was adam right?

[sojourner]

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.

"Contrast" and "dualism" are two completely different things.

 

[Willamena]

"Contrast" and "dualism" are two completely different things.

Can you explain?

 

[Slightly Perfect]

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

Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. Yahweh kicked them out of the garden before they could eat from the tree of life. Once Yahweh realized both Adam and Eve would become gods, He became insanely jealous and fearful, and then he kicked them out to prohibit them from attaining god-like power(s).

Genesis 3:22–24-- "

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

 

[lilithu]

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?

For centuries, women have been considered morally inferior and this was justified by pointing to the story of Adam and Eve and that it was Eve that ate of the apple first and led Adam into sin.

Now... we're speculating that eating the fruit might have been a good thing, and who gets the credit?

Adam was a wuss. He ate of the fruit only after Eve led by example. And then when he got caught, he blamed it all - even his own choice - on Eve.


Yes, I think that Eve did the right thing. In eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, she took control of her own destiny. She exercised free will. She decided to become co-creator of her life, not just created being. Yes, in doing so she brought a lot of pain as well as joy. That is the nature of things.

 

[sojourner]

Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. Yahweh kicked them out of the garden before they could eat from the tree of life. Once Yahweh realized both Adam and Eve would become gods, He became insanely jealous and fearful, and then he kicked them out to prohibit them from attaining god-like power(s).

Genesis 3:22–24-- "

Here we have a theological construct to help explain "why humans are not Divine, but have the possibility to become so."

The ultimate dividing line between human and Divine is mortality.

 

[Darkness]

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.

How do you know they would?

Take for example many rich children. Are they always happier than poorer children, with all the things they can get from their rich parents? Many of the times the rich lifestyle simply becomes normal and very unspecial; especially if it is all you have ever known.

I concur with the Gnostic view of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam and Eve were in ignorance and the Serpent freed them from the bondages of a tyrannical YHWH.

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

It appears to me that YHWH, was mad that the humans have become closer to the gods. Some people view this as a bad thing, yet I view it as a great thing.

 

[sojourner]

For centuries, women have been considered morally inferior and this was justified by pointing to the story of Adam and Eve and that it was Eve that ate of the apple first and led Adam into sin.

Now... we're speculating that eating the fruit might have been a good thing, and who gets the credit?

Adam was a wuss. He ate of the fruit only after Eve led by example. And then when he got caught, he blamed it all - even his own choice - on Eve.


Yes, I think that Eve did the right thing. In eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, she took control of her own destiny. She exercised free will. She decided to become co-creator of her life, not just created being. Yes, in doing so she brought a lot of pain as well as joy. That is the nature of things.

Yes! And quite mistakenly so! Notice that the writer has God actually talk to Eve! (No self-respecting God in that culture would have talked to a woman!) Yet, God addresses Eve, which puts her on the same equal ground as a male.

In fact, the creation story in Gen. 1 has it that males and females are to rule over the earth as kings and queens.

 

[theo]

lmao, thats really funny. nah tbh i say adam coz it was listening to an avenged sevenfold song that made me think of this, and well thats how it was worded there,

 

[sojourner]

How do you know they would?

Take for example many rich children. Are they always happier than poorer children, with all the things they can get from their rich parents? Many of the times the rich lifestyle simply becomes normal and very unspecial; especially if it is all you have ever known.

Bad example. That "unspecialness" is not inherent in the having of the stuff, it comes from the spoiling that so often happens in these families. These spoiled people have an overblown sense of entitlement that comes, not from having stuff, but from bad parenting. I know lots of very wealthy people who were not spoiled as children, and who do appreciate the opportunities that they are privileged to have.

Try again.

 

[sojourner]

Can you explain?

Sure! In contrast, we're dealing with gray area -- gradations of color and light. In dualism, we're dealing with absolutes that can never mix.

 

[Willamena]

Sure! In contrast, we're dealing with gray area -- gradations of color and light. In dualism, we're dealing with absolutes that can never mix.

I'm not quite sure I understand the point you are making with shades of gradation. Surely each shade is distinct from the next?

 

[theo]

lmao, thats really funny. nah tbh i say adam coz it was listening to an avenged sevenfold song that made me think of this, and well thats how it was worded there,

 

[sojourner]

I'm not quite sure I understand the point you are making with shades of gradation. Surely each shade is distinct from the next?

But each gradation is not absolutely the opposite of every other gradation. Some gradations actually enhance other gradations. Gradations can combine to form new gradations. With absolutes, it's either + or -. No liminal area. Liminal area is where creation takes place. Liminal assumes no opposites -- it just is what it is. Pink is not defined only as "the opposite of something-else." Pink is defined as a gradation of red and white. If pink exists, it exists because it exists -- not because something else exists as its opposite. It just is what it is. If you really think about it, "good" and "evil" are not absolutes, either depending upon the other for existence. Good is good because it is, not because evil is evil.

 

[Willamena]

But each gradation is not absolutely the opposite of every other gradation. Some gradations actually enhance other gradations. Gradations can combine to form new gradations. With absolutes, it's either + or -. No liminal area. Liminal area is where creation takes place. Liminal assumes no opposites -- it just is what it is. Pink is not defined only as "the opposite of something-else." Pink is defined as a gradation of red and white. If pink exists, it exists because it exists -- not because something else exists as its opposite. It just is what it is. If you really think about it, "good" and "evil" are not absolutes, either depending upon the other for existence. Good is good because it is, not because evil is evil.

Alright. Suffice it to say that we disagree on some salient points.

 

[athanasius]

was adam right?

Answer: No, he was probably left. After all he did make a bad moral choice(Just like the rest of the left) LOL!!!

 

[Arlanbb]

JAMES ~ What if science contrdicts a point in theology? Is it then OK to bring up science?

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

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?

God warned Adam about that tree?

Adam forgot the warning.

 

[.lava]

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?

he was making a mistake. maybe we should also ask why there was something forbidden in a place like heaven. you know, he and she had to make that mistake so this life could begin.

.

 

[Arlanbb]

LAVA ~ Adam/Eve didn't have to sin to reproduce, they were told on day 6, way before they sinned, to go at it and have children.

 

[.lava]

LAVA ~ Adam/Eve didn't have to sin to reproduce, they were told on day 6, way before they sinned, to go at it and have children.

hi i need you to explain a little. as i know it their sin was disobeying command of God.

.