The tree of what knowledge?

the tree was placed there by God...

"the ability to comprehend"

"built by design"

reply to post by SisyphusRide

This touches on an interesting question where we don't know the answer, and probably never will-
namely how exactly human life would have developed if we had NOT seized upon the "knowledge".
Whether we could, in that state of innocence, be led towards the destination of the "new Jerusalem".

reply to post by DISRAELI


ok ..

is it me, or did God do a reverse psychology job on Adam & Even knowing Lucifer would be there all along, since Satan truly attempted to be God himself ...? Satan thinking he would be God even still because he 'thought' he knew good and was now evil ..?

God knowing the past present & future, and KNEW this would happen and fully had a plan along to stop Satan's 'take-over' by insuring a fool proof plan....

wow.. please tell me I'm wrong because I totally see that happening .. ! God rubbed his truly divine creation right in Satan nose

reply to post by Komodo

I'm not sure.
I suppose I'm hinting at that possibility in the last line of the second post, when I suggest the possibility that the "Fall" was a necessary stage in what God had in mind for us.
Since that is effectively what he did at the crucifixion, using for his purposes what people were doing for their own reasons, I suppose it can't be ruled out.

DISRAELI
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

This touches on an interesting question where we don't know the answer, and probably never will-
namely how exactly human life would have developed if we had NOT seized upon the "knowledge".
Whether we could, in that state of innocence, be led towards the destination of the "new Jerusalem".

we can observe that in nature now with the ability to comprehend what is pleasing to the sight of God.

I don't think it is our place to give the animals themselves the ability to comprehend their own actions, which creeps me out a bit because the the bioengineering research we're doing.

there are ethics to that subject too which can be sourced from that awesome book...

God wants us to be with him and to respect that it is pleasing enough... because he is right, and that's the truth

Lucifer was a butthead!

DISRAELI
The tree of knowledge, and the onset of death

The first consequence of eating from the fruit of this tree, according to Genesis, was that humanity began to experience death.
This would mean, in terms of my explanation, that the effect of the development of human consciousness was the emergence of awareness of death, as one of the elements of human life.

Aside from just making an extrapolation to fit the favored version of the story, where does it say they were immortal to begin with?

"Gen 2:17 ... for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." He didn't die that day.

Cuervo

DISRAELI
The tree of knowledge, and the onset of death

The first consequence of eating from the fruit of this tree, according to Genesis, was that humanity began to experience death.
This would mean, in terms of my explanation, that the effect of the development of human consciousness was the emergence of awareness of death, as one of the elements of human life.

Aside from just making an extrapolation to fit the favored version of the story, where does it say they were immortal to begin with?

"Gen 2:17 ... for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." He didn't die that day.

I think of everlasting life as the consciousness/soul being immortal.

Lucifer was cast to earth as an instrument... why here, why not the core of Andromeda galaxy?

SisyphusRide

Cuervo

DISRAELI
The tree of knowledge, and the onset of death

The first consequence of eating from the fruit of this tree, according to Genesis, was that humanity began to experience death.
This would mean, in terms of my explanation, that the effect of the development of human consciousness was the emergence of awareness of death, as one of the elements of human life.

Aside from just making an extrapolation to fit the favored version of the story, where does it say they were immortal to begin with?

"Gen 2:17 ... for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." He didn't die that day.

I think of everlasting life as the consciousness/soul being immortal.

Lucifer was cast to earth as an instrument... why here, why not the core of Andromeda galaxy?

So... since our souls are still immortal, wouldn't that still mean that the serpent was the only local telling the truth that day?

As far as that Lucifer fella... I simply can't read the bible and truly come away from it thinking that he's somehow the "bad" guy. I'm unaffiliated in the Yahweh/Lucifer rivalry so I'm not being biased... I just can't see things like the church does with those two no matter how hard I try.

reply to post by DISRAELI

The 'original sin' was never ours. It was by those who fell from heavens to earth. The tree of life is representative of the DNA of our manipulated being, set apart from the Original Seeded Design Plan by such.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil was a result of these entities fusing their DNA with our original moreso primitive state 'naked' and 'untouched'. The result was an 'evolved' mankind's 'new' state of 'serpentine bloodline' consciousness, now part of a sinful creation. From then on, our being has been used to wicked ends in continued rebellion, with many of these entities still bound here for their transgressions.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


Yes, and we had the choice - remain innocent or lose it and gain knowledge along with all that comes with it. We disobeyed God and lost our innocence. I guess it's up to us to decide if what we gained in terms of knowledge was worth it.

However, the implication is that we could have lost our trusting, innocent relationship with God in the Garden at any point. It was merely at the point of the Adam and Eve of the story that it was lost.

and that`s always been the major flaw in the whole story and the only outcome of the story had to happen the way it did,it was a catch-22.

before eating from the tree of knowledge they weren`t capable of knowing that disobeying god was wrong.
They didn`t gain the ability to understand that their actions were wrong until after they ate from the tree but by then it was too late they were already condemned.

Since god is all knowing then he had to of known that they had no understanding that it would be wrong to disobey him and that they would eat from the tree.
before they ate from the tree they didn`t have free will to chose to do right or do wrong because they had no capability to understand what wrong was.In their minds nothing that they did was right or wrong, it just was.

To be completely fair,god never told them that they would be kicked out of the garden if they ate from the tree, he told them that they would die if they ate from it.It wasn`t until after they ate from the tree did god say " oh and by the way part of the consequences of eating from the tree is that I will kick you out of the garden and then you will die"

Without the capability of knowing right and wrong there was no possibility that they wouldn`t eat from the tree.

The writer of the story had to give the illusion that a choice was made and then the rest of the story,and the entire book, goes on to detail the consequences of that choice, right up to modern times.in reality no choice was offered or made because if the "right" choice was made there would be no story and no book.The story and the book had to start with a predetermined outcome otherwise the entire book would be mote.


ETA: I guess the garden of eden story is a lot like obamacare, they said they had to pass obamacare to see what was in it, adam and eve had to eat from the tree to know that it was wrong to eat from the tree.

Cuervo

SisyphusRide

Cuervo

DISRAELI
The tree of knowledge, and the onset of death

The first consequence of eating from the fruit of this tree, according to Genesis, was that humanity began to experience death.
This would mean, in terms of my explanation, that the effect of the development of human consciousness was the emergence of awareness of death, as one of the elements of human life.

Aside from just making an extrapolation to fit the favored version of the story, where does it say they were immortal to begin with?

"Gen 2:17 ... for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." He didn't die that day.

I think of everlasting life as the consciousness/soul being immortal.

Lucifer was cast to earth as an instrument... why here, why not the core of Andromeda galaxy?

So... since our souls are still immortal, wouldn't that still mean that the serpent was the only local telling the truth that day?

As far as that Lucifer fella... I simply can't read the bible and truly come away from it thinking that he's somehow the "bad" guy. I'm unaffiliated in the Yahweh/Lucifer rivalry so I'm not being biased... I just can't see things like the church does with those two no matter how hard I try.

still immortal, how can that be when we are new souls?

I honestly have no idea what the church does with those two, I am more or less just speaking my mind on the matter.

the tree of knowledge was there before lucifer was cast down, lucifer was jealous of the creation/tending of man... that's not the stuff gods friends are supposed to be made of.

ketsuko
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Yes, and we had the choice - remain innocent or lose it and gain knowledge along with all that comes with it. We disobeyed God and lost our innocence. I guess it's up to us to decide if what we gained in terms of knowledge was worth it.

However, the implication is that we could have lost our trusting, innocent relationship with God in the Garden at any point. It was merely at the point of the Adam and Eve of the story that it was lost.

but if innocence means a wild beast without comprehension of it actions or of what god wants of it, then there is no purpose to creating us in his image.

we had the ability to communicate and speak with god in the garden... and god seen that adam needed a companion, which implies we were not unaware.

Tardacus
and that`s always been the major flaw in the whole story and the only outcome of the story had to happen the way it did,it was a catch-22.

I think t is all according to the master plan... I see god ascending man to that as a being which can sit at is side in heaven but still have the ability and the knowledge of comprehension. (to become rebellious/corrupt)

there is no purpose if there is no freewill... God doesn't want mindless drones, satan does.

reply to post by Tardacus


That's not entirely true though.

I look at it this way:

I have a toddler. He is old enough to understand when I tell he should or should not do something ... say like run out into the middle of a busy parking lot. However, he is NOT old enough to comprehend why this is wrong. He doesn't understand that drivers in cars will not be able to see him, that they could run over him and hurt him very badly or even kill him.

I can, therefore, tell him. "Son, don't run out into the parking lot because if you do, you shall surely die ..." (Well, not really, but it's sort of the parallel.)

He knows it's wrong to run out by himself because momma said so, but he doesn't understand the consequence of running out into the parking lot. He doesn't comprehend what "die" means. So, he has to trust me that what I say is true, and he has to decide to obey me.

This is the situation with Adam and Eve in the Garden. It's not that they are completely clueless. It's simply that they are incapable of comprehending the consequences of their actions should they choose not to trust God. If, as you say, they were utterly innocent of even being able to comprehend God's basic directive to not eat the fruit, then the Serpent wouldn't have been able to even tempt them as they wouldn't have had any mental basis for being able to feel tempted by a knowledge they were lacking.

reply to post by SisyphusRide


I don't mean exactly like wild animals, but more innocent like very small children who are not yet fully aware of their actions and the meaning of those actions.

It would have been interesting to know what God would have done with us had Adam and Eve not fallen. However, I assume, mankind being mankind, someone would have rebelled sooner or later.

ketsuko
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

I don't mean exactly like wild animals, but more innocent like very small children who are not yet fully aware of their actions and the meaning of those actions.

I feel that is exactly what we are, but we are to grow and in Gods light, because the light of truth gives life, and we see that it is good (for us)

Thinking of an age old dream, places I have never seen,
Fantasies lived times before.
I split my brain, melt through the floor.

Over clouds my mind will fly, forever now I can't think why.
My body tries to leave my soul.
Or is it me, I just don't know.
Memories rising from the past, the future's shadow overcast.
Something's clutching at my head, through the darkness I'll be led.

Oh another time, another place.
Oh another smile on another face.
When you see me floating up beside you,
You get the feeling that all my love's inside of you.

Please take me away, take me away, so far away.
Please take me away, take me away, so far away.
Please take me away, take me away, so far away.

-Steve Harris

God putting the tree of knowledge in the garden= The greatest set-up of all time.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

pleasantly surprised to see an iron Maiden song quote on this thread...
Great song..

Tucket
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

pleasantly surprised to see an iron Maiden song quote on this thread...
Great song..

Iron Maiden stimulated the thought of my generation, who else write songs about Alexander the Great, the Rimes of the Ancient Mariner and Revelations?

Maiden are pretty much the orators of history, educational Heavy Metal if you will

better than the Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga stuff kids are on now, they really do not stimulate critical thinking.


the first 7 albums, up to seventh son were the greatest imo.

Cuervo
"Gen 2:17 ... for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." He didn't die that day.

Did you not read the passage of mine which you quoted?
"This would mean, in terms of my explanation, that the effect of the development of human consciousness was the emergence of awareness of death, as one of the elements of human life."
That answers your objection.
The human race began "on that day" to be aware of death as a factor in their lives, and thus "began to die".
I've already written a thread to deal specifically with this and the other standard quibble, and I can see it's going to be needed.

Tardacus
To be completely fair,god never told them that they would be kicked out of the garden if they ate from the tree, he told them that they would die if they ate from it.It wasn`t until after they ate from the tree did god say " oh and by the way part of the consequences of eating from the tree is that I will kick you out of the garden and then you will die"

In terms of the story, refusing them access to the Tree of Life is the way he carries out the sentence of death, so they come to the same thing.
(I've done another thread on this; Did they eat from the Tree of Life?)

"He who wills the end also wills the means".
Imagine you are on a train and the announcement is given "Anyone found without a ticket will not be allowed to travel any further". If you were found without a ticket and taken off the train at the next station, it would be absurd to quibble "Oh, you didn't tell me I would be taken off the train, you just told me I wouldn't be allowed to travel". The two things go together.

If we take the story less literally and regard "being refused access to the Tree of Life" as a metaphor for dying, it makes even less sense to separate them and say the couple were warned about one but not the other.