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

[Katzpur]

I think God did want them to gain knowledge, just not through the tree. As I said before, I can gain knowledge of "good and evil" without even committing it.

If never presented with opposing forces, how would they gain knowledge, Victor? There was no evil in Paradise. How could they have learned to recognize something that didn't exist? How could they have come to know the difference between right and wrong if they were never exposed to anything that was not "right"? How do you see this knowledge as entering the picture?

 

[Quiddity]

If never presented with opposing forces, how would they gain knowledge, Victor? There was no evil in Paradise. How could they have learned to recognize something that didn't exist? How could they have come to know the difference between right and wrong if they were never exposed to anything that was not "right"? How do you see this knowledge as entering the picture?

Right and wrong is subjective Katz. You don't need to steal or what have you to get me to picture it in my head. I've never in my life seen consentual cannibalism, yet I can still form thoughts and pictures and conclude that it is wrong.

I don't want to talk passed each other so help me out here cause I don't see how you can't see this.

PS - Opposing forces are ultimately in the mind.

 

[Katzpur]

Right and wrong is subjective Katz. You don't need to steal or what have you to get me to picture it in my head. I've never in my life seen consentual cannibalism, yet I can still form thoughts and pictures and conclude that it is wrong.

I don't want to talk passed each other so help me out here cause I don't see how you can't see this.

Right, but you know that "consentual cannibalism" exists. If you had no concept of it, you would have no basis on which to conclude that it was wrong. You don't have to steal at least once to know that it's wrong, but if you have everything you could possible need or want (as was the case in Eden), the idea of stealing would never enter your mind. Only when you are placed in a situation where you want something that you don't have, and someone else does have it, are you faced with the decision: Would it be right or wrong for me to take that something when it doesn't belong to me? I don't see how you can't see that!

PS - Opposing forces are ultimately in the mind.

Yes, and they got there when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit. Prior to that, they weren't in the mind at all.

 

[Quiddity]

Right, but you know that "consentual cannibalism" exists. If you had no concept of it, you would have no basis on which to conclude that it was wrong. You don't have to steal at least once to know that it's wrong, but if you have everything you could possible need or want (as was the case in Eden), the idea of stealing would never enter your mind. Only when you are placed in a situation where you want something that you don't have, and someone else does have it, are you faced with the decision: Would it be right or wrong for me to take that something when it doesn't belong to me? I don't see how you can't see that!

I do see what you are saying. It would, be wrong if you were told not to. As was the case of the tree. God clearly told them not to. Pretty clear, right?

I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you (bold above). You are saying you can know something is wrong without doing it, right?

The fact that you have everything doesn't mean the concept of stealing cannot be fully grasped. A simple look at chimpanzee behaivor (often taking things from other chimps) could get them to understand it.

 

[Katzpur]

I do see what you are saying. It would, be wrong if you were told not to. As was the case of the tree. God clearly told them not to. Pretty clear, right?

Yes, it's pretty clear. He told them not to, and there were consequences for their choice. But before they ate the fruit, they didn't understand the difference between good and evil. Consequently, they didn't understand that disobedience was "evil."

I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you (bold above). You are saying you can know something is wrong without doing it, right?

Yes.

The fact that you have everything doesn't mean the concept of stealing cannot be fully grasped. A simple look at chimpanzee behaivor (often taking things from other chimps) could get them to understand it.

I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, Victor. I believe they had to be faced with opposition in order to exercise their free will.

 

[Quiddity]

I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this, Victor. I believe they had to be faced with opposition in order to exercise their free will.

Looks like it. I just think that the opposition can be in the mind of the individual. Even when faced with it, the human mind is ultimately where it all rests.

 

[nutshell]

Looks like it. I just think that the opposition can be in the mind of the individual. Even when faced with it, the human mind is ultimately where it all rests.

But do you see that we're saying the mind wasn't capable of this yet before the eating of the fruit>?

 

[Quiddity]

But do you see that we're saying the mind wasn't capable of this yet before the eating of the fruit>?

Yes I do. I just don't see why other then your tradition to think this.

 

[nutshell]

Yes I do. I just don't see why other then your tradition to think this.

We've already given Biblical examples of why we think this.

 

[Quiddity]

We've already given Biblical examples of why we think this.

Of what was added? Sorry, I must have missed it.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

How does the Bible interpret itself?

The Bible is an integrated message system. Something mentioned in part can be futher described in another part. It is a matter of searching the scriptures. A concordance is the place to begin.

 

[nutshell]

The Bible is an integrated message system. Something mentioned in part can be futher described in another part. It is a matter of searching the scriptures. A concordance is the place to begin.

But that's still an interpretation.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

But that's still an interpretation.

Very good. That's is the Bible interpreting itself not someone implying meaning that's not there which most mean when they say they are interpreting scripture.

 

[Quiddity]

*MOD ADVISORY*
PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF WHAT THIS THREAD IS INTENDED TO DIALOGUE. BACK ON TOPIC. ​

 

[nutshell]

Very good. That's is the Bible interpreting itself not someone implying meaning that's not there which most mean when they say they are interpreting scripture.

How can a book interpret itself? It is just words on a page. Your concordence is made by man and his interpretation.


And this applies to the story of the tree in Genesis as well.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, it's pretty clear. He told them not to, and their were consequences for their choice. But before they ate the fruit, they didn't understand the difference between good and evil. Consequently, they didn't understand that disobedience was "evil."

I have been trying to say this, over and over again.

How can they understand the difference between right and wrong without eating the fruit? If the fruit was eaten how can they can't tell if God was telling the truth, nor can they if the serpent was telling the truth?

The Adam and Eve story is a paradox or a catch-22. The history (Bible's version of history) would have been different, and there would be no need for someone like Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus, without their indiscretion.

We would be living a paradise without knowing what evil is...if you believe such thing is possible. I don't see how that is likely. Even heaven is not immune to evil, like the fall of Satan or the fall of the Watchers (angels in the Book of Enoch, which referred to the event of Genesis 6).

Interesting myth.

 

[roli]

How can a book interpret itself? It is just words on a page. Your concordence is made by man and his interpretation.

If you try to interpret the scriptures by intellect alone,you are empty of the Spirit and if that is the case you are not Christs according to scripture

And this applies to the story of the tree in Genesis as well.

The things of God are only interpreted through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit,who Jesus sends before He ascended to the right hand throne of God.

Jhn 14:16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify
of me:
Jhn 16:7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come John 16:13

 

[Quiddity]

I have been trying to say this, over and over again.

How can they understand the difference between right and wrong without eating the fruit? If the fruit was eaten how can they can't tell if God was telling the truth, nor can they if the serpent was telling the truth?

The Adam and Eve story is a paradox or a catch-22. The history (Bible's version of history) would have been different, and there would be no need for someone like Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses and Jesus, without their indiscretion.

We would be living a paradise without knowing what evil is...if you believe such thing is possible. I don't see how that is likely. Even heaven is not immune to evil, like the fall of Satan or the fall of the Watchers (angels in the Book of Enoch, which referred to the event of Genesis 6).

Interesting myth.

If you go back and read my posts you will find that I have addressed your question already. I do not believe that one must entertain an opposite force (the tree) to understand. There is other methods of understanding without actually committing the act.

 

[Katzpur]

If you go back and read my posts you will find that I have addressed your question already. I do not believe that one must entertain an opposite force (the tree) to understand. There is other methods of understanding without actually committing the act.

Nobody has said you have to commit a sinful act in order to understand what sin is, Victor. But you do have to be exposed to the choice. If you can only choose between good and good, what kind of a choice is that? And how can know understand evil if you've never seen or heard of it, if the very concept of evil is something completely foreign to you?

 

[nutshell]

The things of God are only interpreted through the power and presence of the Holy Spirit,who Jesus sends before He ascended to the right hand throne of God.

Jhn 14:16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify
of me:
Jhn 16:7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come John 16:13

I completely agree with you, but it seems the Holy Spirit has interpreted the Bible about 30,000 different ways (that's about the number of Christian denominations).