In the Beginning...

[Arakhor]

In the Bible (or other major religious text), nothing is in there for no reason, especially if one is wont to interpret things literally.

 

[Berzerker]

This works if you ignore the fact that when Adam ate, he did disobey God. When God said you must not eat, was that a command? Sin is breaking one of God's commands. I thought every one accepted that.

How did Adam know about sin before acquiring the knowledge of good and evil?

What I do not accept is that morality is being GOD like. Morality has to do with human relations and has nothing to do with God.

The 10 Commandments? Again, when God describes the situation to his colleagues he said behold, the man has become like us knowing good and evil.

 

[timtofly]

How did Adam know about sin before acquiring the knowledge of good and evil?

Was it a command that God gave Adam? Adam did not know what sin was, nor did he really have to. All he had to do was trust God, instead of gaining such knowledge.

The 10 Commandments? Again, when God describes the situation to his colleagues he said behold, the man has become like us knowing good and evil.

The 10 Commandments was a covenant with the Hebrews. Adam only had one command from God. The Hebrews were given the ten, and a whole lot of other directives to form a relationship with God. As history points out, that relationship hardly lasted much longer than the one Adam had.

What do you think the "like us" part even means? To me all it meant was Adam now had to experience good and evil. That still is not morality. Morality is how we handle good and evil. Adam may have experienced loneliness, but now he has to experience evil. It seems to me that humans are said not to really know something, until they have experienced it. Even reading about something is not the same knowledge as experiencing it. I don't think that some how Adam immediately experienced every evil that has ever happened to every human. That does not follow. All it seems to mean, is that now Adam was forced to go through such experiences. Even if the good outweighs the bad what is so great about knowing about evil?

When something is perfect, why fix it with the knowledge that life for every one else is not perfect?

Spoiler :

The first thing Adam had to experience was having to leave the Garden, and do actual work. From the information given, he no longer had a relationship with God. He would now eventually die. How is working "like God"? How is dying, "like God"? He already knew what good was with God in the Garden. So basically the only thing new in his life was knowing what evil was. Adam actually only got half of what being "like God" was really like. He lost the other half when he had to leave the Garden. Why was it not called the "Tree of Knowing Evil"? Was Adam missing out on what Good was? Would it be absurd if it was actually knowing the difference between the two? It seemed that Cain killed his brother, and did not think that it was evil. Did bad things actually happen, and Adam and Eve did not know any better? What am I missing that makes it all important to disobey God, to become more like God?


I am sure there are some who would claim that God has no morals and can get away without impunity, while at the same time condemn the whole world for not obeying. It seems pretty obvious from reading the Bible. It seems rational to accept that God made a group of Humans that were able to be "like God". He then took one of them and marked him as perfect but gave him a choice to either end his perfect life, or keep doing so forever. Being a rational human, Adam took advantage of the choice and sought out the unknown even though it meant loosing everything he had. That choice does not make us good or bad, it just makes us human. God never had to correct how humans view morality, because the other humans already had that knowledge. Satan who seemed to be the wisest of them all, even questioned how God could get away with doing things God's way. He was punished, but perhaps not as drastically as the mortal humans who ended up populating the earth.

I realize that humans have perpetuated the point that good and evil have to exist for things to all work out in the end. I don't think we will ever know if evil is actually a good thing, because Adam introduced the fact that we have to know the difference between the two. That is what "being like God" is. Evil is now a bad thing, and God says that objecting to the way things are run is the basis of all evil.

God is one, and only objecting God, is evil. Humanity is multitudes, and no one is exactly the same, thus evil is multiplied. Being human, morality is what is important to us, because we are many. But to God, there is only one moral, and that is obedience. If God had a multitude of morals, it seems it would lead to being unfair in our dealings with each other. We can only relate to God in a singular point. That is putting away our morality and seeing only the single moral point of God. I don't think that Adam changed how morality works for all the other created beings, because God said that even they had gotten to the point where they only thought about evil continually. It seems also that we will never know if what Adam had would have been spread throughout the earth, and eventually the other humans would have benefitted from being only obedient to God. Even if the story is just a metaphor, who would agree on what it means? The only thing that seems plausible is that to have perfection all humans must give up their morality and obey God. I don't think that every created being is willing to give up their choice in either trusting God, or experiencing the unknown and disobeying God. We seem more comfortable in thinking that God is not in control, and that we are the only ones who can manage our future be it good or evil.

 

[Berzerker]

God knew good and evil too

'like us' meant there were multiple gods

 

[Leoreth]

Ah. Well, if you want a 'Watsonian' explanation, either God is a dick (which I don't believe) or the [works] of God transcend human understanding, which makes for a very unsatisfying discussion.

Yeah, the solution is that there is authorial intent in the bible.

 

[Arakhor]

'like us' meant there were multiple gods

Or, you know, he's using the royal 'we'.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I hope couple of perspective-changing quotes may not be completely out of order:

Our Evil is to God not evil, but ignorance and imperfection, our good a lesser imperfection.

God drives us out of every Eden that we may be forced to travel through the desert to a diviner Paradise. If thou wonder why should that parched & fierce transit be necessary, then art thou befooled by thy mind and hast not studied thy soul behind and its dim desires and secret raptures.

I believe with you, my friends, that God, if He exists, is a demon and an ogre. But after all what are you going to do about it?

Our parents fell, in the deep Semitic apologue, because they tasted the fruit of the tree of good and evil. Had they taken at once of the tree of eternal life, they would have escaped the immediate consequence; but God’s purpose in humanity would have been defeated. His wrath is our eternal advantage.

Calvin who justified eternal Hell, knew not God but made one terrible mask of Him His eternal reality. If there were an unending Hell, it could only be a seat of unending rapture; for God is Bliss and than the eternity of His bliss there is no other eternity.

 

[timtofly]

God knew good and evil too

'like us' meant there were multiple gods

I agree that there were multiple gods, but only one GOD. God experienced evil, when one third of those created gods rebelled against God's will. If God is all knowing then the knowledge would have already been there, when these gods were created, they would rebel. When Adam ate, he lost his immortality, but did gain the knowledge that disobeying God was evil and that evil would be part of the punishment.

When God created the gods it was an image, but I am not convinced that God has a physical body. That is part of why some do not accept the Trinity. Jesus was the one who introduced the concept that God was a Father as the point that Jesus was the only begotten (birthed) Son of God. He also pointed out to the Jewish leaders that in Psalms the Hebrews were called gods, but would die like mortals. They claimed that Jesus was being blasphemous because he claimed to be one with God, yet he pointed out that they were not even living up to what the Psalms commanded them to do. When God created the gods the "like us" part was that these created beings had thought, were able to communicate, and had an eternal spirit, just like God, the Word, and the Spirit. The physical body was never the image of God. The body was just a multiple extended aspect of God in a physical form. We are like God in thought. We have a body because the Word spoke it into being. We have immortality by way of a spiritual essence that lives forever. The three parts in the "us" are from the time when Jesus was baptized, and there was a voice from Heaven claiming that Jesus was God's son, and there was the Spirit that descended upon the physical body of Jesus. Jesus was the Word, who was with God and the Spirit that makes up the "us".

Or, you know, he's using the royal 'we'.

God used English? There is a theory out there........

I hope couple of perspective-changing quotes may not be completely out of order:

Not out of order, but they seem a bit artificial.

 

[Berzerker]

I agree that there were multiple gods, but only one GOD. God experienced evil, when one third of those created gods rebelled against God's will. If God is all knowing then the knowledge would have already been there, when these gods were created, they would rebel. When Adam ate, he lost his immortality, but did gain the knowledge that disobeying God was evil and that evil would be part of the punishment.

That scenario makes God out to be a schmuck... He puts the man near the tree telling him not to eat knowing he would, then he uses that as an excuse to punish the man. God isn't all-knowing, he couldn't even find Adam and Eve hiding in the Garden.

When God created the gods it was an image, but I am not convinced that God has a physical body.

Genesis doesn't say God created the gods, only that God said, "let US make man - male and female - in OUR image". And when Adam and Eve became like the gods knowing good and evil it was God who said, "Behold, the man has become like US" knowing good and evil.

 

[timtofly]

That scenario makes God out to be a schmuck... He puts the man near the tree telling him not to eat knowing he would, then he uses that as an excuse to punish the man. God isn't all-knowing, he couldn't even find Adam and Eve hiding in the Garden.

That is the same claim about the story about Job. God is what God is, and that has nothing to do with morals or morality. If God could not find them, how were they kicked out? The Adam and Eve story is not about morals. It is about being mortal or immortal.

Genesis doesn't say God created the gods, only that God said, "let US make man - male and female - in OUR image". And when Adam and Eve became like the gods knowing good and evil it was God who said, "Behold, the man has become like US" knowing good and evil.

I guess that depends on if you accept that God made immortal mankind on day 6. Immortal humans are considered gods, or at least immortal gods, had human bodies.

Giving Adam a choice and knowing the outcome, is technically not being that much of a jerk. If Adam had never eaten, then God would have known that outcome as well. Having only one choice makes it a 50/50 chance that God was not setting Adam up as much as God was setting Adam up. One could say though that putting Eve in there, and then not keeping Satan out could tip the choice so that Adam was more likely to fail. It would seem though that giving Adam no choice at all would make God a jerk, and not scientifically setting up an experiment that was bound to fail. Is that not the whole point of falsifiability? There had to be a scenario that would fail. Even the statement that God is all-knowing can be falsifiable, because you claim to know that God is not. Since we have the story of Job, it is quite plausible that the Garden story was a similar instance that God claimed Adam would not fail the test. Does that make God wrong, or even not all-knowing? Perhaps, but it also allows God to be a scientist, even if the outcome was already known.

From a moral perspective yes God has been shown to be immoral quite a lot, and it seems that God even created humans/gods that are just as immoral. It then begs the question if God or any being has the ability to make choices at all. It seems to me though that knowing Good and Evil is proof that there are choices, even though sometimes choices are really hard. When it comes to making replicated copies though, there would be no morality or choice unless such an ability is given upon creation of such an endeavor. Else everything would just be Good.

 

[Berzerker]

If God could not find them, how were they kicked out?

He found them by calling out, Adam revealed himself at that point

 

[Arakhor]

God isn't all-knowing, he couldn't even find Adam and Eve hiding in the Garden.

The Bible doesn't say that. It just says that Adam hid from God and God called out, asking for him. If you're going to be absolutely literal in one place, you should apply that consistently.

 

[warpus]

Or, you know, he's using the royal 'we'.

God is made up of 3 things, right? So "We" makes sense to me.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Not out of order, but they seem a bit artificial.

Either that or perhaps our perception of truth has become soiled and rusted into half-dead dogmas.

 

[timtofly]

He found them by calling out, Adam revealed himself at that point

How would God know where to call out to, if God did not know where? Even if I knew where someone was, I would still call out to get their attention.

Either that or perhaps our perception of truth has become soiled and rusted into half-dead dogmas.

What dogmas? By what criteria would one distinguish between a dogma, and the actual Word of God?

 

[El_Machinae]

By what criteria would one distinguish between a dogma, and the actual Word of God?

We're long waiting for an answer to such a question. The best we can do is rule out dogmas as the Word of God if and when we learn that they're false.

 

[timtofly]

We're long waiting for an answer to such a question. The best we can do is rule out dogmas as the Word of God if and when we learn that they're false.

If something makes your blood boil and really mad, then you are wrong? If something makes your blood boil and you do not get mad, then you are right?

For the most part, we unconsciously react emotionally to certain things. To a certain extent we can even deceive ourselves in such matters. I think that we know the truth, even if we reject it, or it does not make sense to us. Being able to reject it, is the means by which it can be false. The problem is at what point is it impossible to distinguish between what we think is true, but is not?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

What dogmas? By what criteria would one distinguish between a dogma, and the actual Word of God?

First of all if God is a father of this ever changing and progressing universe I think we cant expect his Word concerned with it something totally opposite as if set in marble.
We have to study Word of God and see what part of reality it refers to and see how practical and applicable it is through out centuries and after millennia of human socio-psychological development.

If something makes your blood boil and really mad, then you are wrong? If something makes your blood boil and you do not get mad, then you are right?

If something makes your blood boil and you do not get mad than you can make your decision with more clarity and instead diverting part of your effort to self-control. If you have more clarity chances are higher that you are closer to seeing and understanding the actual truth.

For the most part, we unconsciously react emotionally to certain things. To a certain extent we can even deceive ourselves in such matters. I think that we know the truth, even if we reject it, or it does not make sense to us. Being able to reject it, is the means by which it can be false. The problem is at what point is it impossible to distinguish between what we think is true, but is not?

I think its a matter of practise and one of the secrets is to do things increasingly more consciously and with more awareness. In fact consciousness is a secret to pretty much everything. The more/deeper awareness you have the harder its for you or anybody to deceive yourself and the more you are with tune with God and Truth.

 

[Berzerker]

The Bible doesn't say that. It just says that Adam hid from God and God called out, asking for him. If you're going to be absolutely literal in one place, you should apply that consistently.

The Bible does say that... The Bible says Adam hid and God didn't know where he was so he called out for him... An all-knowing God wouldn't need to call out. And why cant we take the Bible literally sometimes and not others? Is this some rule you just invented? I dont where you got the idea I take the Bible literally, I dont even believe the days of creation are actually days.

How would God know where to call out to, if God did not know where? Even if I knew where someone was, I would still call out to get their attention.

It says Adam hid so God called out for him. Where are you, Adam?

 

[timtofly]

The Bible does say that... The Bible says Adam hid and God didn't know where he was so he called out for him... An all-knowing God wouldn't need to call out. And why cant we take the Bible literally sometimes and not others? Is this some rule you just invented? I dont where you got the idea I take the Bible literally, I dont even believe the days of creation are actually days.

Would it be ok to interpret a phrase as literal to prove that the event was not literal?

It literally says that morning and evening were the first day, yet you say the first day lasted for years. So literally there had to be years of darkness, before there could be years of light. Literally no one can hide from God, yet when Adam thought he could, then you take that as literal along with the phrase God said, "Where are you?" There are a lot of situations that a person can ask that question and know where another person is. They just want that person to be honest with them.

It says Adam hid so God called out for him. Where are you, Adam?

God was giving Adam a chance to "save face" and tell the truth. Do you think that it is possible to actually hide from God? If God knows our thoughts, then how can we hide the fact that we are hiding, and where we are hiding?

Now you may not accept that God knows our thoughts. There are those that do, thus your literal take on the matter is not their literal take on it. Who is right and who is wrong? If God did not literally know where Adam was, at what point does God know anything? It would seem then that you are the judge of what God knows and does not know. It may be a safer bet to just say that God knows everything, as we do not know everything, thus have no clue on what God actually knows or does not know.

I don't think that using this one event is proof enough that God does not know everything, because there are similar situations that can happen to each and every one of us, and it is not an unique instance that can only be viewed one way.