-
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 Eve justified in eating of the tree of knowledge?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Greatest I am
Well-Known Member
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
The whole story about eve eating from the tree doesnt make sense.
An allknowing god creates a garden and puts something in it which he doesnt want to be touched although he knows already that Satan will persuade eve and that it will be touched.
Actually the first evil so to speak could be attributed to him as he condemned all of mankind. Obviously later in his life he thought about it and calculated that the only way to actually forgive the innocent is to come down here as one of them and get killed most cruelly by some human fools. It didnt occur to him to just forgive them right away.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
Because it is not supposed to be taken literally.....
If there is any literal truth in there, it is surrounded by symbolism!
VEry few take the eden tale literally
McBell
Unbound
My question is: How exactly is this NOT God merely setting Eve up to fail?
I mean, if God truly did know before hand what was going to happen....
Greatest I am
Well-Known Member
Not so.
Unfortunately, way too many read the Bible literally. most of these are silly.
Regards
DL
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
Greatest I am
Well-Known Member
I would say about 1/4 of Christians and most of Islam.
Way too many silly people.
Regards
DL
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Yeah, only a few groups comprising about half of all americans believe Genesis is a literal account. That's all.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
I forget how many protestants there are in USA
If this is even appraochign truth, I eat my words...
I know there are women runnign around America that think they should serve their husbands etc. because God created Adam first etc.
Quite sad really
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
I think the numbers are higher then that. If you talk to the christians in South America and Africa I think you will find that many believe in Adam and Eve.
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
If you uexchanged the "take" with a "took" then the last sentence would have to be formulated differently.
Just as today "6" days is read as "6 periods of unknown length at unknown time" by most.
For me one of the best criteria for a scripture is its understandability.
Either it should be taken literally OR it should provide the rules by which it can be understood non literally.
The bible offers no rules and a literal interpretation is faulty.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
well the rules are things such as oral tradition
and the many aspects of kabbalah, gematria etc etc etc
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
Oral traditions are not rules and i havent seen them fixed yet.
Apart of that i would expect a book of God to be selfcontained concerning its own interpretation
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
then you'd be a bit foolish
I cant think of one "book of God" that is like this...
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
I agree to the second sentence. But i do not draw the conclusion you state in the first sentence. Actually i would rather say ... if you agree to your own second statement ... would you not be able to come to a different conclusion about the truth of the "books of god"?
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
well you seem to be assuming, much like the literalists
that there is only one conclusion
This is one aspect of how scripture differs from Hanzel and Gretl...
there are many conclusions to be drawn.
Indeed one can easily assert, the content is unimportant, it is the effect on the reader that matters.
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
Well i admit i am a rather pragmatic guy when it comes to claims that may cause so much suffering.
In my view a statement must be clear. If it is not clear then it shouldnt be taken seriously. Now you argue that many conclusions can be drawn from one and the same text. This you might see as advantage. I see it the opposite way around.
If you can draw many conclusions including ones that contradict each other then there is no statement, no conclusion at all.
Hence any "revelation" is not really one but just as valid as senseless talk.
Given the consequences of revelations for believers i even think this is a very dangerous and stupid thing.
You might argue that a statement like "kill this guy or that" can be used to draw any conclusion and that it is not the content but rather the feeling you get from such stuff that counts...
I must admit I do not feel any inclination toward such an argument.
One should wonder why it would be so difficult for a god to make good statements that are fitting for us stupid animals and reduce the suffering we introduce to each other because some folks think they understood something in one way and others think it was in another way. And this even without taking into account all the rather "direct" statements asking for bloodshed and war.
Another point of course is that if you allow your "loose" scriptural quality then you can't possibly decide on neutral grounds which scripture is true. All become equal. Which logically cant be.
The appeal to the "effect" it has on the believer... well most scriptures have the same effect i would say. If you want that however then you do not need scriptures.
Especially God wouldnt need a scripture.
But let me ask you a question.
If it is as you say ... would you then see a book written by me that gives you a similar effect as lets say a bible or quran as equal? Would you then call me God or prophet?
I hope you wouldnt but i see no way how you could argue for that no.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
Well Gnostics did just that....
they wrote their own....
would I give you a label? maybe....
Gnostics tended not to take their books seriously either...
as I said in another thread (I forget so this is slightly different)a good Gnostic perspective on scripture is this:
Scripture teaches us that coffee is hot.
We know coffee is hot because we can touch it, and we are told it is hot.
Scripture does not teach us what coffee tastes like.
Mar Mani, founder of the Manichaean faith (arguably the first organised religion, which lasted a 1000 years) has had much written about him. A quick internet search will reveal much about him and his faith. You will find allusions to dualism, evil and zoroastrianism.
However if one actually looks closer, Mani actually refused to discuss the nature of the universe and life. To him. as a Gnostic, such things were not even really worth bothering to worry about or more rightly to conceive of. These things were ineffible....
Ineffible is a wholey Gnostic embraced idea...
......................
The purpose of a fishtrap is to catch fish, and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten.
The purpose of a rabbit snare is to catch rabbits. When the rabbits are caught, the snare is forgotten.
The purpose of words is to convey ideas. When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten words? He is the one I would like to talk to.
–Chuang Tsu
Last edited:
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
That picture of Christ you are using was painted by a Hindu monk. It was inspired by a vision he had of christ. It is in many of the Hindu temples of the Ramakrishna order of swamis.