Was Eve justified in eating of the tree of knowledge?

[Greatest I am]

I'd have to agree with Mestemia that intelligence have little to do with morality or this good-versus-evil thingy.

The whole good-and-evil is rather subjective. I don't think everyone's distinction of what's good and what's evil are the same. Some people would see good in the side of strength and evil as a weakness, while others would see it the other way around.

Let's face it, in today's atmosphere and in the last century, 3 largest and most powerful countries - US, Russia and China each view themselves as the side of "good", while all others are corrupted and decadence; and they used fear and propaganda. For centuries before that the 3 powerful nations were the Britain, France and Germany. And before that it was the papal Vatican who branded all others as being evils, and they tortured and burned heretics and witches.

The point is, who dictate good and evil, were in the hands of the powerful, and quite frankly I don't them.

The whole "good" and "evil" as Mestemia, is completely useless comparison and labels that we can really do without. I certainly don't want or don't like, and certainly don't trust religious people, leaders or organisations to dictate what's good and what's evil.

And yet, like all of us, you follow either a political God or a religious one or a combination of both. You do trust in a God.

God = a philosophy for living. Political or religious.

Regards
DL

 

[McBell]

And yet, like all of us, you follow either a political God or a religious one or a combination of both. You do trust in a God.

God = a philosophy for living. Political or religious.

Regards
DL

Nice way to go all Humpty Dumpty on us.


Funny how I cannot find any definition of the word "god" (outside of YOUR post there) that has the word "philosophy" (in any of its forms) in it.

 

[Greatest I am]

Nice way to go all Humpty Dumpty on us.


Funny how I cannot find any definition of the word "god" (outside of YOUR post there) that has the word "philosophy" (in any of its forms) in it.

Does the Bible not start with saying that God is the word. The word is philosophy. If not then what is it?
Is God not all about telling us how to live? Is philosophy not doing the same?

Regards
DL

 

[McBell]

Does the Bible not start with saying that God is the word. The word is philosophy. If not then what is it?
Is God not all about telling us how to live? Is philosophy not doing the same?

Regards
DL

Sorry, not interested in Humpty Dumpty's world.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

You think cutting off your testicles is a holy act?

No I do not.

If he was truly holy, he could manage his own thoughts and deeds, and would not need to remove his genitals to be around women....

Just a thought:sarcastic

This what not about Origens views on original sin or if he could trust himself around women. It was about his belief in the education of women. The culture beliefs of the day would not let females take higher learning from men. So he made himselve a eunich so he could teach women. I believe that this shows a level of respect for humans ( no matter what there sex ) that I find impressive. The idea of castation I find upsetting, but his lack of sexism is way a head of his time.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

God must have thought so. If not then why punish A & E for doing so.

Regards
DL

Because god's a prick.

 

[gnostic]

And yet, like all of us, you follow either a political God or a religious one or a combination of both. You do trust in a God.

God = a philosophy for living. Political or religious.

I trust god (that if he exist, I am not saying that he do) less than I trust religious people. There are good religious people, but there are also bad religious people.

Just how do you trust something that you can neither "see", nor "hear", nor even "experience".

If the bible or whatever scripture that you may believe in can be considered symbolic, metaphor or parable, then how can you trust such texts are telling what you've read to be true. If the Flood is a parable or story, then it has no historical value, just the religious (or symbolic) ones, because you take it on faith.

 

[Mr Cheese]

No I do not.



This what not about Origens views on original sin or if he could trust himself around women. It was about his belief in the education of women. The culture beliefs of the day would not let females take higher learning from men. So he made himselve a eunich so he could teach women. I believe that this shows a level of respect for humans ( no matter what there sex ) that I find impressive. The idea of castation I find upsetting, but his lack of sexism is way a head of his time.

Yes, he had very Gnostic leanings....

I need to read more of his works, I have some...

 

[Mr Cheese]

Does the Bible not start with saying that God is the word. The word is philosophy. If not then what is it?
Is God not all about telling us how to live? Is philosophy not doing the same?

Regards
DL

um, no it doesnt...read Genesis

The Word is the Logos...The logos is NOT philosophy

a simplified explanation from the saunders gnostic glossary:

Logos: Often translated as “Word,” it’s true meaning is much more multifunctional (a better translation would be “reason”). Logos was an ancient Greek term referring to “reasoned speech,” later adapted by the ”Gospel of John” to signify Christ. Logos, Word, and Tao, are synonymous. (See; Pleroma, Cosmology, and Cosmogony.)

 

[Mr Cheese]

Because god's a prick.

Thats not really humerous, irreverant or constructive.

If you are going to criticize something at least be witty, or you simply look like a moron.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Thats not really humerous, irreverant or constructive.

If you are going to criticize something at least be witty, or you simply look like a moron.

and...? Wasn't actually criticizing, in the bible, god's kind of a prick. Wasn't trying to be humorous either, he shows himself to be an ***.

 

[Greatest I am]

Because god's a prick.

The literal Bible god is for sure.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I trust god (that if he exist, I am not saying that he do) less than I trust religious people. There are good religious people, but there are also bad religious people.

Just how do you trust something that you can neither "see", nor "hear", nor even "experience".

If the bible or whatever scripture that you may believe in can be considered symbolic, metaphor or parable, then how can you trust such texts are telling what you've read to be true. If the Flood is a parable or story, then it has no historical value, just the religious (or symbolic) ones, because you take it on faith.

Well if you consider as I do that God is the sum total of His philosophy then you do see and hear and even experience it.

I take nothing on faith.
Faith without facts is for fools.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

um, no it doesnt...read Genesis

The Word is the Logos...The logos is NOT philosophy

a simplified explanation from the saunders gnostic glossary:

Logos: Often translated as “Word,” it’s true meaning is much more multifunctional (a better translation would be “reason”). Logos was an ancient Greek term referring to “reasoned speech,” later adapted by the ”Gospel of John” to signify Christ. Logos, Word, and Tao, are synonymous. (See; Pleroma, Cosmology, and Cosmogony.)

And what do all these reasoned speach lead to?
A philosophy and way of living.

If not, what do they lead to?

Regards
DL

 

[Mr Cheese]

If not, what do they lead to?

Regards
DL

God realisation

Gnothi Seauton

 

[Greatest I am]

God realisation

Gnothi Seauton

A completely meaningless statement and you know it.

Regards
DL

 

[McBell]

I take it that you could not think of an issue and took the easy way with a question instead of an answer.

Which proves absolutely nothing.
especially given that good and evil are so subjective as to be rendered useless.
Which is the whole point you tried to divert away from.

 

[Mr Cheese]

A completely meaningless statement and you know it.

Regards
DL

meaningless to you....

I think the greek temple builders might disagree

Its also the basis for most of the world's spiritual endevors....

but yeah...


Its meaningless

 

[idea]

Was Eve justified in eating of the tree of knowledge?

yes.

11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.
(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 5:11)

 

[gnostic]

Well if you consider as I do that God is the sum total of His philosophy then you do see and hear and even experience it.

I take nothing on faith.
Faith without facts is for fools.

But god's philosophy, according to the bible, can be contradictions.

Jesus may have taught love and compassion towards fellow men, but there are many cases, where the prophets were his mouthpiece (like Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and others), and speak of destroying Israel if they don't worship or obey him or destroying other kingdoms, simply to prove that he is their god.

Is it moral to give people the so-called "free will", and being punished by god for choosing another religion to follow or gods to worship, is hypocritical B.S.

Eve was deceived into disobeying and eating the fruit, and was punished not only for disobeying, but also for being deceived, not being able to tell right from wrong, or good from bad.

If you were deceived into doing wrong, do you think you should be punished for it?

And do you know what's the worse thing about the whole Eve thing? Centuries of Pauline or Christian doctrine or dogma that Eve, and therefore all women, were to blame for all the woes of mankind. The Original Sin is just more religious hypocritical BS that still going on, even today.