Original sin

[Quiddity]

It doesn't have to come right out and say it, it’s obvious.

...

Adam was made Lord over all the Earth and had no restrictions, save one. Anything he found himself wanting to do was OK. He was not capable of rage because there was nothing that could make him mad, He simply existed for the sake of existence save for one thing - the key to knowledge and a commandment which he was given the choice to adhere to or set aside.

How about a rock dropping on his toe? That upsets plenty of people.
I honestly don't understand what you mean by nothing could get him mad.

Yes, most certainly Adam HAD TO partake of the tree in order to gain a knowledge of good and evil, God even said it was so, for that matter, so did Lucifer!

Then show me the verse. Sounds simple enough.

How many issues can you think of where God and Lucifer were in agreement?

Beats me...I just know the fall wasn't one of them.

 

[Evandr]

How about a rock dropping on his toe? That upsets plenty of people.
I honestly don't understand what you mean by nothing could get him mad.

Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, paradise - Everything to make someone happy came about spontaneously, dangers were not present, any reason to get mad was not present, knowing how to get mad was not theirs to wied, they simply existed.

Then show me the verse. Sounds simple enough.

It was called the tree of knowledge of good and Evil in a place where good and evil had yet to exist - what more proof do you need?

Beats me...I just know the fall wasn't one of them.

I wasn't talking about the fall, only about what the tree was and what it represented.

 

[Quiddity]

Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, paradise - Everything to make someone happy came about spontaneously, dangers were not present, any reason to get mad was not present, knowing how to get mad was not theirs to wied, they simply existed.

Getting mad is a creation of "self"...it doesn't require anything other then one's own mind and faculties. Since they were created with a mind and all human faculties, it was certainly within them to get mad.

It was called the tree of knowledge of good and Evil in a place where good and evil had yet to exist - what more proof do you need?

Things were "good" before the fall (see Genesis) and after the fall. The tree didn't create good and evil, it simply made them aware of it. I hope you see the difference.

I wasn't talking about the fall, only about what the tree was and what it represented.

It was a tree and it represented awareness of good and evil.

 

[Katzpur]

I'd like to read where it says "they had to" partake of the Tree in order to gain knowledge of good and evil.

Oh, Victor. *sigh* To me it's strongly implied in the same of the tree. A Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil bears knowledge of good and evil, just as an apple tree bears apples, and a cherry trees bears cherries. If I want to taste the cherries, I have to go to the cherry tree -- or the store, if someone has already picked them and saved me the trouble. If you think the tree was just there for decorative purposes, there's probably nothing I can do to change your mind. I suppose the only argument I could give is to point out that when God discovered Adam's and Eve's disobedience, He placed Cherubims and a flaming sword to guard the Tree of Life, so that they would be unable to also eat from it. Had they been able to do so before being cast out of Eden, they would have lived forever in a sinful state. Since God had already designated a Savior for them, He didn't want them eating from the Tree of Life either at that point. This would be because the Tree of Life also contained a particular kind of fruit -- a fruit that would keep Adam and Eve from becoming mortal. It all gets back to whether you accept the fact that both trees contained fruit that served a purpose, and that their purpose is described in the way the trees were named.

 

[Evandr]

Getting mad is a creation of "self"...it doesn't require anything other then one's own mind and faculties. Since they were created with a mind and all human faculties, it was certainly within them to get mad.

Things were "good" before the fall (see Genesis) and after the fall. The tree didn't create good and evil, it simply made them aware of it. I hope you see the difference.

It was a tree and it represented awareness of good and evil.

Victor, Adam and Eve were created with very limited faculties for the expression of emotion. You have to stop attributing you own experiences and mental capacities for emotion to Adam and Eve. Although a baby's capacity to learn is just as great as anybody elses, in order for a baby to get mad it must learns what anger is, how to manifest it and that others will respond to it, before a baby learns such a thing it cries because that is all it can do. If what you just said were true it would mean that for something to be true for a baby, that baby would have to have knowledge of it and be able to react accordingly.

Adam and Eve had to learn from their own experience just as you did from birth. The fact that Adam and Eve were created instead of born does not diminish their need to learn from experience just as you and I have had to. The difference is, we learn from others, Adam and Eve had no others, they had to learn by trial and error, and even then they had to first be given the tools by which to be involved in such learning experiences – the tree was one such tool.

 

[doppelganger]

It was called the tree of knowledge of good and Evil in a place where good and evil had yet to exist - what more proof do you need?

"Good and evil" don't need to "exist" in order for "knowledge of good and evil" to exist. I daresay that to me that's actually the main lesson of the story.

 

[doppelganger]

Victor, Adam and Eve were created with very limited faculties for the expression of emotion.

Is that mentioned in the story? Cite?

 

[Quiddity]

Oh, Victor. *sigh* To me it's strongly implied in the same of the tree. A Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil bears knowledge of good and evil, just as an apple tree bears apples, and a cherry trees bears cherries. If I want to taste the cherries, I have to go to the cherry tree -- or the store, if someone has already picked them and saved me the trouble.

So you think the fruit had tiny chips that held data? Or are you saying the tree did something to Adam and Eve? If it’s the latter, I agree.

Just so you know Comprehend asked me once:
What do you think the tree did if not provide "knowledge of good and evil"?

To which I answered:
It pertains to self-awareness. When something realizes itself, it often changes its' behavior; and of course, just the act of self-realization is a change in perspective. As an analogy, think of the movie Artificial Intelligence when the boy realizes its' self......He realized he wasn’t a real boy and it struck him like a bolt of lightning.

In the same way Adam and Eve realized like a shock of lightning that they could choose something other then God. This isn’t to say they couldn’t realize this without the tree, but like many mistakes in life it hits you harder when you actually do it yourself. It expedites the learning process, but it does not eliminate learning if you don’t commit it.

If you think the tree was just there for decorative purposes, there's probably nothing I can do to change your mind.

I don’t…see above. And see:
Let me attempt to explain further. You are asking me why God put the tree there in the first place and my answer is basically because it is was best outcome of all possibilities. In other words, let’s assume God didn’t put the tree in the Garden and Adam and Eve continued in the Garden but instead of eating from the tree they committed some other evil much worse then eating from the tree. In the eyes of God, it would have been much better for them to eat from a tree, then for them to commit X in another parallel world that we never actually experienced, but since God “knows all things” he could foresee outcomes and act upon it. The tree of knowledge was God acting upon it.

Also, giving Adam and Eve an option to actually choose wrong (the tree) emphasizes how beautiful a gift freewill is. That God didn’t want artificial love from us, but rather our 100% choice to be reconciled to Him above all else (aka. the tree)
Hope that answers it.

I suppose the only argument I could give is to point out that when God discovered Adam's and Eve's disobedience, He placed Cherubims and a flaming sword to guard the Tree of Life, so that they would be unable to also eat from it. Had they been able to do so before being cast out of Eden, they would have lived forever in a sinful state. Since God had already designated a Savior for them, He didn't want them eating from the Tree of Life either at that point. This would be because the Tree of Life also contained a particular kind of fruit -- a fruit that would keep Adam and Eve from becoming mortal. It all gets back to whether you accept the fact that both trees contained fruit that served a purpose, and that their purpose is described in the way the trees were named.

And I don’t know how what I believe contradicts otherwise. Yours on the hand really raises questions as I have noted. I hope you can stick around and clarify.

 

[Quiddity]

Is that mentioned in the story? Cite?

Maybe he'll provide something with you because I've been asking the same thing.

 

[Katzpur]

So you think the fruit had tiny chips that held data?

Ha ha. Why of course!

Or are you saying the tree did something to Adam and Eve? If it’s the latter, I agree.

Given those two choices, I'd say the tree did something to Adam and Eve.

It pertains to self-awareness. When something realizes itself, it often changes its' behavior; and of course, just the act of self-realization is a change in perspective.

Okay, I can more or less go along with that.

In the same way Adam and Eve realized like a shock of lightning that they could choose something other then God.

Bingo!

This isn’t to say they couldn’t realize this without the tree, but like many mistakes in life it hits you harder when you actually do it yourself. It expedites the learning process, but it does not eliminate learning if you don’t commit it.

This is the entire substance of our disagreement. You believe it was not necessary for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in order to gain the self-awareness you speak of. I believe it was.

Let me attempt to explain further. You are asking me why God put the tree there in the first place and my answer is basically because it is was best outcome of all possibilities. In other words, let’s assume God didn’t put the tree in the Garden and Adam and Eve continued in the Garden but instead of eating from the tree they committed some other evil much worse then eating from the tree. In the eyes of God, it would have been much better for them to eat from a tree, then for them to commit X in another parallel world that we never actually experienced, but since God “knows all things” he could foresee outcomes and act upon it. The tree of knowledge was God acting upon it.

I don't believe they could have committed some other worse evil without first eating from the tree, because I think that their commiting any kind of evil would have been contingent upon them coming to the realization that "they could choose something other than God." I believe that eating from the tree was the only way by which they could come to this realization.

Also, giving Adam and Eve an option to actually choose wrong (the tree) emphasizes how beautiful a gift freewill is. That God didn’t want artificial love from us, but rather our 100% choice to be reconciled to Him above all else (aka. the tree)

Hope that answers it.

I agree, but I don't see how my belief implies an "articifial love."

 

[Quiddity]

Ha ha. Why of course! [/font]

Given those two choices, I'd say the tree did something to Adam and Eve.

Okay, I can more or less go along with that.

Bingo!

This is the entire substance of our disagreement. You believe it was not necessary for Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in order to gain the self-awareness you speak of. I believe it was.

I don't believe they could have committed some other worse evil without first eating from the tree, because I think that their commiting any kind of evil would have been contingent upon them coming to the realization that "they could choose something other than God." I believe that eating from the tree was the only way by which they could come to this realization.

I agree, but I don't see how my belief implies an "articifial love."

Well atleast something good came of it.

I'm fully aware you guys believe it was necessary for them to eat from the tree, but other then it being a belief you guys hold it's not something you can see in the text.

As far as I can see it is true that LDS believe Adam and Eve lacked the ability to tell good from evil prior to the fall...and as I said this becomes problematic for reasons I've noted time and time again.

If God created us without the ability to tell right from wrong and you don't see that as a problem, I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[Katzpur]

Well atleast something good came of it.

Well, I got to talk to my friend, Victor. That's always good.

I'm fully aware you guys believe it was necessary for them to eat from the tree, but other then it being a belief you guys hold it's not something you can see in the text.

It all depends upon which "text" you're referring to. Genesis gives us less detail than we find in "The Pearl of Great Price." In that volume of scripture (Moses, chapters 2 through 4) the creation of the Earth and all forms of life and the events leading up to the Fall are more fully explained.

As far as I can see it is true that LDS believe Adam and Eve lacked the ability to tell good from evil prior to the fall...and as I said this becomes problematic for reasons I've noted time and time again.

Well, the fact that it is problematic for you is to be expected. You're a Catholic and it's not part of your theology. It's not problematic for me. To me, it makes perfect sense. You see, even though Adam and Eve lacked the ability to tell good from evil prior to the Fall, God knew what he was doing. You see, there was this tree...

If God created us without the ability to tell right from wrong and you don't see that as a problem, I don't know what else to tell you.

Well, since I'm not the one asking for answers, Victor, you don't really need to tell me anything.

 

[Evandr]

"Good and evil" don't need to "exist" in order for "knowledge of good and evil" to exist. I daresay that to me that's actually the main lesson of the story.

Good and Evil are not tangible considerations, they are concepts which guide emotions to constructive or destructive action. For that to happen a person must be cognizent of the level and intensity of the emotion and that is contingent upon an understanding of the scope of the emotion. The greater the scope of emotion the greater the possible heights of joy and conversely the greater the possible depths of sorrow.

That is why our current knowledge of Joy would become the very depths of Hell should we suddenly be given to understand the heights of Joy the Lord knows. Our satisfaction with life depends upon what we know of the possibilities.

Adam and Eve had never experienced any emotional contrast, they never experienced an emotion sufficiently equal and opposite to joy that it could give joy any meaning, they were eternal in nature without anything to challenge them other than the commandment not to partake of the tree. The Garden was a place of final preparation for them to learn sufficient knowledge to be able to usher in the beginning of the trial for us all.

It was just a tree but making a conscious decision, being willing to take the consequences for your actions as you partook of the tree, opened doors of emotion that must have been completely foreign to them because they had never before done anything they were forbidden to do because they had never been forbidden to do anything other than partaking of the tree...did you get all that? :areyoucra

Is it not our primary purpose on this earth to demonstrate our willingness and abilityto tame our emotions and keep our passions within the boundaries the Lord has set, to put off the carnal man and to take on the mantel of spirituality and follow Christ back to the presence of the Father?

To do that we must be tried and where there is no choice there is no trial, and where there is no contrast there is no choice.

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

Once agian, Tori has the perfect song for this thread:

YouTube - Tori Amos Original Sinsuality Live


Lyrics:

There was a garden
In the beginning
Before the fall
Before Genesis

There was a tree there
A tree of knowledge
Sophia would insist
You must eat of this

Original sin?
No, I don't think so
Original sin-suality
Original sin?
No, it should be
Original sin-suality
Original sin?
No, I don't think so
Original sinsuality

Yaldaboath
Saklas
I'm calling you
Samael
You are not alone
I say
You are not alone
In your darkness
You are not alone
Baby
You are not alone

 

[doppelganger]

Is it not our primary purpose on this earth to demonstrate our willingness and abilityto tame our emotions and keep our passions within the boundaries the Lord has set, to put off the carnal man and to take on the mantel of spirituality and follow Christ back to the presence of the Father?

Ummm . . . I'm going to say "No." That may be your perceived purpose though.

 

[Evandr]

Ummm . . . I'm going to say "No." That may be your perceived purpose though.

Differences of opinion make for good conversation. So far I have enjoyed speaking with you. Would you be willing to give me a synopsis of what you believe about why we exist and what our goals should be?

 

[doppelganger]

Differences of opinion make for good conversation. So far I have enjoyed speaking with you. Would you be willing to give me a synopsis of what you believe about why we exist and what our goals should be?

I'd like to, but I have no opinion about why "we" exist or what "our" goals should be. A reason for existing or a goal would be a contextual assessment. Speaking for my own conscious processes, I don't have a reason for existing that I'm aware of. I don't recall "choosing" to "exist" so if I did choose it at some point, I have no idea why. As for my goals, there's one main one and all the others fall within it: to follow my bliss . . .

Or as Dostoevsky's "Underground Man" might say . . . "that most advantageous advantage."

 

[Evandr]

I'd like to, but I have no opinion about why "we" exist or what "our" goals should be. A reason for existing or a goal would be a contextual assessment. Speaking for my own conscious processes, I don't have a reason for existing that I'm aware of. I don't recall "choosing" to "exist" so if I did choose it at some point, I have no idea why. As for my goals, there's one main one and all the others fall within it: to follow my bliss . . .

Or as Dostoevsky's "Underground Man" might say . . . "that most advantageous advantage."

Fair enough, I appreciate your candid honesty. There is certainly nothing wrong with the pursuit of happiness - I too search for my bliss.

I, like so many hundreds of millions of others who live, or have lived, in mortality, have found keeping the commandments of Jesus Christ as sort of a "super Charger" on the engine of life and the most direct and clear cut path to finding true happiness.

May you find all that you seek.

 

[doppelganger]

Fair enough, I appreciate your candid honesty. There is certainly nothing wrong with the pursuit of happiness - I too search for my bliss.

Bliss is much, much more than happiness. I think the Zulu word dela captures the meaning better perhaps.

 

[doppelganger]

May you find all that you seek.

May you seek not so that you may find. :rainbow1: