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

[gnostic]

What in monkeys name does this have to do with the OP?

Spacemonkey is a Gnostic, and the Gnostic version is far different from the biblical version.

Have you read the Apocryphron of John (or the "Secret Book of John"), Victor?

According to the Gnostics, only an imperfect being, a demiurge, could possibly create an imperfect world, like our Earth. The demiurge is only a creator of the physical world, but he is not the first being. He is lesser being, an archon ("ruler"), and offspring of an aeon named Sophia (wisdom).

The Gnostics don't see eating the fruit as a bad thing at all. The Tree of Knowledge, symbolise gnosis, awareness or enlightenment. This gnosis would be the source or way to reach redemption. The demiurge didn't want redemption for the human, but ignorant slaves, so he can harvest their spark of light, which you and I would call "soul" or the "spirit of human". Eve is seen by Gnostics, past and present, to be a heroine, who almost save mankind from the demiurge.

Gee, I almost sound like a gnostic, instead of agnostic.

 

[spacemonkey]

Happy to oblige.

Of course, the Zionists believe it's their movie too.

And I'm just a geek that likes sweet sci-fi action flicks.

I'm with you there. It is definately a gnostic series (the trilogy I mean), but thats a whole other thread.

 

[gnostic]

One flaw I find in your example of Abraham and Sarah is that just because she did not conceive for 25 years does not mean they weren't having intercourse during this time.

Of course, nutshell. I am saying that God promise a son to Abraham, but it doesn't mean when.

Anyway, how do you know that Adam and Eve weren't having sex before eating the fruit? We both overlook the possibilities that they had sex before, but it wasn't necessary for the Bible to say so.

So both our speculations are merely that - speculations.

The Bible never say each time Abraham had sex with either Sarah or Hagar. The Bible doesn't record everything everytime the character eat, sleep, have sex, etc. The Bible recorded that Adam had other sons and daughters, but doesn't give name to any of them except, Cain, Abel and Seth, nor did the bible give names to his sons' wives, who were most likely to be their sisters.

 

[nutshell]

I'm with you there. It is definately a gnostic series (the trilogy I mean), but thats a whole other thread.

A thread I would love to see.
I've got to go now...perhaps you'd do the honors?

 

[nutshell]

Of course, nutshell. I am saying that God promise a son to Abraham, but it doesn't mean when.

Anyway, how do you know that Adam and Eve weren't having sex before eating the fruit? We both overlook the possibilities that they had sex before, but it wasn't necessary for the Bible to say so.

So both our speculations are merely that - speculations.

The Bible never say each time Abraham had sex with either Sarah or Hagar. The Bible doesn't record everything everytime the character eat, sleep, have sex, etc. The Bible recorded that Adam had other sons and daughters, but doesn't give name to any of them except, Cain, Abel and Seth, nor did the bible give names to his sons' wives, who were most likely to be their sisters.

I agree. It is speculation and interpretation. The Bible is silent as to whether they had actual sex.

However...(you knew that was coming, right? )
In one of Katzpur's posts she points out the difference in how they react to being naked before and after eating the fruit. I find it difficult to grasp how they would be having sex without the awareness of their own nakedness prior to eating the fruit. One may argue that they were like animals, acting on instinct, but I think the Bible is clear that Adam and Eve were on a level above the animals...after all, it was they who named the animals.

 

[gnostic]

In one of Katzpur's posts she points out the difference in how they react to being naked before and after eating the fruit. I find it difficult to grasp how they would be having sex without the awareness of their own nakedness prior to eating the fruit.

To me, sex and reproduction are natural processes of life, so why should they feel shame about having sex? How else are they to be "fruitful and multiply"?

 

[nutshell]

To me, sex and reproduction are natural processes of life, so why should they feel shame about having sex? How else are they to be "fruitful and multiply"?

That's the LDS point...it is natural to us now...but it was NOT natural to them then because they had no awareness of it...thats why I describe "don't eat the fruit" and be "fruitful and multiply" as conflicting commandments. They can do one or the other, but not both.

 

[spacemonkey]

A thread I would love to see.
I've got to go now...perhaps you'd do the honors?

Its started under Entertainment/Movies.

 

[Katzpur]

To me, sex and reproduction are natural processes of life, so why should they feel shame about having sex? How else are they to be "fruitful and multiply"?

Nobody said anything to the effect that they were ashamed about having sex. We said they were unaware of their nakedness. In other words, in terms of their sexual awareness and desire, they were still like little children.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Thats interesting, lets look a little closer at this...

That verse implies that God created man and woman at the same time, but Gen 2: 15-22 implies that God created man, then all of the animals, then finally woman, so how can they both be correct?

It's that "imply" thing. Just read it the way it was wrote. Implications lead to heresy.

One more thing, the verse before the ones you mentioned states
"Then God said, 'Let US make man in OUR image, in OUR likeness...' "

Still think there is only one god?

I answered that. God is a plurality. God created Adam as a plurality.

 

[nutshell]

It's that "imply" thing. Just read it the way it was wrote. Implications lead to heresy.

Just read it the way it was wrote (written)?

I'm sorry, but doing that has led to thousands upon thousands of interpretations, denominations, and beliefs.

Two people can read the same text (Biblical or otherwise) and have two completely different interpretations based on their cultural upbringing and life experiences. Who's to say one is more right than another? To each, theirs is the right interpretation.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm sorry, Victor. Perhaps you feel as if you explained your position adequately, but I'm still confused. Here's what I want to know:

Alrighty, let’s try again.

If you think God really wanted Adam and Eve to remain in the Garden forever, why do you believe He allowed Satan to tempt them?

To fulfill the gift of free will. You can’t have free will unless you have a real choice. The serpent and the tree were the other choice. It’s no different if I were to let my 15 year old son go to a party in which many choices and challenges lie before him. There is no need for him to say yes to drugs (the tree) for him to understand that it is wrong and harmful. I suppose one could incarcerate their own child in their house to prevent any harm what so ever. But that would be robbing him of his God given free will. God himself doesn’t like taking this away. Otherwise, how can you get true love?

He could have simply placed the Tree in the Garden and told them not to touch it.

How is this any different from telling them not to eat from it? Either way, God gave them a condition to follow.

Seriously, if He had wanted them to remain in Eden forever, don't you think He could have made it a tad easier for them?

How much easier can it get? It was the one thing that could damage their relationship with God and they took it. Perhaps if it was a lemon tree?

Satan was only there because God allowed it. I can't imagine you think believe God to be so naive that He didn't know what was going to ultimately happen or that He was powerless to prevent it.

Not at all. This is my third time saying this and I will try my best to be clear. In Catholic theology God knows everything in the sense that events will happen, but God’s foreknowledge does not trump a person’s free will. Allow me to go deeper into this.

God, by virtue of scientia media (middle knowledge), foresees even possible, conditional acts of His free creatures, and acts accordingly to bring about His perfect will for the course of human history. So He still causes and determines what will happen, yet in a way which allows true freedom of action and participation on the part of His creatures.

Since we know that "all things work together for good" (Rom 8:28) - at least for the believer - I think God must providentially and sovereignty act according to what He foresees our free response would be in any given circumstance.

So yes, God allows things to happen, but that doesn’t mean that is what He wanted to happen.

It's not a case of God needing a particular scenario to happen. He knew Adam and Eve perfectly. They were free to choose whether to obey or not. His knowledge of what they would do in any given set of circumstances is beside the point.

No, it’s not beside the point. It’s very relevant and makes a world difference. God was already prepared for every single circumstance that they (Adam and Eve) may have chosen. The fact that they chose to eat from the tree, does not mean that was within the Will of God. God simply acts according to what we choose to bring about the greater good in every circumstance possible. Just thinking about it can blow your mind away. Is this too metaphysical for you?

He knew what was going to happen but did not cause it to happen. They caused it to happen.

I agree here Katz, but you are also saying that God willed for them to eat from the tree. I disagree. If God willed for them to eat from the tree, then it doesn’t matter if He didn’t pull the trigger Himself, It’s still what He wanted.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Just read it the way it was wrote (written)?

It's a quote from Popeye.

I'm sorry, but doing that has led to thousands upon thousands of interpretations, denominations, and beliefs.

Two people can read the same text (Biblical or otherwise) and have two completely different interpretations based on their cultural upbringing and life experiences. Who's to say one is more right than another? To each, theirs is the right interpretation.

Not at all. It has been my experience that the differences arise from peoples inability to read properly or believe what they read. The Bible interprets itself. It is when people interpret the interpretations to fit their own belief system, lack of knowledge or obstinate ignorance that problems arise.

 

[nutshell]

Not at all. It has been my experience that the differences arise from peoples inability to read properly or believe what they read. The Bible interprets itself. It is when people interpret the interpretations to fit their own belief system, lack of knowledge or obstinate ignorance that problems arise.

How does the Bible interpret itself?

 

[spacemonkey]

I answered that. God is a plurality. God created Adam as a plurality.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking aout monotheism. Its convieniant how some Christians change things to fit what they want it to say. I'm pretty sure the Bible was clear on the point that there is ONE god. If you had said he was talking to the Archons (angels) I might have bought that, but a plural god just goes against everything the Bible says.

 

[Katzpur]

How is this any different from telling them not to eat from it? Either way, God gave them a condition to follow.

I think you’re missing my point. What I’m saying is that God could have placed the Tree in the Garden, told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from it and left it at that. They very likely wouldn’t have given it a second thought. They had their free will before Satan ever entered the picture.

How much easier can it get?

I can’t believe that you’re not getting my point. It would have been a lot easier if they hadn’t had the most cunning, evil, deceptive creature imaginable trying to convince them to disobey and giving them some pretty convincing reasons why they should.

Not at all. This is my third time saying this and I will try my best to be clear. In Catholic theology God knows everything in the sense that events will happen, but God’s foreknowledge does not trump a person’s free will.

That is exactly what I’m saying!

So yes, God allows things to happen, but that doesn’t mean that is what He wanted to happen.

That’s my point. Now maybe you don’t think that Satan had all that much influence over their decision. I happen to think he was very, very instrumental in convincing Adam and Eve to disobey. If I’m right, there must have been a reason why God permitted him to tempt them. I’m trying to figure out what you think that reason was. It wasn’t to allow them free will, because they already had that.

Is this too metaphysical for you?

Actually, no. We’re saying pretty much the same thing, except that I think that if God had really wanted them to stay in Eden forever, He would simply have said, “See that tree? It’s off limits. But choose for yourself.” Free will granted.

What I want to know, besides what I already asked, is what you believe would have transpired in the lives of Adam and Eve had they never eaten the fruit? Would they have grown old? Would they have gotten sick, and eventually died? Or would they still be alive in Eden today with the billions of descendents they’d have had by now?

 

[gnostic]

If I’m right, there must have been a reason why God permitted him to tempt them. I’m trying to figure out what you think that reason was. It wasn’t to allow them free will, because they already had that.

I don't see the serpent being Satan, at the Garden of Eden. And if I did, if you looked at the Book of Job, you would see Satan is actually God's servant. He was told to test Job's faith and loyalty, so Satan did. If Satan was the serpent, then Satan was most likely working for God, to test Adam and Eve's obedience.

The strange thing is that God punished the serpent, but not Satan...that if he really was the serpent.... Surely if God is omniscient and omnipresent, surely he would just punished Satan and not all serpent; meaning he should be able to distinguish between the two. And surely God would not have to ask Adam why they are hiding their shame of being naked, if he was omniscient.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't see the serpent being Satan, at the Garden of Eden. And if I did, if you looked at the Book of Job, you would see Satan is actually God's servant. He was told to test Job's faith and loyalty, so Satan did. If Satan was the serpent, then Satan was most likely working for God, to test Adam and Eve's obedience.

Sorry, but I disagree. I believe that Lucifer = Satan, and that the serpent, if not Satan was one of His followers, one of those who was cast out of Heaven along with Lucifer. I don't believe that Satan has any power not permitted by God, and that God uses him to tempt and try us -- Adam, Eve, and Job included.

The strange thing is that God punished the serpent, but not Satan...that if he really was the serpent.... Surely if God is omniscient and omnipresent, surely he would just punished Satan and not all serpent; meaning he should be able to distinguish between the two. And surely God would not have to ask Adam why they are hiding their shame of being naked, if he was omniscient.

Oh, I believe Satan's punishment is still in the future. I believe his power and influence will come to a grinding halt when the time is right, and that he will have spent his entire existence in a pathetlc lost cause -- attempting to turn people away from God. Finally, I don't think for one minute that God asked Adam why he was hiding from Him because He didn't know the answer. He asked because He wanted Adam to confess to Him what he'd done.

 

[spacemonkey]

Sorry, but I disagree. I believe that Lucifer = Satan, and that the serpent, if not Satan was one of His followers, one of those who was cast out of Heaven along with Lucifer. I don't believe that Satan has any power not permitted by God, and that God uses him to tempt and try us -- Adam, Eve, and Job included.

Oh, I believe Satan's punishment is still in the future. I believe his power and influence will come to a grinding halt when the time is right, and that he will have spent his entire existence in a pathetlc lost cause -- attempting to turn people away from God. Finally, I don't think for one minute that God asked Adam why he was hiding from Him because He didn't know the answer. He asked because He wanted Adam to confess to Him what he'd done.

You are contradicting yourself here. If Satan is being used by God as you imply, then why would he punish him for doing his job? Satan is God's prosecuting attorney, he is the accuser of man before God. In fact Satan means accuser in Hebrew.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking aout monotheism. Its convieniant how some Christians change things to fit what they want it to say. I'm pretty sure the Bible was clear on the point that there is ONE god. If you had said he was talking to the Archons (angels) I might have bought that, but a plural god just goes against everything the Bible says.

One god, plural in nature.