• 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 curse of the forbidden fruit.

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
The tree of knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of law. Law teaches us how to consciously distinguish between good and bad behavior. In paradise, humans were under natural instinct and were able to act on natural impulse without the need to have the conscious value judgments. God by setting the taboo require they become conscious. God hoped conscious awareness would choose natural instinct but instead it chose laws of man.

The main problem with law is, unlike instinct, it does not apply to all, nor is it always objective. Law was not made for the righteous man, but for the criminal. Yet the righteous man is forced to obey the law. For example the law of PC is connected to the neurotic of culture, yet forced on even the healthy. This is a bad recipe. After the peer pressure of law, the healthy become less healthy. Original sin is inherent in law in the sense that even the sinless are force to obey the law, as though they have innate sin. Even if you never broke the speed limit and never intend to, you still are under law of speed limits, as thou this capacity to sin is within you; original sin.

As an analogy to answer the question of this topic, say you found a puppy or cub of a wild animal. You try to teach it the laws/rules needed; knowledge of good and evil, so it can get along in civilized society, so you can have it as a pet. This training may require a combination of carrot and club. If you are successful, that animal will become dependent on you, since it has lost its instincts to survive. If you were forced by culture to let it go in the wild, it may not be able to survive. It is now broken and no longer capable of living in the paradise of nature.

Law was useful for developing willpower and choice. It was an important tool for starting civilization. However, the cost of human domestication, was the lost of natural human instinct, Natural human instinct; one set of God's laws, was designed to allow survival and integration with nature. This was lost due to eating of the forbidden fruit; law and dependency. War and other destructive yet needed technology appear, since all the dependents human animals, due to the law, over populated and needed to be taken care of, in ways that were not natural or integrated with nature; war and global warming.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Already have. See post #(27) and (30).

Good-Ole-Rebel

Okay, so you think that you are enslaved to an invisible deity. I get that. It doesn't apply to the rest of us. Sorry. I and most of the rest of humanity believes that slavery (and beating people) is immoral. Period.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Okay, so you think that you are enslaved to an invisible deity. I get that. It doesn't apply to the rest of us. Sorry. I and most of the rest of humanity believes that slavery (and beating people) is immoral. Period.

It does apply to you. You just don't believe it.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

sooda

Veteran Member
See post #(27) and (30).

See (Gen. 1:27-3:19) Man was never independent. God was His Master. Gave Him life. A garden to work. And a command what not to do. And judgement as a result of disobedience.

See also, (Rom. 6:16)

Good-Ole-Rebel

Before Genesis it was for the gods.

Who Were the Real 'Gods of Eden'? | Humans Are Free
humansarefree.com/2014/07/who-were-real-gods-of-eden.html
Whilst the first syllable ‘E’ meant ‘Home’, the second syllable was an abbreviation of DIN.GIR, commonly translated as ‘the gods’. Eden or E.DIN was therefore the ‘Abode of the Gods’. Ancient texts describe more than one abode of the gods, with the Earth being divided geographically between two rival groups, headed by the brothers Enlil and Enki respectively.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
That's what you think. Personally I believe the apple represents good and evil and thus war hate and fighting.

I prefer to think the original authors of the story meant what he said. You are free of course to interpret it to fit your personal narrative.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
The bible doesn't say good is forbidden.

Did I say that? No, I did not......... I quoted the passage. It says the KNOWLEDGE of both good and evil were forbidden. Therefore they could not have any way to determine whether it was a good thin or a bad thing to eat the fruit. they had no concept of either.

So it would stand to reason that before eating of the tree, the two people would have had no knowledge of either.
So they were penalized for an action which they could not have judged as either.
 
Last edited:

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
Did I say that? No, I did not......... I quoted the passage. It says the KNOWLEDGE of both good and evil were forbidden. Therefore they could not have any way to determine whether it was a good thin or a bad thing to eat the fruit. they had no concept of either.

So it would stand to reason that before eating of the tree, the two people would have had no knowledge of either.
So they were penalized for an action which they could not have judged as either.

Knowledge of good and evil is war hate and fighting. Agree to disagree.
 

Moz

Religion. A pox on all their Houses.
Did I say that? No, I did not......... I quoted the passage. It says the KNOWLEDGE of both good and evil were forbidden. Therefore they could not have any way to determine whether it was a good thin or a bad thing to eat the fruit. they had no concept of either.

So it would stand to reason that before eating of the tree, the two people would have had no knowledge of either.
So they were penalized for an action which they could not have judged as either.
Did I say that? No, I did not......... I quoted the passage. It says the KNOWLEDGE of both good and evil were forbidden. Therefore they could not have any way to determine whether it was a good thin or a bad thing to eat the fruit. they had no concept of either.

So it would stand to reason that before eating of the tree, the two people would have had no knowledge of either.
So they were penalized for an action which they could not have judged as either.

Hi
You misunderstand but thankfully in a previous post you said........I prefer to think the original authors of the story meant what he said. The original authors when finishing the account of creation, were quite specific about everything being GOOD. When they lost their pristine position they came to realise that their was an opposite to what they had been experiencing. They did not need a "concept of good" when everything was already good. The "Knowledge of Good and Bad" manifested as the realisation that they were now subject to time and death because of their decision.

...................................................

It says the KNOWLEDGE of both good and evil were forbidden.

Also.... this is not what the original authors said. They were forbidden to eat from the tree.... nowhere does that imply that they had no idea of what good or evil is, logically they must have at least known what the words meant for them to mean anything. They were not subject to the vicissitudes of life inherent in being free agents and independent of the Fathers guidance. Evil became real knowledge once the consequences of their actions manifested.
...............................................
If one is reading the story and trying to figure out what the author "really meant" why would you go to the most negative reading possible and defend that particular hill. Surely the author of Genesis wasn't trying to paint the picture that you wish to read into the story. Surely the "original author" was trying to portray God in the best light and that is the context the story should be read in.
Peace

 
Top