It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What's so sinful about the Knowledge Tree???

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:03 PM
to irriterate two ideas previously posted... the fruit was in fact magic mushrooms... i suggest reading John Allegros "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross"... the garden of eden story is the story of "animal" enslavement... and then the animals became sentient... as a psoter suggested above, able to chose to do the wrong things or disobey... also to kill.... gods bled and died, as they too were flesh and blood.... so what's so sinful about the tree of knowledge? worse piece of fruit if you're trying to keep control of everything.. can't have people thinking for themselves now, can we?

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:37 PM
As several posters have already mentioned it was not the “Tree of Knowledge”, but rather the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”…

If your going to try to pick on the Bible at least try and have some of your basic facts straight first.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

So what is the difference between the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” and the “Tree of Life”. In a nutshell, one allows them to live under the grace of God and the other forces them to have to live under the law, hence the fact it is often called “Mans fall from Grace”. That is why Christ had to come and die for our sins, as no man can live perfectly under the law, he died to return us to a state of living under grace. Now if there was an actual physical tree or not is open to speculation, but the point remains intact, man was tempted by Satan that in order to be more like God he should live under the law. Satan knew that only God himself can perfectly live under the law, so it was a trick to entice man into giving up his state of grace. God foiled Satan’s plan to condemn all of us humans by sending his son to die on the cross for our sins, thus re-granting us grace.

Here are some verses showing exactly what I mean about salvation through grace, because before Christ came, and after the fall from grace, man had to live under the law:

Rom 4:15-16 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all.

Rom 5:19-21 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Tit 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

[edit on 1/17/2008 by defcon5]

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:40 PM

Originally posted by melatonin

Where are you pulling your assertions from?

Like what?

Like here for example what you stated:

They wouldn't know that death was bad, or that disobedience was bad.

or here where you stated;

I also thought death didn't happen until after the great snake swindle, that all animals ate plants and it was all like some big hippy love in.

It doesn't really matter, it's almost impossible to talk about this subject without making some assertions. I guess it's just human nature to assume that everyone will see, or at least, should see,the logic of our assertions and agree to them.

As far as I know there is nothing in Genesis that can be taken at face value, that would lead one to reach the conclusion that there was no death in the animal kingdom.

It would not take much to look at the state of a dead animal or insect and compare that to the state of a live one and determine that it's better to be alive. I'll qualify that assertion by adding, "however, thats just my opinion."

I do enjoy your posts my friend, they are well thought out and thought provoking.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:52 PM
I think the story is simply saying knowledge is bad, which is designed to keep christians unthinking and in line.

It basically says there are lots of things you can't and shouldn't know about god, so don't even try. Just believe.

posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 11:25 PM

Originally posted by AshleyD
I heard it was more like a fraction of an ounce or a few ounces- not seven pounds. lol Regardless, it could be fifty pounds for all I care. I'd still have a hard time believing the soul can be measured by earthly instruments. Those few ounces are probably just gas and air.

You are correct, it was ¾ of an ounce, and it was disputed by other doctors. Snopes a a bit on the topic though:
Weight of the Soul

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:06 AM
I think Adam & Eve were covered in garmets of light and when they ate from this tree, the light diminished and they saw each other naked. They saw they were different and became ashamed.

Being without that garment of light wasn't a part of the plan in Eden.

One command and they failed to listen.

In most all of the near death experiences the Lord is wearing garments of light. It really brings home the point of "Im the way, the truth & the life."

There is no conspiracy about Eden. It was a Holy sanctified place and because of God's actions it still is.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:29 AM
I think your analysis of the tree of life missed completely.
There is no "Sin" there is rightious and unrightious action.
Unrightious action causes us harm and impedes our progress in development toward God. Your bible version is probably a bad translation, edited by a large organization, with vestid interests.

The eating of the fruit of knowledge differentiated us from the other animals. At that momment we gained the unique talent to perform unrightious action. God does not punish us. Not unless you believe in a narcisistic and malevolent God. I call that behavior demonic, myself.

We bring the bad upon ourselves by our unrightious action.
The notions you propound did not come into christianity untill three hundred years after Christ's death when large numbers of converts brought much of their old belief systems into the mix.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:30 AM
reply to post by Incarnated

for 1 it wasn't just the tree of knowledge, it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. i don't know personally, but they might have already had all knowledge except that of good and evil. second, if i tell you not to look then what are you going to do...? LOOK! God knew exatcly what was going to happen when he told them not to eat to eat of the tree, but He had a back-up plan, Jesus Christ. also, why eat from that tree anyways, when they could have eaten from the tree of Life? humans are inherently errant, we all do stupid stuff all the time.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:20 AM
The knowledge is simply the science and technology. It is asking How and Why which God doesn't like as we start questioning Him. When we start questioning everything, then Evil appears, shifts and discord are born.
Wouldn't we live in Paradise if we didn't start asking all these questions a long time ago?

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:40 AM
See, now heres where evryone messes up. Religion vs science.
These two things are one side of the same coin. You need them both to truly start to understand. Ever wonder why science cannot proove anything about aliens? Because these aliens are most likely the "demons" of ages past. Thisis religion's area, and things in it cannot be "allowed" as factors in science. And certain attributes of these beings cannot be justified by science, until it melds with spirituality("religion").
True gnostics beleived that there were exterior forces trying to interfere with man kind. These beings were described to be particularilly close semblance to certain "alien" descriptions of today. hm.. must be a coincedence. But i beleive that humans are just as capapble of positive/negative matters as these 'angels/'demons/'aliens.
Now it would appear to me, that the "god" of these writings, is more controling over mankind, and wants him to know noting other than what it is t

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:42 AM
"nothing other than what it is told to him. Thus making man much easier to deal with. There of course are forces opposed to this as well, as every negative must have its positive counterparts.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 04:49 AM

Originally posted by TheOracle
The knowledge is simply the science and technology. It is asking How and Why which God doesn't like as we start questioning Him. When we start questioning everything, then Evil appears, shifts and discord are born.
If thats the case then why did god give us the capability to ask the questions of how and why if he doesn't like it? Seems a bit nonsensical to me.

Wouldn't we live in Paradise if we didn't start asking all these questions a long time ago?
Probably not. I doubt you would even live long enough to enjoy 'paradise'


posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 06:58 AM
Shihulud simply because God isn't almighty like many people think.
He created us but do have limited control over our thoughts and actions

[edit on 18-1-2008 by TheOracle]

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 07:00 AM
I have thought a bit on this and offer my opinion.

The knowledge of good and bad gave mankind the power to judge. Unfortunately this power is arbitrary without understanding the full context. For example once upon a time boys were "adventurous" or "mischievious" or "boys will be boys", then it became "rebellous" or "teenage angst". Now we say ADD or ADHD. Basically it is a quantifying of behavior outside of the expected social norm.

Another way to look at it, would you prepare your 12 year old daughter for marriage to the 15 year old boy next door, expecting a grandchild within a year and not be looked upon as a bad parent? What if instead of 2008 this was 1008? Is your answer the same?

Back to Eden, in seeing each other naked surely there were feelings of lustfull desire beyond what had been doing what felt natural. This difference was new and beyond the norm. With the new power to judge they decided the new feeling wasn't right which lead to a bit of shame and thus they clothed themselves and hid from God.

Now read about God's punishment. Forever would woman cause man's heel to be bruised and wound his head. In otherwords, Adam would work his butt off to try to please Eve and nothing he could do would compare to what they had lost in Eden. So despite the effort Eve just nagged Adam and pumped out one murderous and incestous child after the other one.

But can you blame the kids really? They see mom and dad yelling all the time about busting the perfect life that they themselves had never seen. Then there is God still hanging around. He pretty much gave up on Adam and Eve and tried to appeal to the kids by having a contest.

Kane didn't know God would go with the vegan vote because he really didn't think that God would be confused about slaughtering the animal that He had worked hard on perfecting (see platypus that he hid on the otherside of the world on a big island and the dinosaurs that He just flat out erased) Kane might have taught that beast all kinds of tricks like jumping through flaming hoops and stuff and was naturally let down when God rejected his sacrifice of his favorite. But rather than judging himself wrong he just elimated the competiton should it be a yearly event.

So making judgements and acting upon them without the full the context is how we get to where we are today. Looking at inner city violence and white trash trailer parks, pending ecconomic collapse and wars throughout the world things have not really changed much since first being cast out of Eden.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Sparky63
I do enjoy your posts my friend, they are well thought out and thought provoking.

You're actually the very first person to actually answer my points on this in all my years on the intertubz. So I do appreciate you made the effort. The problem is that I tend to get this sort of 'fall of man' and plant eating dinosaur stuff thrown at me too often by a certain section of christianity in discussions on evolution/origins.

I suppose my problem is that they have made me take things too literally, if I was a christian, I'd probably be a fundie, heh.

So, I take them not having knowledge of good & bad/evil before they eat from the tree. Having that knowledge appears to lead to very simple stuff like embarrassment of nakedness. Embarrassment is just an emotionally mediated behaviour. As an area of my interest is emotions, I take this to mean they had no knowledge of emotions (maybe the more complex) - some in psychology reduce emotions to the knowledge/processing of good and bad (usually behaviourists). Emotions also underpin moral behaviour, which is why psychopaths have difficulty following moral guidelines (deficits in emotion), and people with lesions of the frontal lobe have dysfunctions in social emotions like embarrassment.

That's a neuroscientific interpretation of the rorschach blot of genesis, heh.

Hwyl fawr.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by melatonin]

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:40 AM
Many make the claim that the forbidden fruit was a symbol of all knowledge.
Does that explanation fit hte facts?

Actually, both Adam and Eve had already taken in plenty of knowledge before they disobeyed the law at Genesis 2:16, 17. Their Creator, was directly involved in their education. For instance, he brought all animals and birds to the man for him to name them. (Genesis 2:19, 20) No doubt Adam would have had to study each one carefully in order to give it an appropriate name. What an education in zoology!

Eve, although created later, was also not ignorant. When questioned by the serpent, she showed that she had been educated in God’s law. She knew the difference between right and wrong, and she even knew the consequences of wrong actions.—Genesis 3:2, 3.

Interpretation of original sin as knowledge is just that—human interpretation, nothing more. Its weakness is shown up by the question of the faithful man Joseph: “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Genesis 40:8)

The Bible is much easier to understand when we do not impose human ideas on it but, rather, let it interpret itself. What, then, was the original sin?

Well, the Genesis account gives us every reason to believe that the tree of knowledge of good and bad was an actual tree. We are told where it was in the garden, and it is spoken of in relation to the other trees. Its fruit was real, and Adam and Eve actually ate the fruit. The Bible says that Eve got to seethat it was good for "food".

Was It Disobedience?

By eating of that fruit, what were they doing? The New Catholic Encyclopedia suggests: “It could have been, simply, an open defiance of God, an insolent refusal to obey Him.” Is that not what Genesis clearly says?
Romans 5:19 confirms the point: “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” (The New Jerusalem Bible)

The original sin was an act of disobedience.

While a sin of disobedience may seem simple on the surface, consider its profound implications.

A footnote in The New Jerusalem Bible puts it this way:

“It [the knowledge of good and bad] is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence . . . The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty.”

Yes, “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” symbolized God’s prerogative to set the standards for man as to what is approved or what is condemned. By refusing to obey God’s law, man was calling into question God’s very right to rule over him. God justly answered the challenge by allowing man to rule himself. Wouldn’t you agree that the results have been disastrous?

Thus the need to send His Son as a savior for mankind.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by Sparky63]

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:58 AM
Remenber that tit was Satan the Devil that asserted that eating fruit from the prescribed tree would result, not in death, but in enlightenment and godlike ability to determine for oneself whether a thing was good or bad.

But Satan is a liar, described in the Bible as the "Father of the Lie".
He knew the obvious consequences of Adam & Eves disobedience.

So he lied to Eve and told her that it would be to her advantage to eat the fruit and even went so far as to state that God was withholding something good from her. The Bible makes it clear that Eve was deceived.

As the account reveals, improper desire began to work in the woman. Instead of reacting in utter disgust and righteous indignation on hearing the righteousness of God’s law thus called into question, she now came to look upon the tree as desirable. She coveted what rightly belonged to God as her Sovereign—his ability and prerogative to determine what is good and what is bad for his creatures.

Hence, she was now starting to conform herself to the ways, standards, and will of the opposer, who contradicted her Creator as well as her God-appointed head, her husband. Putting trust in the Tempter’s words, she let herself be seduced, ate of the fruit, and thus revealed the sin that had been born in her heart and mind.

Adam later partook of the fruit when it was offered to him by his wife. The apostle shows that the man’s sinning differed from that of his wife in that Adam was not deceived by the Tempter’s propaganda, hence he put no stock in the claim that eating the fruit from the tree could be done with impunity. (1Ti 2:14)

(1 Timothy 2:14) 14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression.. . .

Adam’s eating, therefore, must have been due to desire for his wife, and he ‘listened to her voice’ rather than to that of his God. (Ge 3:6, 17)

He rejected the law that God had already given him, with disasterous consequences.

Neither Adam nor Eve had the capacity to accurately judge what was good & bad for themselves without regard for Gods will. That must have become plainly obvious to them when they were driven from their paradisaic settings and forced to eke out a living as they watched each other grow old and die.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:36 AM
We don't have the spiritual capacity to correctly apply and understand the whole of knowledge and wisdom. We still fight with our selves in our own minds.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:13 PM
reply to post by Incarnated

This wasnt just the tree of knowledge... it was the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil.

Now look at Romans 14:14 "Nothing is unclean in itself except to he who esteemeth it so".

The issue is that sin doesn't exist without the knowledge of sin. If you never knew the difference between what we call good and evil, then you are pure. However by partaking of the knowledge of Good and Evil, you then get to have what they call "Dirty Pain" as described in this CNN article

And this other article...

That's the psychological basis for "judge not, lest ye be judged, with the same mete and measure".

There is nothing mysterious or controlling about the fable called the garden of eden and the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It's simply stating what has plagued mankind forever.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:36 PM

If one had knowledge of Good and Evil, and another didn't have that knowledge.... Wouldn't it be 100% possible for the one with the knowledge to control the one without the knowledge?

It's like teaching a monkey to break into peoples houses and steal valuable things, and bring them back. The monkey has no clue that what he is doing is evil, so he does it anyway. He's being controlled like a slave to do evil, because he doesn't know any better.

To me, this would be a perfect plan for the devil.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in