A) speaking swedish without understanding swedish might be silly, but that is a judgment.
B) knowledge of swedish language, might have levels (of awareness). From what I said earlier, knowledge at a direct / honest level would be, "swedish language is swedish language." That may not explain anything, but knowledge doesn't need to explain itself. Another level of awareness would be realizing the language exists. And another level might be realization that the language exists for contextual communication, but is not parcel to how actual communication works. Instead, is part of the 'illusion of communication' in which knowledge is either forgotten or seen as partial.
C) Knowledge of swedish language is not very comparable to "knowledge of good and evil" which is main context of this thread. I realize for you it might be, but you are misusing knowledge to make the connection. And to help understand how knowledge is being misused, I would (already have) introduce 'levels of awareness' into the picture. Such that "knowledge of swedish language" as related to Gen. 2, would be akin, "knowledge of illusionary communication."
A) "they can't period" is judgment, lacking understanding
B) homosexual is very relativistic, and one could appear to be 'not that' while having understanding and/or judgments that might match up in very synchronistic way to one who is determined to be 'that.' IMO, this would be rather easily demonstrable. Though I would perhaps emphasize "appearing to be not that" is something that is very open to be fudged with. But to whatever degree that is doubted, I'd be willing to expose the shallow judgment you have asserted for the lie that it is.
C) "Know what it's like" is another way of saying "understand" so, IMO, your 'knowledge' claim applying to this example is inappropriate.
D) Knowledge of homosexuality, like knowledge of heterosexuality and really any-sexuality would in context of "knowledge of good and evil" be akin to, "knowledge of illusionary joining."
They would make false judgments, based on their lack of understanding. Yet, I do think it is entirely plausible to appear to be "not homosexual" and have very clear understanding of it. While also possible to be 'actively homosexual' and in relativistic way (based more on social norms) to be one who doesn't seem to have same understanding as others, and lacks understanding of 'what true, good homosexuals possess.' Which is where things get more than a little fuzzy.
I think homosexuality in general is fuzzy, in terms of understanding, and for sure in terms of (good) judgments. Fuzzy doesn't mean we can't relate with one another about homosexuality, but does mean even us who are in agreement on several fundamental items, may have huge disagreements about other items, some of which may be agreed upon as trivial, and others which may have one of us doubt the fundamental understandings of the other.
An example (of many many) that I'd introduce to explain the fuzziness would be this: would a bisexual individual have, in your opinion, no understanding, made-up understanding, false judgments, bad judgments (etc.) regarding homosexuality, or do you think bisexual persons have full awareness, due to nature of bisexuality?
Which is what I see you doing with regards to "tree of knowledge of good and evil." Your judgment appears to be, God had to know what evil is to create that tree, otherwise it makes no sense. And while that may not be spot on with what you are saying, I hope you'll give me some leeway. And I would just say, "God creating evil" and basing it on this story, is interesting to me, but worthy of debate when terms of the story are being either misrepresented or misconstrued. I've already explained a bunch of times in this thread how that shows up to me. But instead, it seems like you (and/or perhaps others) are arguing from fallacy of saying "empirical knowledge is only knowledge we have, and that applies to this tree, and therefore God created evil, since he was aware of evil before that tree came about." Which makes for semi-interesting interpretation of the tale, but one that I find fallacious and have noted why in this very elaborate way. Empirical knowledge isn't only form of knowledge, and without context that is illusion (starting with Garden type scenario), empirical knowledge has nothing to stand on. It is thought system that within context of illusion has merit. Without the illusion, empiricism dissolves, as meditation can demonstrate to the mind willing to 'go there.'
