A and E could not know love without eating of the TOK.

[Greatest I am]

A and E could not know love without eating of the TOK.

 

There are many discussions centered around the story of Eden regardless of whether you read it literally, as allegory, figurative or myth.

 

Some believe that Satan lied, some that God lied.

 

Some see it as man’s fall while others, the Orthodox Jews who wrote the O T, see it as man’s elevation.

 

Some think becoming as Gods is good, Jews, some not. Christians.

 

Some give A & E free will yet the first time it is used, God punished them.

 

A & E are supposed to be autonomous yet cannot know they are without doing their will instead of the will of God.

 

Some see the punishments and original sin given as unjust and unbiblical.

 

Some point to the fact that disobedience to God deserves anything God wants to do too them as well as all their descendents. Again contradicted by scripture.

 

Some think that to become as Gods with a moral sense is worth any punishment or hardship.

 

The terms used in Eden are always in dispute.

 

What did God mean with, you shall surely die? A death innocence, there eyes were opened? Or a physical death that is passed on to all men?

 

Who or what was the serpent or what does he represent?

 

In other words, in 2000 years of debate, Eden and a fall or elevation, has not moved to any accepted conclusions.

 

That is why I would like to focus on the issue of love and what Eden would be like if A & E had not eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. A & E could not know love as it is good and they had no knowledge of good.

 

Perhaps by entering the story from this angle, some progress might actually be gained.

 

Certainly none has been gained by any other means.

 

The oldest tradition started with Eden as our elevation from ignorance to having a moral sense.

 

http://www.mrrena.com/misc/judaism2.php

 

Christianity later usurped the Jewish scriptures, embraced them as a part of the bible, and promptly turned the moral of the story from what the Jews had in place, to the fall of man. Blamed for bringing death to the earth and cursed with original sin. A guilt trip that all were to share.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man

 

 

Where Jews empowered man, the Christians as Bishop Spong says, went into the guilt producing business.

 

Now, on to speaking of love.

 

I see Eden, before our elevation or fall, depending on your POV, as resembling this clip that shows, in a good analogy, what Eden may have been like.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv7J9LtT95w&feature=related

 

You have seen that love certainly was not about in that clip and without it, people would not care for each other. I contend therefore that in Eden, if A & E had not gained a moral sense, thus enabling them to know love as something good, life for man would not be worth living.

 

 

 

The Jewish interpretation the gain of love as a huge plus while Christianity would shun this virtue and instead opt for blind obedience as the more valuable virtue. They chose to make slavery a virtue, instead the notion of rebellion against tyranny. You may have noted that nowhere in scripture is slavery condemned. In fact Paul teaches just how to beat your slaves. Nowhere in scripture is woman given equality because Eve was made from Adam’s rib and is declare to be the head of woman. This is also contrasted by the opposing view that the Jews had of Lilith, Adams first mate who is given, or better said, takes full equality.

 

The Christian Eden began devoid of love. When A & E gained the ability to love, through the gain of knowledge and wisdom, God shoes clearly that there is no love in his heart and that he is a jealous God who is culpable for allowing death to enter the world by locking away the tree of life. That same tree which he had already told A & E they could eat from, thus in effect, killing them. Some would say murdering them.

 

What would you do if you were Adam or Eve?

 

Create the conditions where love nor death could be found on earth and live as in that clip of The Time Machine, or would you follow Eve and choose knowledge and wisdom and become as Gods, God’s words, and disobey a command that you could not know, without first eating of the tree of knowledge, that that would be an evil act?

 

Whose interpretation of Eden do you think makes more sense and is better for mankind?

 

The Jewish interpretation of man’s elevation, or the Christian one of the fall and promotion of blind obedience?

 

 

 

Regards

 

DL

 

P S. Which tune do you like.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVbLNPwi_r0

 

Or.

 

 

 

[DevilSolution]

neither i prefer this one

 

"Afterward, the world will resurface anew and fertile, the surviving and reborn gods will meet, and the world will be repopulated by two human survivors. Ragnarök is an important event in the Norse canon, and has been the subject of scholarly discourse and theory."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k

As far as TOK goes, one can not be blamed or praised for ones instinctive nature, if it were natural of ourselves to eat from the TOK then god would have known we had no choice....which makes the whole thing pointless. I can only assert that by eating from the TOK we caused conflict externally (such as conflicting ideology's and ovcourse not taking A + E factually) this gave rise to a persons belief system or persona as such, like in old mythology, no 2 characters are the same, therefor eating from the TOK gave us individuality which could only cause external (perhaps once internal?) conflicts.

"Whose interpretation of Eden do you think makes more sense and is better for mankind?"

From my POV it doesnt matter which religion said what and who's right, no-one can be right if everyones wrong and no-one can be wrong if everyones right.

My TOK paragraph shows theres no exact answer for whos right, its simply two sides of one story and other explanations or perceptions do exist. mankind finds it too difficult to function as a whole which also just adds to there being no right answer, the best answer i can give is that the fact we can "interpret" at all makes us very special.

[Greatest I am]

neither i prefer this one

 

"Afterward, the world will resurface anew and fertile, the surviving and reborn gods will meet, and the world will be repopulated by two human survivors. Ragnarök is an important event in the Norse canon, and has been the subject of scholarly discourse and theory."

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Ragnar%C3%B6k

As far as TOK goes, one can not be blamed or praised for ones instinctive nature, if it were natural of ourselves to eat from the TOK then god would have known we had no choice....which makes the whole thing pointless. I can only assert that by eating from the TOK we caused conflict externally (such as conflicting ideology's and ovcourse not taking A + E factually) this gave rise to a persons belief system or persona as such, like in old mythology, no 2 characters are the same, therefor eating from the TOK gave us individuality which could only cause external (perhaps once internal?) conflicts.

"Whose interpretation of Eden do you think makes more sense and is better for mankind?"

From my POV it doesnt matter which religion said what and who's right, no-one can be right if everyones wrong and no-one can be wrong if everyones right.

My TOK paragraph shows theres no exact answer for whos right, its simply two sides of one story and other explanations or perceptions do exist. mankind finds it too difficult to function as a whole which also just adds to there being no right answer, the best answer i can give is that the fact we can "interpret" at all makes us very special.

 

Two sides to one story. Yes.

 

Perhaps if you focused on the side that has done much damage to society, in terms of giving us all an original sin guilt trip, not giving woman equality, and the ongoing discrimination of Gays. All based on the Christian interpretation.

 

I will stick to the Jewish, civilized way. As God intended.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[chilehed]

A and E could not know love without eating of the TOK....The Christian Eden began devoid of love....

Your post is so filled with erroneous ideas about Christian theology that it can't really be addressed in a forum such as this.

[Phi for All]

Some give A & E free will yet the first time it is used, God punished them.

How is this inconsistent with free will? They made a free-willed choice to do something God had told them not to. It's more of a consequence than a punishment.

 

As to the rest, I always fall back to more basic points. If God is omniscient, then He knew ahead of time that Adam and Eve would partake of knowledge, yet still He calls it the original sin and judges their descendants to be flawed. Matthew 7:2 tells us we'll be judged as we judge others, so are God's ancestors to blame for the way we turned out?

[Greatest I am]

Your post is so filled with erroneous ideas about Christian theology that it can't really be addressed in a forum such as this.

 

Thanks for the laugh.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

How is this inconsistent with free will? They made a free-willed choice to do something God had told them not to. It's more of a consequence than a punishment.

 

As to the rest, I always fall back to more basic points. If God is omniscient, then He knew ahead of time that Adam and Eve would partake of knowledge, yet still He calls it the original sin and judges their descendants to be flawed. Matthew 7:2 tells us we'll be judged as we judge others, so are God's ancestors to blame for the way we turned out?

 

 

We should all step up to our own blame.

 

As to their free will choice, if that is what it was, after all, it was done from a position of lack of full disclosure by God and new information from the talking snake that was true.

 

Let us say that it was a free choice.

 

They could not have known it was an evil choice because they had no clue as to what good and evil were. If they did not have evil intent then it is not just to punish them.

 

Secular law calls that mens rea, Latin for evil mind or intent.

 

Without that evil intent, the courts will not punish. Neither would a just God.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[Phi for All]

We should all step up to our own blame.

Agreed.

 

As to their free will choice, if that is what it was, after all, it was done from a position of lack of full disclosure by God and new information from the talking snake that was true.

 

Let us say that it was a free choice.

 

They could not have known it was an evil choice because they had no clue as to what good and evil were. If they did not have evil intent then it is not just to punish them.

It doesn't matter whether it was a good or evil choice. It matters that God said not to do it, there will be a certain consequence. It doesn't even matter that the consequence wasn't what God said it would be, the fact is that they knew there was a consequence, they did it anyway and were punished for it.

 

Secular law calls that mens rea, Latin for evil mind or intent.

 

Without that evil intent, the courts will not punish. Neither would a just God.

God could have killed them both, since death was the consequence He warned of. Banishment could be construed as merciful comparatively. Courts often decide to reduce sentences to incarceration instead of death when premeditation can't be proven, since you bring up secular law (which you shouldn't, since secular laws vary by society, and what is considered just by some is barbarism to others).