The tree of knowledge..............

[nutshell]

What's wrong with the 1st group?

The 1st group is a Christian who can accept compromise between their religion and with science. The 1st group can still accept miracle, but where it can be demonstrated that some concepts/teachings are wrong through the scientific mean, then they can accept science. Such as the earth being flat, or every heavenly bodies orbit the earth.

The 2nd group will only faith and miracles.

I left out the 3rd group. A person, who is either atheist or agnostic (or something else), who would only accept scientific explanation, and no miracle.

With the first group I thought you were implying that if one believes there is a scientific explanation then that means God is not behind it. I believe there can be scientific explanations and God is behind it.

 

[gnostic]

With the first group I thought you were implying that if one believes there is a scientific explanation then that means God is not behind it.

No, that's not what I meant.

I know that some Christians can both religion and science as being valid (depending on the issue, of course). It is the 2nd group that can't.

 

[nutshell]

No, that's not what I meant.

I know that some Christians can both religion and science as being valid (depending on the issue, of course). It is the 2nd group that can't.

Got it. Thanks.

I would consider myself part of the first group.

Now....what did this have to do with the OP? :sorry1:

 

[gnostic]

Nothing.

My reply was actually a reply to Michel, who was replying to Williamena. But neither Michel or Williamena reponded to my post. You did, but it would seem I have lost track of the thread... No one has respond to my 1st post in the first page (post 28), so I am left with just following other people.

 

[lamplighter]

For Eve to eat the fruit and know it would be wrong until convinced by the serpent, would be a contradiction. Because she would already have to understand the concept of good and bad. Also I can see the serpent as a saviour, releasing us from our ignorance. Because whose to say it was paradise as we know it? If you know of nothing better wouldn't you be inclined to believe things are as good as they ever will be? And when we gained knowledge our sense of paradise vanished because we now knew of better?

 

[gnostic]

I always thought the Tree of Knowledge to be contradiction. I had said so in another topic, Eden and the Tree of Knowledge.

 

[TashaN]

If Adam and Eve were "innocent", as in having "no knowledge of good and bad" (before they ate the fruit), then wouldn't that mean they don't know it was bad thing to do - to disobey God commandment of not eating the fruit? Nor understand the consquences of attaining that knowledge?

And, again, if they were "innocent", then Eve could not possibly judge the serpent's words being right or wrong? Would Eve even know she was being deceived?

Can Adam and Eve really be held responsible for eating the forbidden fruit?

The three religions agree on one basic fact: Both women and men are created by God, The Creator of the whole universe. However, disagreement starts soon after the creation of the first man, Adam, and the first woman, Eve. The Judaeo-Christian conception of the creation of Adam and Eve is narrated in detail in Genesis 2:4-3:24. God prohibited both of them from eating the fruits of the forbidden tree. The serpent seduced Eve to eat from it and Eve, in turn, seduced Adam to eat with her. When God rebuked Adam for what he did, he put all the blame on Eve, &quotThe woman you put here with me --she gave me some fruit from the tree and I ate it."; Consequently, God said to Eve: "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you." To Adam He said: "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree .... Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life..."

The Islamic conception of the first creation is found in several places in the Quran, for example:

"O Adam dwell with your wife in the Garden and enjoy as you wish but approach not this tree or you run into harm and transgression. Then Satan whispered to them in order to reveal to them their shame that was hidden from them and he said: 'Your Lord only forbade you this tree lest you become angels or such beings as live forever.' And he swore to them both that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought them to their fall: when they tasted the tree their shame became manifest to them and they began to sew together the leaves of the Garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: 'Did I not forbid you that tree and tell you that Satan was your avowed enemy?' They said: 'Our Lord we have wronged our own souls and if You forgive us not and bestow not upon us Your Mercy, we shall certainly be lost' " (Quran 7:19:23).

A careful look into the two accounts of the story of the Creation reveals some essential differences. The Quran, contrary to the Bible, places equal blame on both Adam and Eve for their mistake. Nowhere in the Quran can one find even the slightest hint that Eve tempted Adam to eat from the tree or even that she had eaten before him. Eve in the Quran is no temptress, no seducer, and no deceiver. Moreover, Eve is not to be blamed for the pains of childbearing. God, according to the Quran, punishes no one for another's faults. Both Adam and Eve committed a sin and then asked God for forgiveness and He forgave them both.


Source: http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/w_islam/eve.htm

 

[Quiddity]

Probably not until he's a little older, Victor. It's obviously hard for a parent to allow a child to venture into the world, knowing that there are some pretty unsavory characters out there and a lot of opportunities to get hurt. But most parents realize that there comes a time when they have to do just that. Protecting our kids forever isn't doing them any favors. You'll love your son when he's 21 as much as you do now, but by then you will have undoubtedly given him the freedom to learn and grow and, yes, even to make some mistakes that might be pretty painful.

No doubt. The problem is that one is intended (God wanting Adam and Eve to eat from the tree in order to grow) while the other (you just letting go and hoping for the best) is not.

To hit it home, do you think your son has to steal to understand that it is wrong? Does he have to lie in order to understand? And so on….

If we can in fact understand that X is wrong without actually committing it, then what does committing the act bring to the picture if not a deprivation of human nature, hence damaging your relationship with God.

 

[Katzpur]

No doubt. The problem is that one is intended (God wanting Adam and Eve to eat from the tree in order to grow) while the other (you just letting go and hoping for the best) is not.

Sorry, you lost me, Victor. I never said anything to suggest that I believe in just letting go and hoping for the best. Is that really what you think I believe?

To hit it home, do you think your son has to steal to understand that it is wrong? Does he have to lie in order to understand? And so on….

Of course not. We need to teach our children right from wrong. We hope they'll be able to learn from someone else's experience and not have to sin themselves in order to know what sin is. But if they are shielded from having to make choices, they won't grow. I think we can agree on that.

If we can in fact understand that X is wrong without actually committing it, then what does committing the act bring to the picture if not a deprivation of human nature, hence damaging your relationship with God.

I think you've misunderstood me from the word go, Victor. Try again.

 

[nutshell]

Victor, I know your post was for Kat, but I'm hoping you'll allow me to answer as well.

No doubt. The problem is that one is intended (God wanting Adam and Eve to eat from the tree in order to grow) while the other (you just letting go and hoping for the best) is not.

God is not just letting go and hoping for the best. He has provided a way for us to grow and will guide us safely through as long as we seek His help.

To hit it home, do you think your son has to steal to understand that it is wrong? Does he have to lie in order to understand? And so on….

Of course not.

If we can in fact understand that X is wrong without actually committing it, then what does committing the act bring to the picture if not a deprivation of human nature, hence damaging your relationship with God.

We do not need to commit the act to understand right and wrong.

However, Adam and Eve did need to commit the act because they didn't have full knowledge of what right and wrong meant. Because they committed the act, their eyes were opened and they became like the gods, knowing good and evil.

We have this knowledge that they gained today. We have an inner sense of what is right and what is wrong. Adam and Eve did not have this. If you or me or Kat were under the same limited knowledge of right and wrong that Adam and Eve had prior to eating the fruit, then we probably would not understand it was wrong to steal or to lie, just as we probably would not understand it was good to help others.

Can you see the difference? Adam and Eve were not where we are today in terms of our understanding of right/wrong. We have this understanding today because of what they did in the Garden.

 

[Quiddity]

Katz and nutshell,
Apparently I have completely missed the mark.....batting average 1.0.......boy I suck.

Let's try again. Katz said:
God knew what He was doing and He did it for man's benefit

Are you saying that God put a temptation (the tree) for our benefit?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

We all know of that blasted tree, and the one about 'hissing sid' who got Eve to give the apple from the tree of knowledge to Adam. From that point, makind was doomed to be denied the luxury of Paradise, and we have to go through this not so ideal life, trying to sin as little as possible

Not exactly. God said that man cannot know good and evil and live forever. Death passed onto man as a result of the fruit dinner. Man was banashed from eden as a consequence of the tree being located there.

Now, what was it that 'the tree of knowledge ' contained that Adam should never have known about ? anything that made him 'no longer innocent', is what I understand (correct me if I am wrong).

The knowledge of good and evil.

So we were apparently never supposed to eat the fruit.

In an ideal world, if no one had ever eaten the fruit we and all the animals would be lying close to each other, and no one would ever try to harm anyone or any creature.

That was the intended purpose.

Presumably, that tree of knowledge was also about 'things that are supernatural'.

Presuming anything in Scripture is the beginning of misinterpretation. Just read it the way it was wrote is what my Bible teacher taught me.

What about science ? In general ? Is that not 'supernatural' until it has been understood? Should we really have all bee trying to abstain from knowledge ? (which I see as ridiculous, but I can't see the falw in my argument)...

This is an aside. It doesn't apply.

 

[nutshell]

Katz and nutshell,
Apparently I have completely missed the mark.....batting average 1.0.......boy I suck.

Let's try again. Katz said:
God knew what He was doing and He did it for man's benefit

Are you saying that God put a temptation (the tree) for our benefit?

This is a tough question, Victor. I'm not sure I would call the tree a temptation. I'm not sure they gave it a second thought until Satan showed up. Perhaps that's when it became a temptation.

What I will say is that God gave Adam and Eve conflicting commandments:
1. Don't eat the fruit of that tree.
2. Multiply and replenish the earth.

We don't believe they could have kids until they ate the fruit, but if they don't eat the fruit they can't have kids. Therefore, they would be breaking one or the other.

 

[gnostic]

It would seemed that every sect or religion have a different interpretation to the events of the Tree and Adam. The Protestants followed a similar line with Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox (judging from previous topic, where JamesThePersian don't believe in the Western Paulinian interpretation of the Original Sin) is different from the first two. The Jews don't believe in the Original Sin too, and they also have a couple versions that are different from the Genesis (like the Haggada and the Book of Jubilees). LDS is also different, as well as that from Islam.

Gnosticism is weird one, but strangely more logical than the Genesis, with the Creator and the Serpent are not really who they seemed to be; their roles are reversed. Eve is the heroine, who was closer to Gnosis than Adam.

I mainly found the Genesis to be illogical, because I don't see why Adam and Eve should be punished, if they can't judge right from wrong without eating the fruit, then they can't fully comprehend the consequences of disobeying God, nor determine if the serpent is lying or not. That's my interpretation of the text.

 

[lamplighter]

I would like to know why the serpent is considerd to be Satan and/or Lucifer since there is no mention of it except perhaps in the LDS version. And if remember correctly the serpent was cursed to crawl on his stomach forever, which wouldn't make any since for it to be Satan since he apparently sufferd from no such curse in the rest of the bible.

 

[Quiddity]

This is a tough question, Victor. I'm not sure I would call the tree a temptation. I'm not sure they gave it a second thought until Satan showed up. Perhaps that's when it became a temptation.

What I will say is that God gave Adam and Eve conflicting commandments:
1. Don't eat the fruit of that tree.
2. Multiply and replenish the earth.

We don't believe they could have kids until they ate the fruit, but if they don't eat the fruit they can't have kids. Therefore, they would be breaking one or the other.

Is there something in fruit that I don't know about?

Sorry nutshell, I'm not following how the fruit has anything to do with them reproducing. Please explain...

 

[nutshell]

Is there something in fruit that I don't know about?

Sorry nutshell, I'm not following how the fruit has anything to do with them reproducing. Please explain...

lol

DISCLAIMER: I'm not sure this post will adhere to LDS doctrine. It is my interpretation and Katz or others are free to comment and/or correct me.

There was no reproducing for two reasons and it has little to nothing to do with the actual fruit on the tree:

1. They were physically unable to have sex.
Adam and Eve had what I like to think of as transitional bodies. The bodies were not designed to grow old and die, but they also weren't mature bodies capable of sexual reproduction. After they ate the fruit, the physical world changed. Part of that change was Adam and Eve's bodies becoming mortal. They would grow old and die. Another change was that they would now be able to have sex and reproduce.

2. They were unable to have sex for psychological reasons.
I don't know if "psychological" is the right word to use here, but I'm going to use it so hang with me. Adam and Eve, pre-fruiting, were in a state of innocence. They were like children. They had limited knowledge of right/wrong, good/evil, pleasure/pain, etc. I believe their knowledge of sex was limited as well. This may be connected with their physical state. After all, if, at this point, they are unable to have sexual relations physically, it may well be possible that sexual urges and thoughts aren't even crossing their minds.

 

[gnostic]

I think they could already multiply before they ate the fruit, as indicated by Genesis 1:28, on the 6th day of Creation. The temptation of Adam and Eve seemed to happen after the 7th day. Whether another day pass or a year, we can't say.

There is nothing to indicate they can't reproduce, except through your interpretation. And I don't think being mortals had anything to do with it. You forget that angels could reproduce with mortal women (Genesis 6) to produce giants or the Nephilim, and these angels were immortal.

If Adam and Eve were immortal prior to eating the fruit, then reproducing would not be obstacle. They just didn't do so before they ate the fruit. Not doing so yet and not capable of mating are two different things, and nothing indicate they couldn't do so.

 

[nutshell]

I think they could already multiply before they ate the fruit, as indicated by Genesis 1:28, on the 6th day of Creation. The temptation of Adam and Eve seemed to happen after the 7th day. Whether another day pass or a year, we can't say.

There is nothing to indicate they can't reproduce, except through your interpretation. And I don't think being mortals had anything to do with it. You forget that angels could reproduce with mortal women (Genesis 6) to produce giants or the Nephilim, and these angels were immortal.

If Adam and Eve were immortal prior to eating the fruit, then reproducing would not be obstacle. They just didn't do so before they ate the fruit. Not doing so yet and not capable of mating are two different things, and nothing indicate they couldn't do so.

If they were capable of it, why didn't they do so before they ate the fruit?

 

[Willamena]

Nothing.

My reply was actually a reply to Michel, who was replying to Williamena. But neither Michel or Williamena reponded to my post. You did, but it would seem I have lost track of the thread... No one has respond to my 1st post in the first page (post 28), so I am left with just following other people.

I didn't respond to post #28 because I agree with it.

Hmm, I wonder if I'm being overly negative if I only respond to things I disagree with?