of heaven by force, because they can not get it any other way.

That is the power of "belief" - when you eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you "believe" to know it, which requires "belief". "Belief" is the agency required by "satan" (ie. the agency of confusion) to confuse good and evil (ie. right and wrong), which comes thus by way of "belief".

It is for this reason that "beliefs" although they may appear pleasant to the sight and it is desirable to be wise with knowledge of good and evil, over time they *surely* manifest death. If/when a person "believes" something that is not true, and this is in an ongoing state, this is the same thing as "satan": expression of being bound in an ongoing state, which is what "believers" necessarily are. The alternative is knowing what *not* to "believe" and the rest is any other tree one desires. That is the point: creation (incl. sex) is boundless, and the only boundaries that enter are the ones Adam and Eve invite due to their own ignorance. This ignorance is "belief" in things that are not real and/or true, which would not otherwise exist if Adam/Eve were knowing of who/what/where/why/when and how *not* to "believe". The boundary is invited by themselves by their own ignorance.

This is exactly how the religion of Islam (ie. Muhammad) views women. If a woman is raped in Islam, it is her fault as the man blames her for what she was wearing, or how she was eating a banana etc. The men who blame/shame women for their own iniquity is what is evil - and they take the kingdom of heaven by force, because they can not get it any other way. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Sorry, but this is deflection. Stop using the example of Islam to paint yourself as the ‘good’ guy. The religion of Islam is no more ‘evil’ than Christianity. This story is not a response to Islam.

You see, a reader is supposed to use their own conscience and put themselves in the perspective of Adam. You ate from the tree. God is asking you if you ate from the tree. What is your response?

Adam could have taken responsibility and not brought the woman in and all, or he could have blamed the woman. What would have happened if he took responsibility? — A Gnostic Agnostic

Again, deflection. As a woman, I don’t put myself in the perspective of Adam - so what would you say is the story’s message for me?

This is not a story where the reader is meant to ask himself: Do I blame/shame or protect women? If it were, then we wouldn’t have to wonder what would have happened if he took responsibility.

This is a story where we are to look at the situation we’re in, and ask: where we would like to be in our relationship with God (however we understand the concept)? We can’t wish to be unaware of our fragile selves interacting with the world - we can’t un-eat the fruit, and we’re past pointing the finger of blame. Whatever we suffer, we’ve brought on ourselves, whether God is a ‘being’ or not.

So we cannot ignore our relationship with the physical world, but we should really be paying more attention to - and seeking to connect and collaborate with - what we don’t yet understand about the universe. Whether we call it God or Gnosis or something else is irrelevant. It exists, and it has much to teach us, if we’re humble and courageous enough to learn.

Sorry, but this is deflection. Stop using the example of Islam to paint yourself as the ‘good’ guy. The religion of Islam is no more ‘evil’ than Christianity. This story is not a response to Islam.

You correctly identified what you are yourself doing: deflecting (away from Islam).

I am not painting myself as the good anything: that would be Islam painting Muhammad as a good guy and having Muslims "believe" he is the greatest example for all of humanity. In reality he was a genocidal warlord whose Qur'an is actually evolved from Syriac Christian strophic hymns which are neither Arabic nor Islamic and Muhammadans that "believe" it is the verbatim word of a good are "believing" something that is not true, not to mention that mosques built up until 730CE are facing nowhere near Mecca. Besides...

The religion of Islam is no more ‘evil’ than Christianity.

...both Christianity and Islam are "belief"-based states which spread by the sword. Any 'state' which forces a "belief" system onto others is 'evil' - that includes what Christianity did, and that includes what Islam did and still does. Do not try to indicate that Islam and Christianity are in the same boat: Christianity actually had an enlightenment and stopped persecuting people for ridiculing Jesus. Islam never did this: it still spills blood over criticisms of the central idol Muhammad.

Again, deflection. As a woman, I don’t put myself in the perspective of Adam - so what would you say is the story’s message for me?

If you're a woman who is unable to put yourself in the perspective of a man, that is a limitation you have. The whole point is Adam and Eve can see past each others own limitations which is how they grow together.

This is not a story where the reader is meant to ask himself: Do I blame/shame or protect women? If it were, then we wouldn’t have to wonder what would have happened if he took responsibility.

It may not be to you - beauty is not the only thing in the eye of the beholder. But this is a part of the beauty of creation: whatever one finds beautiful is beautiful for all intents and purposes.

This is a story where we are to look at the situation we’re in, and ask: where we would like to be in our relationship with God (however we understand the concept)? We can’t wish to be unaware of our fragile selves interacting with the world - we can’t un-eat the fruit, and we’re past pointing the finger of blame. Whatever we suffer, we’ve brought on ourselves, whether God is a ‘being’ or not.

That's better than most do: a lot are still trying to blame an historical Adam unaware that each is their own.

So we cannot ignore our relationship with the physical world, but we should really be paying more attention to - and seeking to connect and collaborate with - what we don’t yet understand about the universe. Whether we call it God or Gnosis or something else is irrelevant. It exists, and it has much to teach us, if we’re humble and courageous enough to learn.

It is not about ignoring the physical, it is about transcending it, which is precisely what spirituality is. A person who only experiences the physical creation is not spiritual - they may be conscious (to a certain degree) and be animated, but not necessarily spiritual.

It is related to Adam and Eve once again: a person who lives for the physical sensations related to sex are more likely to fall into evil in pursuit of it. This is the temptation: Eve gives the fruit to Adam. The lower organ commands the higher organ, which should be the other way around. There are dimensions of sex that transcend just the physical sensations which is related to actual transmutation of energy "knowing good and evil".

You correctly identified what you are yourself doing: deflecting (away from Islam). — A Gnostic Agnostic

I’m simply querying the relevance of Islam to the text.

If you're a woman who is unable to put yourself in the perspective of a man, that is a limitation you have. The whole point is Adam and Eve can see past each others own limitations which is how they grow together. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Don’t worry, I’m certainly able to - but when there is the perspective of a woman in the text, I often choose not to - and I shouldn’t have to reject the perspective of a woman in order to not be ‘limited’. I should ask if you are able to put yourself in the perspective of a woman - if you were, then you wouldn’t be writing about women in this way...

It is not about ignoring the physical, it is about transcending it, which is precisely what spirituality is. — A Gnostic Agnostic

This I agree with.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m in agreeance with much of the Gnostic viewpoint in general. But when you declare this an interpretation ‘in modern day’, then I have to call hatred, oppression and bias as I see it. Between you and GCB, I have to say, it’s not a favourable impression of Gnosticism in practice.

This is the temptation: Eve gives the fruit to Adam. the lower organ commands the higher organ, which should be the other way around. — A Gnostic Agnostic

??? And I sure hope I’m reading this one wrong...

I’m simply querying the relevance of Islam to the text.

I'll follow up with another in case it is not clear below.

Islam is relevant to everything because it is waging a war against "unbelievers" for not "believing" something that is not true. If not for this problem, world peace would be possible. Islam is not a solution to peace, it is the problem to peace. It does not understand this and perpetually accuses others of being the problem, but that is the nature of scapegoating.

Don’t worry, I’m certainly able to - but when there is the perspective of a woman in the text, I often choose not to - and I shouldn’t have to reject the perspective of a woman in order to not be ‘limited’. I should ask if you are able to put yourself in the perspective of a woman - if you were, then you wouldn’t be writing about women in this way...

I am just sensing resentment here, so my response might reflect that. I am wondering why you are reluctant to try to understand from both the man and woman's perspective? It shouldn't matter what one is themselves, human is human and the human experience involves the relationship between the two and how they become one.

Just because there is a man in the text does not mean the man should not read and understand from the perspective of the woman. As I mentioned earlier, this is not only a good thing, but practically the point. It was Adam's inability to understand from the woman's perspective what he was himself doing.

Following-up from above, Muhammad and A'isha are a good example of this: whereas A'isha indicated that she has never seen anyone suffer like the "believing" woman, Muhammad's Islam was the cause of the suffering. Islam favors men such that they are the sole beneficiaries of the system, because it is a mirror-reflection of the life of Muhammad: waging war against unbelievers, and this is what Islam is bound to do while blaming others for war-mongering. The reality is inverse to what a "believer" sees it as because they have been lead to "believe" that what they see is not coming from their own house, as it is, and it is the same from the perspective of a single 'being' to an entire 'state' such as Islam.

The problem is Islam "believes" it is a solution, which is the problem itself. As is "belief" and the reason I repeat ad nauseum: "belief" is not a virtue.

This I agree with.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m in agreeance with much of the Gnostic viewpoint in general. But when you declare this an interpretation ‘in modern day’, then I have to call hatred, oppression and bias as I see it. Between you and GCB, I have to say, it’s not a favourable impression of Gnosticism in practice.

Well, if one is looking for hatred, oppression and bias, one may want to look towards the House of Islam, because that is where much of it is coming from. The hatred is against the Jews and so-called "infidels", the oppression is "believers" militarily waging war against "unbelievers" and the bias is the House of Islam perpetually attempting to blame others for the atrocities its own leaders are committing. That is the reality the "believers" do not see because they either "believe" in Islam or "believe" Islam is not the problem. It is the problem - the idol of Islam did the exact same thing Adolph Hitler did which was commit genocide against Jews. What 'gnostic' would really argue that there is *not* a connection there? Certainly not this one - the connection is simple: male central figure orator military commander who weaponizes the state against his political adversaries and uses it to commit genocide against Jews. One has to be a "believer" to that this is all coincidence. Islam blames the crimes of its own house on Jews - rather pathologically.

Islam is relevant to everything...Islam is not a solution to peace, it is the problem to peace. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Wow. You and GCB make quite the pair. I’m not going to engage in your private war against Islam. And don’t try to tell me I owe it to anyone else to spread hatred towards another religion. The Muslims I know are beautiful, intelligent people who communicate nothing but peace and love to everyone they encounter.

I am wondering why you are reluctant to try to understand from both the man and woman's perspective? — A Gnostic Agnostic

Once again, well deflected. I’m not the reluctant one here. As women, we’re well rehearsed in understanding everything from a man’s perspective.

Well, if one is looking for hatred, oppression and bias, one may want to look towards the House of Islam, because that is where much of it is coming from. — A Gnostic Agnostic

And another deflection. You’re really quite accomplished at it! Sure - I’ll call it when I encounter it. But I’m not looking for it, as such.

Your argument seems to take the following form:

1. If it’s unjust for someone to be punished for failing to understand good and evil, and Adam and Eve were punished for failing to understand good and evil, then God exercised poor judgement in the case of Adam and Eve.
2.It’s unjust for someone to be punished for failing to understand good and evil.
2.a. Nobody knows what morality is proper.
2.b.One must know what morality is proper in order for their punishment to be just.
3. Adam and Eve were punished for failing to understand good and evil.
4. Therefore, God exercised poor judgement in the case of Adam and Eve.

I would like to raise an objection to your second premise, and then also make an objection to your inference.

Your second premise claims that it’s unjust for someone to be punished for failing to understand good and evil. However, the moral of the story is that God is saying people need to have a moral compass. If one doesn’t have a moral compass, then they’ll more often opt for what’s wrong, since what’s wrong is usually more inconvenient. Second, there is no form of law seem to accept that ignorance equals innocence. As Jefferson said, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse in any country. If it were, the laws would lose their effect, because it can always be pretended.”

Finally, if you infer that it is unjust for someone to punish someone for not understanding what’s right or wrong, and you argue that nobody knows what’s right and wrong. Then aren’t you then unable to posit that God made poor judgement. Making such a statement implies that you there’s a right or wrong, but as you say earlier, nobody has but a preference of moral theory. How can someone accept your premises that God was wrong if 1. they don’t know what’s right or wrong, 2. God doesn’t know what’s right or wrong, and 3. You don’t know what’s right and wrong. Accepting your premises on such grounds would be impossible.

I do not see innocence as @TheMadFool brings up to be in relevance to Adam and Eve, as at the beginning God stated that they could not eat from the forbidden tree. They where aware of the law, there was no innocence. I do not know that Adam and Eve failed to understand good and evil so much as they showed disregard for it’s existence. By establishing that there even was a rule to be followed (not to eat from the forbidden tree) creates the existence of good and evil. However, I question the reason that they would even have the opportunity for evil.
As I stated in a response to another post, if God is omniscient then God knew that Eve would be tempted and eat from the tree, my response then is a classic one. If it was immoral for Eve to eat from the forbidden tree then shouldn’t it be immoral to create a forbidden tree you know will be eaten from? What responsibility then should be taken on part of God for his creation? I do not follow that a perfect God could knowingly create anything other than a perfect creation. One might argue that one could create something perfect but that does not mean that circumstances outside of your control could not make it flawed. However, God is all knowing, so if you are all knowing there is no circumstance that is out of your control. God is also all powerful, which means that he possesses the capability to ensure that nothing were to flaw his creation. God therefore knowingly created the existence of sin (sin is immoral) and permitted it’s presence, so then is God immoral?

According to the Book, Adam and Eve were punished with mortality and other ugly stuff after they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. — TheMadFool

What really happened…

Deciphered From Dead Sea Scroll: از کجا نمادهای فلور

With flora mystical and magical,
Eden’s botanical garden was blest,
So Eve, taking more than just the Apple,
Plucked off the loveliest of the best.

Thus it’s to Eve that we must give our thanks,
For Earth’s variety of fruits and plants,
For when she was out of Paradise thrown,
She stole all the flowers we’ve ever known.

Therewith, through sensuous beauty and grace,
Eve with Adam brought forth the human race,
But our world would never have come to be,
Had not God allowed them His mystery.

When they were banished from His bosom,
Eve saw more than just the Apple Blossom,
And took, on her way through Eden’s bowers,
Many wondrous plants and fruitful flowers.

Mighty God, upon seeing this great theft,
At first was angered, but soon smiled and wept,
For human nature was made in His name—
So He had no one but Himself to blame!

Yet still He made ready His thunderbolt,
As His Old Testament wrath cast its vote
To end this experiment gone so wrong—
But then He felt the joy of life’s new song.

Eve had all the plants that she could carry;
God in His wisdom grew uncontrary.
Out of Eden she waved the flowered wands,
The seeds spilling upon the barren lands.

God held the lightning bolt already lit,
No longer knowing what to do with it,
So He threw it into the heart of Hell,
Forming of it a place where all was well.

Thus the world from molten fire had birth,
As Hell faded and was turned into Earth.
This He gave to Adam and Eve, with love,
For them and theirs to make a Heaven of.

From His bolt grew the Hawthorn and Bluebell,
And He be damned, for Eve stole these as well!
So He laughed and pretended not to see,
Retreating into eternity.

‘So be it,’ He said, when time was young,
‘That such is the life My design has wrung,
For in their souls some part of Me has sprung—
So let them enjoy all the songs I’ve sung.

‘Life was much too easy in Paradise,
And lacked therefore of any real meaning,
For without the lows there can be no highs—
All that remains is a dull flat feeling!

‘There’s no Devil to blame for their great zest—
This mix of good and bad makes them best!
The human nature that makes them survive,
Also lets them feel very much alive.

‘That same beastful soul that makes them glad
Does also make them seem a little bad.
If only I could strip the wrong from right,
But I cannot have the day without the night!’

So it was that with fertile delight Eve
Seeded the lifeless Earth for us to receive.
Though many flowers she had to leave behind,
Most we have from the Mother of Mankind.

… (flower lore and legend descriptions) …

The biblical meaning of "Good and Evil" as in 'The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil' can be interpreted to mean everything that exists, rather than it referring specifically to moral categories. In which case the parable of the Garden of Eden is a natural metaphor for expressing the epistemological stance of pragmatism that rejects the representational idea that knowledge is a mirror of nature, and that ontologically prioritises immanent experience over theoretical constructs that are intellectually derived from such experience.

is God immoral? — LNH

Maybe this, maybe that, of a ‘God’,
On and on, of worn ideas long trod,
Trying to show nature’s not what it does,
Spouting this and that—dust into the sod.

God didn't evict/banish Adam & Eve from the Garden of Eden because A & E wanted/gained power, not because A & E wanted/gained knowledge per se, but because A & E now had knowledge of ethics (good & evil). That means, God doesn't have an issue with humans being omnipotent or omniscient but he draws the line with omnibenevolence. What gives?

God didn't evict/banish Adam & Eve from the Garden of Eden because A & E wanted/gained power, not because A & E wanted/gained knowledge per se, but because A & E now had knowledge of ethics (good & evil). That means, God doesn't have an issue with humans being omnipotent or omniscient but he draws the line with omnibenevolence. What gives? — Agent Smith

Knowledge of good and evil is not knowledge of ethics - it’s simply awareness of their own capacity for judgement, without any experience or subsequent understanding of the world. It’s like crowning a two year old as king.

Knowledge of good and evil is not knowledge of ethics - it’s simply awareness of their own capacity for judgement, without any experience or subsequent understanding of the world. It’s like crowning a two year old as king. — Possibility

Possible! I, nevertheless, like my interpretation which, to my reckoning, is literal and so not open to multiple interpretation which would, I feel, open up a giant can of worms. Let's not get too creative, oui?