Tree of Good and Evil

[Fool]

Are things black and white, or is context a relevant concept?

context is relevant. agreed.

 

[Fool]

Nice. But that does not answer my question. I don't care about energy conservation or Hitler's Manichaeism or his obsession of dividing things in right or wrong. . This is just noise trying to avoid a clear cut answer. I am only interested in the fruits, in order to evaluate your claim rationally and objectively.

Are "loving dogs" or "being a vegetarian" or "not drinking alcohol" bad fruits?

Yes/no/maybe

Ciao

- viole

it takes both nature and nurture; so maybe.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And how did you determine that everything would be "pure evil", at that point?

There is no other way to view it--with zero choice available, that would mean all the people who suffer Great Harm, did so because whatever "creator" made it that way, did so out of Pure Malice.

Moreover, having no choice in the matter-- they were Harmed for no purpose, other than this "creator" willed it.

And THAT, is as good a definition of "evil" as you could ask for.

 

[osgart]

the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was commanded by God not to eat of it. The sin of Adam and eve was one of rebellion and lack of trust in God. yet their curiosity was too test it all right away.

it's just a very, very poor story. bad myth.

they then realized that they were naked and went to hide from God.

now God is assumed to be obvious to trust, and they did not, and not to trust God is considered sin. because trustworthy is God's most obvious character.

they listened to Satan instead an obvious murderer, and that is a sin to entertain a murder in such a way, while God is so obviously trustworthy.

So God tested Adam and eve right away, as to their character, and they failed. sin is evildoing and they are the first sinners, so now make more sinners for offspring I guess was the allowance of God. which makes no sense to let new sinners come into existence.

psalms says that children are born sinners . why would God allow such a ridiculous thing ?

 

[Sleeppy]

There is no other way to view it--with zero choice available, that would mean all the people who suffer Great Harm, did so because whatever "creator" made it that way, did so out of Pure Malice.

Moreover, having no choice in the matter-- they were Harmed for no purpose, other than this "creator" willed it.

And THAT, is as good a definition of "evil" as you could ask for.

1) You're assuming that "good" is wholly dependent upon human spontaneity. Illogical.

2) Spontaneity and causality are both antithetical to the idea of "choice".


Why did you do this, rather than that?

Spontaneity, or cause and effect?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Is hate a learned behavior?

Hate must be learned if the hate isn't deserved, and certainly isn't learned if it is deserved.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But the "law" was 100% arbitrary, really. Apart from slave-like "obey!" there was nothing really there one way or another.
Did Adam murder a bunch of people wantonly? No? (wait-- that isn't actually against god's laws, is it-- as god commanded exactly that, multiple times, later on in Exodus... )
Maybe Adam cheated on Eve? No? (couldn't really-- nobody else there... Hobson's choice)
Did Adam burn down the garden? No? Did he cruelly slaughter the animals just for the pleasure of it? No?
What, exactly DID Adam do that was worthy of the Death Penalty?
Other than fail to act like a mindless slave?

I find that that tree stood for the Law of the Land.
One Law. No hardship. Plenty to eat. Just don't eat from one particular tree or loose your everlasting life.
How many fruit trees are there on Earth ?
By God saying 'Do Not Eat....' to me was as if God put up a No Trespassing sign on 'His' one-and-only tree.
What Adam did was break the known Law. By deliberately trespassing breaking the Law Adam took the Law out of God's hands and placed the Law into his own hands. Thus, Adam set up People Rule as being superior to God Rule as the best way of governing.
Since Adam was gifted with free-will choices, then God could Not go back on his gift to Adam.
So, God honored his gift to Adam. If Adam was a slave-like obeyer then Adam would Not have had the free-will choice to obey or Not obey. Are world leaders mindless slaves, after all they have educated degrees and look what their higher education had done for the world. I think Adam had No idea as to how world leaders would treat the world, but because of Adam they too have the gift of free-will choices, and how wise are their choices.

I also find there is a difference between: killing, murder and an execution.
Exodus was after the Flood of Noah's day far removed from Eden's days.
If God would Not have taken the Flood action then No one righteous would have been left on Earth.
Those violent people would have killed/murdered the righteous ones, so the Flood was an execution for the sake of justice for righteous people because God purposes that the humble meek will inherit the Earth.
If everyone who has lived, lived by the Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18 what would the world be like?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Hate must be learned if the hate isn't deserved, and certainly isn't learned if it is deserved.

Interesting ^ above ^ that hate must be learned, then vice versa hate could be un-learned.
I find Leviticus 19:17 stresses it is wrong to hate your brother, or as Jesus taught to love one's enemies.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But toddlers quickly recognize "fair" and "not-fair". Even our simian cousins show a marked understanding of "fair" and "not fair" in recent studies. I expect most of the near-sentient mammals do this, and not a few avian species as well.
So we appear to be born with ideas of "fair play"-- which we seem to use as a starting point for Morality with a capital M.
Things to ponder late at night, when sleep won't come...

I can agree with born with ideas of ' fair play ' because, unless damaged, humans come equipped with an inborn or innate ability of fair play because of conscience. One's conscience can either ' excuse ' actions or ' accuse ' actions.
So, a hardened conscience can become calloused to the point of having No more ' fair play ' feeling.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

1) You're assuming that "good" is wholly dependent upon human spontaneity. Illogical.

2) Spontaneity and causality are both antithetical to the idea of "choice".


Why did you do this, rather than that?

Spontaneity, or cause and effect?

False dichotomy logical fallacy: that is what you have here (your #2)

The definition of "good" is 100% dependent on humans. Until (if ever) you can show sentience *other* than human, it remains a human construct.

Your claim of "illogical" is without merit-- as you give no argument in support, other than your declaration.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I find that that tree stood for the Law of the Land.
One Law. No hardship. Plenty to eat. Just don't eat from one particular tree or loose your everlasting life.
How many fruit trees are there on Earth ?
By God saying 'Do Not Eat....' to me was as if God put up a No Trespassing sign on 'His' one-and-only tree.
What Adam did was break the known Law. By deliberately trespassing breaking the Law Adam took the Law out of God's hands and placed the Law into his own hands. Thus, Adam set up People Rule as being superior to God Rule as the best way of governing.
Since Adam was gifted with free-will choices, then God could Not go back on his gift to Adam.
So, God honored his gift to Adam. If Adam was a slave-like obeyer then Adam would Not have had the free-will choice to obey or Not obey. Are world leaders mindless slaves, after all they have educated degrees and look what their higher education had done for the world. I think Adam had No idea as to how world leaders would treat the world, but because of Adam they too have the gift of free-will choices, and how wise are their choices.

I also find there is a difference between: killing, murder and an execution.
Exodus was after the Flood of Noah's day far removed from Eden's days.
If God would Not have taken the Flood action then No one righteous would have been left on Earth.
Those violent people would have killed/murdered the righteous ones, so the Flood was an execution for the sake of justice for righteous people because God purposes that the humble meek will inherit the Earth.
If everyone who has lived, lived by the Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18 what would the world be like?

Surely you are not serious? Neither the Eden story nor the flood are real things.

Neither existed, apart from Myths taken too seriously.

We have proof that neither happened, and then some. The DNA record alone, proves beyond any doubts there never was two genetic bottle necks 6000 and 4000 years back-- it simply never happened.

And that? Destroys any chance of either one being real.

As Myths, however? Sure-- they may be useful stories of How Not To God-- a kind of warning for future gods to follow.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I can agree with born with ideas of ' fair play ' because, unless damaged, humans come equipped with an inborn or innate ability of fair play because of conscience. One's conscience can either ' excuse ' actions or ' accuse ' actions.
So, a hardened conscience can become calloused to the point of having No more ' fair play ' feeling.

Well, yes--- our current (ahem) "president" has absolutely zero sense of fair play; his greed and narcissism overwhelms all else.

 

[Sleeppy]

False dichotomy logical fallacy: that is what you have here (your #2)

The definition of "good" is 100% dependent on humans. Until (if ever) you can show sentience *other* than human, it remains a human construct.

Your claim of "illogical" is without merit-- as you give no argument in support, other than your declaration.

1) "Choices" either have causal links preceding them, or they don't. In either case--

2) If "goodness" is subjective, and man-made, how does the absence of "free will" amount to "pure evil", another subjective, man-made construct?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

1) "Choices" either have causal links preceding them, or they don't. In either case--

2) If "goodness" is subjective, and man-made, how does the absence of "free will" amount to "pure evil", another subjective, man-made construct?

How can it not? [be evil] Every single system of morality invented, constructed or described by humanity describes free will as a required component, even if it is only implied within the description.

If there is no choice? Then, nothing means anything, and we are puzzle-pieces arbitrarily being force-fitted into place without a single thought one way or another in the process. Nothing would have any meaning at all. We may as well be...

... Just another Brick in the Wall. <sorry, could not resist such a topical and timely simile>

If we truly have no choice, there is no point in discussing it, as our responses are already written in Time, and even this post was ordained. There could be no good nor evil to our actions....

... but existence would become pure evil, in that case, as it would *require* some sort of Creative Intelligence to drive the complex behaviors we do see, into what would be a Fixed Path of Existence. Which would be, absolutely Evil-- due to the many, many instances of Harm that happen to pretty much everyone on a daily basis (to be sure, for some, the Harm is trivial-- but for many, it is Life Changing Harm).

Thus, the existence of Harm would automatically mean this Intelligent Driving Force is automatically Evil in nature-- it could be nothing else; it would mean life on earth was deliberately created to experience random harmful events, to no purpose-- because there would be absolutely nothing we could do about it-- no free will.

The worst Frankensteinien Existence one can think of -- to be created to experience Evil, Just Because.

It is only if our paths were open to Choice-- however slight-- do they become Meaningful.

And it is only if there are No Gods, can we eliminate Evil as the Sole Purpose. Due to the aforementioned Evil--- For if there be Gods-- the existence of Capricious Evil means these gods themselves are Evil in Nature.

The existence of observed God-Preventable Evil-- free will or no-- means that if they exist, they are Pure Evil themselves.

 

[Sleeppy]

How can it not? [be evil] Every single system of morality invented, constructed or described by humanity describes free will as a required component, even if it is only implied within the description.

If there is no choice? Then, nothing means anything, and we are puzzle-pieces arbitrarily being force-fitted into place without a single thought one way or another in the process. Nothing would have any meaning at all. We may as well be...

... Just another Brick in the Wall. <sorry, could not resist such a topical and timely simile>

If we truly have no choice, there is no point in discussing it, as our responses are already written in Time, and even this post was ordained. There could be no good nor evil to our actions....

... but existence would become pure evil, in that case, as it would *require* some sort of Creative Intelligence to drive the complex behaviors we do see, into what would be a Fixed Path of Existence. Which would be, absolutely Evil-- due to the many, many instances of Harm that happen to pretty much everyone on a daily basis (to be sure, for some, the Harm is trivial-- but for many, it is Life Changing Harm).

Thus, the existence of Harm would automatically mean this Intelligent Driving Force is automatically Evil in nature-- it could be nothing else; it would mean life on earth was deliberately created to experience random harmful events, to no purpose-- because there would be absolutely nothing we could do about it-- no free will.

The worst Frankensteinien Existence one can think of -- to be created to experience Evil, Just Because.

It is only if our paths were open to Choice-- however slight-- do they become Meaningful.

And it is only if there are No Gods, can we eliminate Evil as the Sole Purpose. Due to the aforementioned Evil--- For if there be Gods-- the existence of Capricious Evil means these gods themselves are Evil in Nature.

The existence of observed God-Preventable Evil-- free will or no-- means that if they exist, they are Pure Evil themselves.

Answer #1, first.

Causal or spontaneous?

 

[Ndoki53]

The Tree of THE KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil. NOT the Tree of Good and Evil. There is no such tree.

Hate, badness, and evil are learned.

The one known as the Serpent was not created evil. He "became" evil. It is interesting in the Book of Genesis, not once do we see the expressions "Satan or Devil."

The Serpent was (an still is) an angel, a mighty angel who had favor with his Creator and was entrusted by his Creator to be the caretaker of the earth and his creation man as God placed him in the Garden.

Now this angel as several titles: Dragon, Satan and Devil. He is fallen in that he no longer has God's favor and has fallen from the once high station he had in the beginning.

This very powerful angel is no one to play around with. He wields vast influence over both the angels in heaven and the majority of mankind.

Even though he cannot be seen (invisible), his beauty is compared to precious stones. (Ezek 28) He is not like the grotesque images we see in film and literature. Is intelligence, wisdom and age is far far above that of humans. He was most likely the second creation by God. The one who was sent to the earth was God's first creation. (Rev 3:14 and Col 1:15)

If you could see him, you would mistake him for Jesus Christ or some other godly being.

 

[Ndoki53]

But the "law" was 100% arbitrary, really. Apart from slave-like "obey!" there was nothing really there one way or another.

Did Adam murder a bunch of people wantonly? No? (wait-- that isn't actually against god's laws, is it-- as god commanded exactly that, multiple times, later on in Exodus... )

Maybe Adam cheated on Eve? No? (couldn't really-- nobody else there... Hobson's choice)

Did Adam burn down the garden? No? Did he cruelly slaughter the animals just for the pleasure of it? No?

What, exactly DID Adam do that was worthy of the Death Penalty?

Other than fail to act like a mindless slave?

Adam, was not created to die. Ever! Adam was essentially a "baby" mentally. Literal babies are not given solid food to eat as they would choke on it. Besides, their systems would not be able to digest solid food.

Adam was told that he may eat from any tree in the Garden except one: The Tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Bad. This was NOT a literal fruit tree. The fruit in this tree was knowledge. The knowledge (fruit) this tree bore would be harmful to Adam if he should eat of it because it was "solid" and his infantile state would not be able to digest it and it would eventually cause his death.

There was another tree in the middle of the Garden that was NOT a literal tree. It was called the Tree of Life. This tree would be "milk" to Adam. As he would partake of its easily digestible knowledge, he would mature in time. Once mature, then he would be able to partake of the "knowledge" of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad and it would not kill him.

God himself would be the provider of the "milk" from the Tree of Life. It would sustain Adam and grow him to maturity.

That is why God commanded Adam: "And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." (Gen 2:16-20)

This was NOT a test for Adam. One is not tested if there is no previous knowledge to be tested on. Students are not given a test until first instructed.

Adam was being told that he must drink milk before he can take in solid food. The Tree of Life would grow (mature) him, in time, to be able to handle the solid food (knowledge of good and evil).

Too, Adam did not have to worry about what good and evil was.

Adam's crime was that he disobeyed his Creator. (Actually, Eve ate (received knowledge) from the Tree of the knowledge of good and bad) and shared this knowledge with Adam. The act of listening to Eve is was eating the fruit (knowledge) she acquired.

Adam knew better, but listened (ate) to his wife. Why did he listen to Eve? Because she had knowledge (fruit) gained from that tree.

The consequences would be far reaching. The knowledge Adam gained from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad was in his DNA and the DNA of his wife.

All of mankind come from them. We inherited death from them.

Today, mankind defines for HIMSELF what is good and bad.

Sadly, what is "good" for some is "bad" for others. What is "bad" for some is defined and "good" by others.

The fix: A second Adam had to come. One who would be obedient to "His Father." This Second Adam would listen (eat) to the instruction of his Father and pass it on to ALL of mankind so that they may "eat" of this knowledge.

This Second Adam the world knows as Jesus Christ. He is "The Word of God." That is, God's SPOKESMAN. The fruit that he bears and shares are NOT is own, but the life saving words (fruit) of God.

All one has to do is "eat" of the teachings (fruit/knowledge) of Jesus Christ.

We are ALL "babies" who grow old, get sick and WILL die. But was MUST be born-again from the dead (resurrected) a new creature, unblemished and given the opportunity to eat from the Tree of Life and grow to spiritual maturity.

Jesus did teach that ALL of mankind born since Adam (to include Adam) WILL die and then will one day be resurrected (born-again) from the dead.

(John 5:28-29)

ALL of mankind has yet ahead of it a first death. Then a second birth (resurrection). And this time, if any disobey God - after coming to a full knowledge - a Second Death (a perishing). Perishing is simply a state of non-existence.

Anyone who dies can and will be resurrected. Anyone who perishes cannot be resurrected again. They are removed from God's memory (Book of Life)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Surely you are not serious? Neither the Eden story nor the flood are real things.
Neither existed, apart from Myths taken too seriously.
We have proof that neither happened, and then some. The DNA record alone, proves beyond any doubts there never was two genetic bottle necks 6000 and 4000 years back-- it simply never happened.
And that? Destroys any chance of either one being real.
As Myths, however? Sure-- they may be useful stories of How Not To God-- a kind of warning for future gods to follow.

Neither the long-standing Bible and Bible people are myths because the warning is Not for future gods to follow but a warning for people to ' repent ' if they do Not wish to ' perish ' (be destroyed) according to 2 Peter 3:9.
In the past God used the political/military realm to go up against even God's un-faithful people at the time of ancient Babylon and in the year 70 when the Roman armies destroyed un-faithful Jerusalem in the year 70.
So, that past pattern shows there is No reason to doubt that once again God will use the political/military realm as His Arm of the Law to carry out His purpose. With backing the United Nations can be strengthened to become God's modern-day Arm of the Law to carry out His will for Earth, and for God to bring to ruin those ruining Earth (literal and moral) according to Revelation 11:18 B.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Answer #1, first.

Causal or spontaneous?

False dichotomy. Meaningless question as stated: presumes only 2 possibilities without argument showing that is the case.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Adam, was...

.... 100% myth.

We have established this already, simply using DNA: there was no genetic bottleneck-- something you MUST have, to have this "adam".

If you wish to speak of the MYTH? Then we can discuss it-- but speaking of "adam" as if it were real?

Is nonsensical; JUST the DNA shows this never happened.