-
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!
The tree of knowledge..............
- Thread starter michel
- Start date
From Sarna ...Willamena said:
It is more satisfactory, however, to understand "good and bad" as undifferentiated parts of a totality, a merism meaning "everything." ... It should be noted that "good and bad," exactly in the Hebrew form used here (tov va-ra'), occurs again only in Deuteronomy 1:39: "Moreover, your little ones who you said would be carried off, your children who do not yet know good from bad ..." There the context leaves no doubt that not to know good and bad means to be innocent, not to have attained the age of responsibility. In the present passage, then, it is best to understand "knowledge of good and bad" as the capacity to make indepentent judgements concerning human welfare.
- JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis
- JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Probably not until he's a little older, Victor.Victor said:
It's obviously hard for a parent to allow a child to venture into the world, knowing that there are some pretty unsavory characters out there and a lot of opportunities to get hurt. But most parents realize that there comes a time when they have to do just that. Protecting our kids forever isn't doing them any favors. You'll love your son when he's 21 as much as you do now, but by then you will have undoubtedly given him the freedom to learn and grow and, yes, even to make some mistakes that might be pretty painful.
Reminds me of Aristotle's "essence" of things, similar to Plato's "ideal", sometimes equated with the supernatural --the essential nature of things all around us. An "ideal essence" of the world could certainly be described as a "Paradise". Is that what you were referring to?doppelgänger said:
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
No. I'm referring to the idea that life is joyous without needing to judge everything as "good" an "evil" or find some unique purpose or meaning in it. The idea is that "eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" compels us to create judgments that turn the "garden of paradise" into a threatening place - and it no longer appears to be a garden.Willamena said:
By understanding the story to be a metaphor about the creation of identity, and limitations of reason and language, it means to me that we are still in the Garden (we were only cast out by our own perceptions). This interpretation then creates a whole new way of reading passages like this one from the Gospel of Thomas, that I was paraphrasing and relating to the "Eden" story in my earlier post:
It's a metaphor about the loss of innocence that comes with our perception that language represents "truth."
Booko
Deviled Hen
It's not just the "tree of knowledge" but the "tree of knowledge of good and evil."
I look on that story, in one way at least, as an allegorical tale illustrating what makes us different than animals -- a moral sense.
The "innocence" is a state like animals are in now. (as far as we know) they don't have any sense of ethics. They work pretty much on instinct and learned behaviour, but not out of a moral sense.
I look on that story, in one way at least, as an allegorical tale illustrating what makes us different than animals -- a moral sense.
The "innocence" is a state like animals are in now. (as far as we know) they don't have any sense of ethics. They work pretty much on instinct and learned behaviour, but not out of a moral sense.
gnostic
The Lost One
If Adam and Eve were "innocent", as in having "no knowledge of good and bad" (before they ate the fruit), then wouldn't that mean they don't know it was bad thing to do - to disobey God commandment of not eating the fruit? Nor understand the consquences of attaining that knowledge?
And, again, if they were "innocent", then Eve could not possibly judge the serpent's words being right or wrong? Would Eve even know she was being deceived?
Can Adam and Eve really be held responsible for eating the forbidden fruit?
And, again, if they were "innocent", then Eve could not possibly judge the serpent's words being right or wrong? Would Eve even know she was being deceived?
Can Adam and Eve really be held responsible for eating the forbidden fruit?
Willamena said:
I apologise for not having responded to this thread; things have been a bit hectic on the home front.............
I'm not going to do anything so mean as to come back sniping; thanks for your attempt to define supernatural.
The only comment is (from my point of view) is that you are viewing supernatural from a different stance from mine. To me, you are defining supernatural from within the confines of 'natural', which is fair enough, but, to my mind, limited as it's understanding.
Don't you think that your grandparents would have believed (when they were young) that altering DNA or examining genes to find a defect would have come under the same umbrella you use for 'supernatural'?
You see, my contention is that there is nothing 'unknowable'- not if we can elevate our abilities to perceive; ie, learn a new 'range' of perception ? (which is something that science has helped us do for many years).
The "unknown/unknowable", I would suggest, is a (at our stange of development) decreasing 'level' of comprehension. As we have gained knowledge (in all fields), there has been less in your "unknown/unknowable" 'heap' and more in the "known" heap........
Again, your focus on the supernatural "so it is everything that we cannot know about a thing", whilst I underatnd your comment, from your point of view, I would like to substitute "cannot understand at this time" for "haven't the ability to perceive"....
Does that make sense ? because that is a point (as I see it) from where we need to be in unison in understanding, before we drift off into using the word.
Booko said:
Are you sure about that ? because, if you are right, traits in human animals (which can also be seen in nature), which are defined as 'immoral' in humans are considered 'natural' for animals - take the simplest of all, stealing food from your neighbour.
So do many humans..........I react very much to 'bad' patterns of learned behaviour (a tendency to being a recluse because going out 'worries' me); don't you ever drive your car (if you have one), and suddenly realise that you are at the destination, but haven't noticed the specifics of the journey, because you have been thinking about 1001 things whilst driving?
Jayhawker Soule said:
Jay, doesn't that mean that 'innocence' is relative? relative to our state of awareness of good and bad?
Was Hitler innocent? (I am taking the hypothetical stance that he believed that what he was doing was the very best for mankind).............I, and you know he was very wrong.........Maybe a bad example, but I wanted to find one that highlighted the point, to an extreme.
nutshell said:
I am talking about us - Fallible humans.
We were innocent, man was destined to eat the fruit, thereby turning paradise into our perceived world here; in which we need to struggle to lose half of the lessons learned from the tree (the bad bits)...........why the 'charade' from God ? Why not keep us in paradise, and innocent, and bypass the 'life' bit?
nutshell
Well-Known Member
michel said:
It was paradise because there was no death (spiritual or physical).
But there was also no progression. I don't consider it a 'charade' from God one bit. We were basically infants without the knowledge necessary to gain experience, learn, grow, and progress to become like our Heavenly Father. Why would God want his children to remain infants? There would be an end to progression. He was providing us the means to grow.
gnostic
The Lost One
That wouldn't be classified as "supernatural" at all. It would be consider "unnatural" and "artificial" to Williamena's grandparents.Michel said:
You are seeing the whole thing with genetic/DNA science in the wrong way. I would call it "unnatural" or "artificial" to tamper or alter genes. What scientist have done, is nothing magical.
Supernatural is also unnatural, but it is unnatural in a different way. Supernatural on the other hand, is either magical or divine. Like Jesus healing a leper or blind man through the touch of his hand, or simply the words "You are forgiven; sin no more." And the blind person can see and the leper is healed.
Until a scientist can alter DNA or gene with the wave of his hand, then it is not supernatural.
nutshell
Well-Known Member
gnostic said:
Ahhh...but that day may come. I personally believe there are scientific laws behind the miracles performed that we just haven't discovered yet.
For example, planetoids beyond Pluto have been discovered over the years. Does that mean they weren't there before? No...we just became aware of them through discovery. Miracles are the same, IMO. Is it something without explanation? No, we just have found that explanation yet. I guess that's why it's easy for me to believe we can become like God someday. Because I believe we'll just continue growing in our understand of the laws of the universe until He grants us the infinite knowledge he has.
What, precisely, is your point?michel said:
I have no idea what my grandparents might have thought, but I doubt it. Science wasn't a stranger to people in the early 20th Century. Neither was Jung. But, what are you getting at with this question?michel said:
Okay; but the unknowable I speak of is also necessarily unperceivable, no matter how much elevating we as a species might do. If we can eventually detect it, it doesn't fit any definition of 'unknowable'.michel said:
Cannot know, ever. Mind you, knowing and understanding are two diferent things, too.michel said:
Yes, what you say makes sense, but we are talking about two disparate definitions. It's not a big problem for discussion, because I do understand the context in which you use the word. It is, in my opinion, a misunderstanding of the other concept (much the same way "myth" in its context of a falsehood is a misunderstanding of its other usage) that is now a part of our language.
gnostic
The Lost One
nutshell said:
There are some Christians who can accept scientific explanations and still have faith or belief of theism (existence of God) and in miracles. And there are some Christians who don't accept scientific explanations behind miracles, but accept that God is behind them. But whether it can be explained by scientific or divine mean, the miracles are still supernatural, and have only basis within Faith.
If science was to say the possession of body by demon, in Jesus' time, was nothing more than some sort of delusion or psychoses, like schizophrenia. Can all Christians accept such scientific explanations? I don't think many Christians would, if they do believe in demons. If you believe in possession and exorcism, and that Jesus drove out demon from a body, then you believe in the supernatural. If you can accept that the person was suffering from neural disorders or psychoses then you have accepted that there are natural explanation to the mental disorder.
Of course, if it was mental disorder that Jesus had healed instead of demonic possession, it is still a miracle to heal madness with a touch of hand, thus it is still supernatural. I am not sure what sort of explanation can be used to explain Jesus' healing power. Christians may say it came from his own power, or that from God or the Holy Spirit, but an atheist might say it is a scam or trickery.
We only have accounts from gospel authors as testimonies to the miracles. Jesus' disciples were ordinary folks, such fishermen, farmers, shepherds, artisans and tax-men. There were no scientists, to critically examine these miracles.
We can only examine these second-hand through what is written in the scriptures, and this is usually not the best way to explain any miraclous event from naturalistic or scientific perspective or approach.
nutshell
Well-Known Member
gnostic said:
I'd like to address this before looking at the remainder of your post.
What you've posted here assumes that if you accept the scientific explanation that you do not accept that God is behind them. I disagree. I believe in scientific explanations and that God is behind them. Of course, I don't know the science that is behind the miracles, but I do believe there is some law or process or technology even that is behind the miracle and I believe that through the eternities, as we learn more and more, we will some day have the knowledge required to discover this science...making us like God the Father and Jesus Christ.
You know what,,,,I will give my perspective about demon possession. I believe in some cases it is mental illness, but I do also believe in literal demon possession. Casting out demons is done through the power of Jesus Christ and that's good enough for me, even if I think it's possible there might even be a law of science behind the casting out of demons. I'll have to think about this one.
gnostic
The Lost One
What's wrong with the 1st group?
The 1st group is a Christian who can accept compromise between their religion and with science. The 1st group can still accept miracle, but where it can be demonstrated that some concepts/teachings are wrong through the scientific mean, then they can accept science. Such as the earth being flat, or every heavenly bodies orbit the earth.
The 2nd group will only faith and miracles.
I left out the 3rd group. A person, who is either atheist or agnostic (or something else), who would only accept scientific explanation, and no miracle.
The 1st group is a Christian who can accept compromise between their religion and with science. The 1st group can still accept miracle, but where it can be demonstrated that some concepts/teachings are wrong through the scientific mean, then they can accept science. Such as the earth being flat, or every heavenly bodies orbit the earth.
The 2nd group will only faith and miracles.
I left out the 3rd group. A person, who is either atheist or agnostic (or something else), who would only accept scientific explanation, and no miracle.