• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

was adam right?

theo

Member
hope this is in the right place


OK jus something to muse apon
from a philosophical POV.....
think about all that is good.. now if there was no evil, no bad, you could not appreciate the good.

without knowledge there is no meaning,

perfection lacks nothing,

when adam took the fruit fromt he tree of knowledge what was he actually doing?
 

cardero

Citizen Mod
hope this is in the right place
when adam took the fruit fromt he tree of knowledge what was he actually doing?
committing the first original sin:
Being enticed and captivated by the charms and attractions of the alluring wo-man.
 

theo

Member
thanks for replying but i mean, the garden of Eden was meant to be all that is good right?
but if there was only good in the world and no contrast do you really think we would be able to appreciate it?
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
It's not the tree of knowledge, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, though your second post implies that you are already aware of this. In contrast to certain western views, Orthodox Christian anthropology doesn't see the prohibition as necessarily being a permanent one. It is generally considered that Adam and Eve were not yet ready for that knowledge but that they would be eventually. In that sense, the prohibition is rather like one would make to a child if one told them they might not drink alcohol, and the disobedience was likewise, rather like that of a small child who drinks his father's whisky regardless (and the Fall was consequence in our view, not punishment).

James
 

Truth_Faith13

Well-Known Member
It depends what you mean by "Good" remember everything also had free will so it depended on what they thought Good was? do you see what I mean....? :) Different people have different opinions - if we didnt, we wouldnt have this forum :) so different people also have different opinions on what is right and wrong. A simple examples, some families find it ok to allow their children to swear, I have been brought up to consider that is wrong. But both families would still consider themselves good.
 

theo

Member
thanks your perspectives have helped a lot, i think that perhaps if they were ready then they may have had the self restraint to know good and evil but choose good,
and i do see what you mean about defining good, i'm now deep in thought lol
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
It's not the tree of knowledge, but the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, ...
It's a merism.

..., Orthodox Christian anthropology doesn't see the prohibition as necessarily being a permanent one.
Anthropology? I think it unhelpful to bastardize the term or, conversely, to present the Orthodox Christian view of humanity as science.

In that sense, the prohibition is rather like one would make to a child if ...
And when the child grows up we get ...God against Humanity.
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Anthropology? I think it unhelpful to bastardize the term or, conversely, to present the Orthodox Christian view of humanity as science.

It's neither. The term Christian Anthropology is ancient and it's a part of theology. It is the theological view of the nature of man exactly as Christology is the theological view of the nature of Christ, Triadology of the Trinity etc. It's a term which I dare say is far older than the current scientific discipline of anthropology and, sorry, but I'm not about to give up some perfectly good theological language down to the objection that a far more recent academic field uses it with a different meaning - as though modern science gets to decide the one correct meaning for an ancient Greek word. Like it or lump it, Christian anthropology is a valid theological term which I will continue to use with absolutely no intention of presenting the view as science. If you don't like that I really couldn't care less.

James
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Apparently.

Glad that's settled then. Your opinion as to the 'proper' use of anthropology is just that - mere opinion - and there really isn't any reason why I should care about it. I'd also suggest that theology, not science, is the more appropriate perspective to take in a general religious debate.

James
 

cardero

Citizen Mod
thanks for replying but i mean, the garden of Eden was meant to be all that is good right?
Yes the garden of Eden was supposed to be a paradise but I still have to wonder if Adam had been asexual if everything after this Genesis prologue necessarily had to occur.
theo writes: but if there was only good in the world and no contrast do you really think we would be able to appreciate it?
Sure we would, for the simple reason that there we be nothing competing with it that was comparable.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
think about all that is good.. now if there was no evil, no bad, you could not appreciate the good.
More than just "appreciation"; without something to contrast it to, there would be no "evil" for us. Everything would be the same. This is the usefulness of duality.

without knowledge there is no meaning,

perfection lacks nothing,

when adam took the fruit fromt he tree of knowledge what was he actually doing?
He was gaining awareness of his own inherent duality, that which separates him from the God that is Unity. There is nothing "evil" in that, it simply defines who we are.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
hope this is in the right place


OK jus something to muse apon
from a philosophical POV.....
think about all that is good.. now if there was no evil, no bad, you could not appreciate the good.

without knowledge there is no meaning,

perfection lacks nothing,

when adam took the fruit fromt he tree of knowledge what was he actually doing?
I think the story is about the way we humans think, and how this way of thinking effects us.

The fruit of the knowledge of good and evil represents mankind's ability to presume to judge all that he experiences relative to himself, as if he were God's equal. But we are not God's equals, and this judgment rightfully belongs only to God. Which is why in the story God forbid us from eating of this tree. So when Adam and Eve ingested this "fruit", anyway, it's a metaphor for mankind adopting the presumption of his own divinity, and the right and ability to pass judgment on all existence according to his own desires. And the result of his doing this was a life of endless toil. Because when mankind presumes to stand in judgment of creation, and then judges it according to his own desires, he finds creation lacking, or wanting. He finds it so because the purpose of creation was never to serve mankind's desires, but to serve God's. Yet mankind presumes and judges, anyway, and so where he sees creation as lacking, he then sets to work trying to "correct" this lack, and trying to force creation to serve him as he would wish. And this is an endless task, of course, because the purpose of creation was never to serve mankind, and so mankind toils endlessly and fruitlessly at trying to make it do so.

It is written that man is punished through that with which he sins. And this was mankind's first sin. It was the sin of arrogance. It was the sin of presuming that because we can think, we can judge God's creation as though we were gods, ourselves, and then we multiply that arrogance by trying to "correct" what God had already made perfect.

It's a sin we're still committing. And the more we try to "correct" the Earth, the worse things get. Because there was nothing wrong with it to begin with. We were supposed to learn how to live within the magnificent garden that we were given, not dominate and exploit it, but we still haven't learned this lesson, not even after thousands of years.
 

theo

Member
wow PureX i never looked at it from that perspective but i can see good logic in it, thanks
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
And when the child grows up we get ...God against Humanity.

H. Richard Niebuhr proposed that one of the Christian dynamics is "Christ against Culture." It's fundamental to theology. Humanity is not Divinity -- there's always a point at which the line is drawn between human and Divine. God asks us not to cross that line. When we do, we fall.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
More than just "appreciation"; without something to contrast it to, there would be no "evil" for us. Everything would be the same. This is the usefulness of duality.

One doesn't need utter darkness in order to appreciate the light. I have never been blind, yet I appreciate my eyesight. I have never felt ambilvalent toward my wife, yet I appreciate the love that is there. Must we really experience the opposite in order to appreciate the one?
 

theo

Member
One doesn't need utter darkness in order to appreciate the light. I have never been blind, yet I appreciate my eyesight. I have never felt ambilvalent toward my wife, yet I appreciate the love that is there. Must we really experience the opposite in order to appreciate the one?

i think if we are wise we can appreciate things but that we still need knowledge that the other exists. for example you can imagine being blind.
i'm learning and musing as i go so please correct me, but i think that it makes a huge difference
for example i dont imagine you're putting much thought into the air you're breathing right now, but if i held your head under water you're aprreciation of air may go up somewhat.
kinda understand where i am coming from?
 

Ðanisty

Well-Known Member
One doesn't need utter darkness in order to appreciate the light. I have never been blind, yet I appreciate my eyesight. I have never felt ambilvalent toward my wife, yet I appreciate the love that is there. Must we really experience the opposite in order to appreciate the one?
If you didn't know blindness was a possibility, how could you appreciate sight?
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
One doesn't need utter darkness in order to appreciate the light. I have never been blind, yet I appreciate my eyesight. I have never felt ambilvalent toward my wife, yet I appreciate the love that is there. Must we really experience the opposite in order to appreciate the one?
Hmm... But would you have "eyesight" if there was only one flush bright light around you, or would you be blinded? Shades of light and dark create visual images. One does need darkness to appreciate light.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Ðanisty;804997 said:
If you didn't know blindness was a possibility, how could you appreciate sight?

Because of the beauty I see around me. Things just are what they are. If one was closed off from the rest of the world and never saw any kind of painting other than beautiful paintings, one would still appreciate the beauty without having to contrast it over against ugliness.
 
Top