Eat from the Tree of Knowledge and You Will Die?

M

mojobadshah

Guest
15. And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. - Genesis 1:15

I recall watching a youtube about how according to this passage god created man with free will. But to me it says the exact opposite. To me what it says is that if Adam "man" seeks to acquire knowledge that he will die. In other words it reads like whoever wrote this didn't want men to become smarter, like it was an attempt to subject men to ignorance. Any thoughts?
 
you got it right, if you indeed believe there is a god, or rather an Abrahamic god.
 
All Bronze Age Father gods or monotheistic gods were invented most likely by warlord-shamans like Moses. He designed a god with ultimate avarice, narcissism, cruelty, vindictiveness, homicide, infliction of suffering, demand for absolute obedience, horrible punishment, constant anger, need for worship, and most importantly be dreadfully feared by the people.

Moses brought his mixed ethnic group of Egyptian underclass and slaves to the desert. He invented JHWH the God of Eternal Fear. He made the commandments to demand total unthinking obedience. When some people made a golden calf, violating a commandment, Moses sent his version of the SS, the Levites, to murder 3000 of the belief sinners. That solidified his power of a people who feared the God of Moses more than they feared the armies of the Egyptian or Mesopotamian powers. It was so successful, that as Jesus followers expanded, the Roman Empire, redesigned Jesus into the Old Testament God which led to mass persecutions and brought obedience to the Empire. That added another century or so to the Western Empire.

The gospels of Jesus were conveniently ignored in Organised Christianity while transforming Jesus into a Pagan Idol.

Moses knew the dangers to those in control if the people obtained knowledge and learned to think. That is why he made up the Genesis Fairy tale drawing from two different earlier creation fables and scary gods.
 
CHRISTIANITY: The belief that some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Makes perfect sense.

The eating from the Tree of Knowledge is clear evidence that religion considers free expression and knowledge as it major enemies. The Tree of Knowledge fable is the core of repressive religion.

Amergin
 
15. And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. - Genesis 1:15

I recall watching a youtube about how according to this passage god created man with free will. But to me it says the exact opposite. To me what it says is thadie. In other words it reads like whoever wrote this didn't want men to become smarter, like it was an attempt to subject men to ignorance. Any thoughts?

A red hot lava flow is rolling down the hill toward you. You have the free will to run away from it or .stay there and burn in the liquid lav. That is Christian Free Will.

A man with a glassy-eyed facial expression and sardonic smile says, "you have a free choice." He holds a 50 calibre Desert Eagle Hand gun to your forehead. He says "you can freely choose to kneel before me and fondle my Johnson, or refuse and try to walk away." If you refuse I will fire 8 shots into your head. Free will indeed.

Amergin
 
religion considers free expression and knowledge as it major enemies

I think your free expression/knowledge argument is pretty weak in today's modern society, at least on my side of the big pond.

If religion considers knowledge as a major enemy, why do the priests and pastors of Iowa churches encourage the youth of their church to attend college? I don't see any of them encouraging youth to drop out of high school so as not to acquire too much knowledge.

And free expression in this country is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, which was enacted by a group of mostly Christians. Again, if Christians are anti-expression, why was it so important to them to enact and maintain freedom of expression in our Constitution?

Seems to me like you have some beefs with organized religion and you're painting with a broad brush here. Are there any world religions you do not consider repressive? Are there any world religions you think have a net positive impact on global society?
 
I recall watching a youtube about how according to this passage god created man with free will. But to me it says the exact opposite. To me what it says is that if Adam "man" seeks to acquire knowledge that he will die. In other words it reads like whoever wrote this didn't want men to become smarter, like it was an attempt to subject men to ignorance. Any thoughts?

I think initially, Adam had no free will. He was just a mindless robot that somehow, randomly chose to eat the forbidden fruit. Perhaps he did have some understanding, but not much more than a pet dog. Yes, that's right. Adam and Eve were just pets in God's utopian garden. If God threw a stick and said "fetch," Adam would go and get it.

But that changed when Adam ate the fruit. Adam stopped being a pet dog. Adam could now think for himself, although he didn't understand it all that well.

The price for this "knowledge" and "greater awareness" was that he was driven out of the garden. It has often been thought of as punishment but I do not believe "punishment" is necessarily the most accurate way of describing it.

Adam had surpassed the intelligence of a pet. The garden was made for pet humans and other pet animals, not for beings capable of articulate thought. Adam had "grown out of" the garden and no longer belonged there. It was time to venture out into a world of sickness, death and hardship. Of course, God didn't give Adam much of a choice.

Perhaps I could use an analogy from Japanese history. Under the Tokugawa Shogunate, feudal lords were not allowed to accumulate too much wealth because they would become too powerful. The Tokugawas actually punished their subordinates for being too successful. If a feudal lord accumulated too much wealth or had a budget surplus, the shogun would order him to spend his money. This ensured that the nobility remained weak and unable to challenge the shogun.

The lesson of the Adam and Eve story is that with power comes responsibility. If you get smart, you will be required to solve harder problems.

The reason why Adam must die is because that is one of the challenges he must face in his new reality. He must face the inevitability of death and try to live his life as best he can. His intelligence has increased to a point where the problem of death has become a suitable challenge.
 
My two cents worth:

As we all know, the Garden of Eden story is metaphorical. The meaning behind it is Mankind becoming conscious of Himself and thus entering a different Awareness of Self and Mortality. The Adam/Eve animal would have lived its life as all animals do, unaware of time and their entropy, unknowing there comes an eventual demise, to them they are immortal. The significance of eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is this spiritual evolution to that of an animal that is fully aware and conscious of itself.
 
I think your free expression/knowledge argument is pretty weak in today's modern society, at least on my side of the big pond.

I have been free to search for the truth myself. My Christian mother believed in freedom of choice in belief. My father was an Atheist who also championed freedom of religion no matter how insane it appears to be. I thus had religion in schools, read the Bible page by page and parts of it many times over the years. In fact, my father promised my mom to not influence my belief so he never admitted his lack of belief until my 18th birthday. By then I was an atheist. What made me atheist? The Bible which I read without being told in advance how to believe it. It convince me the Anthropomorphic evil god depicted could not exist. I do not deny the possibility of a god but JHWY, Allah, and Christ Trinity make no sense.

If religion considers knowledge as a major enemy, why do the priests and pastors of Iowa churches encourage the youth of their church to attend college? I don't see any of them encouraging youth to drop out of high school so as not to acquire too much knowledge.

For 1700 years the Church has burned alive thinkers like Giordano Bruno for hypothesising that stars are not tiny lamps but actual suns a great distance away. Hypatia of Alexandria was arrested by Catholic monks on orders of SAINT CYRIL and dragged through the streets of Alexandria by chains, beaten, tortured, and finally while still alive drawn and quartered (look it up.) Her crime was teaching classic Greek science that the Earth was a sphere and not flat (Eratosthenes), all life evolved from lower forms, and that the Earth probably revolves around the sun.

Aristarchus of Samos, in 290 BC, believed that the motions of the heavenly bodies could easily be understood if it were assumed that all of the planets, including Earth, revolved around the sun and that the stars must be infinitely far away because they seemed motionless. Galileo was silenced by the Inquisition because he discoverd Jupiter had moons and Earth likely revolved around the Sun. Copericus got away with it because he was in a religiously tolerant kingdom. Darwin was slandered because he discovered powerful evidence for evolution. He suggested man is related to Great Apes in Africa based on anatomy.

And free expression in this country is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, which was enacted by a group of mostly Christians. Again, if Christians are anti-expression, why was it so important to them to enact and maintain freedom of expression in our Constitution?

Christians were not very popular during the Revolution which was led by Deists who respected free thought. Many Christians interpreted the first amendment as allowing freedom to belong to any Christian sect. Despite the Constitution, state enacted anti-blasphemy laws, defined marriage on Christian terms, permitted Black Slavery, justified stealing Native American Lands (from the Heathens.) Christians took steps for greater control in the 20th Century by outlawing teaching of evolution, put "In God We Trust" on the money of Christians, Pagans, and atheists. In violation of the spirit of the constitution they altered the Pledge of Allegience written by a Baptist Preacher in 1890's. The altered "one nation, indivisible,..." to "one nation, under God, indivisible."

One nation, under God, indivisible is irrational. If we are one nation under God then non-believers are excluded. Since "God" almost always means the Christian God, it excludes all other religions as Americans. "Under God, indivisible," is automatically divisible. It classes Americans as God Americans, and the non-God Americans.

Seems to me like you have some beefs with organized religion and you're painting with a broad brush here. Are there any world religions you do not consider repressive? Are there any world religions you think have a net positive impact on global society?

I believe based on my experiences and the Bible, that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are frankly EVIL. They have brought unimaginable suffering to the world. Read a good history book.

Positive Religions include Deism, Quakerism, Baha'i, Wicca, Neo-Pagan, Australian Aborigine, and some Native American Nature religions are quite positive. Also the non-theistic religion of Secular Humanism is the most ethical religion I have seen.

I am anti-Christianity like I am anti-Communism. I am not anti-Christians or anti-communists. I will fight any government Scottish or UK that restricts the rights of religious believers but reserve my right to criticise them.

Amergin
 
My two cents worth:

As we all know, the Garden of Eden story is metaphorical. The meaning behind it is Mankind becoming conscious of Himself and thus entering a different Awareness of Self and Mortality.

It is an unproven assumption that man suddenly achieved a different awareness. We don't know if it was fundamentally different from Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, or Homo neandertalensis. We don't know if it was qualitatively different from other Apes, monkeys, cats, or dogs. All we know it that we acquired speech long before we became Homo sapiens. Neandertals and Heidelbergs had the same identical FOXP2 gene that is required for vocal speech. We know that many animals understand our language even though they cannot talk (lack the FOXP2).

The Adam/Eve animal would have lived its life as all animals do,

Adam and Eve are mythical or metaphorical. Modern humans are indeed animals. We are not plants, fungi, or bacteria. On the progression from Australopithecus gracilis through Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo antecessor, Homo rhodesiensis, to Homo sapiens was a gradual line over 4 million years. There is no sudden line making two Homo sapiens "human" with umbilical buttons had "animal parents" who likely were indistinguishable from their children.

The line separating human animals from non-human animals is just an arbitrary designation of human chauvinism and narcissism. Genetics, anatomy, and intelligent actions show the idiocy of denying that we have two eyes, a nose, a mouth with teeth, a brain (cerebrum, diencephalon, brainstem, cerebellum, and spinal cord.)

unaware of time and their entropy, unknowing there comes an eventual demise, to them they are immortal.

Animals are aware of time. My dogs tell me they are hungry at approximately 0600, 1200, and 1800. My cat comes in and wakes me up if I am 10 minutes late arising in the morning. They get bored if I spend time on the computer for too long (time.)

Animals are quite aware of our demise. This story is true. A Glascow constable made rounds every day for years with his dog (forgot his name). When the constable died, the dog visibly mourned. He went to the funeral. And for several years he walked from home to his old master's grave lying down and crying.

The significance of eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is this spiritual evolution to that of an animal that is fully aware and conscious of itself.

Bollocks! There is no evidence that there was a Tree of Knowledge. That was a fable to keep people stupid and obedient to the war lord. Spirits were invented by pre-historic men to explain the unseen cause of movement, springs, rivers, volcanoes, and earthquakes. Spiritual belief was not evolution but retro-evolution, and a tool for those in power.

You do not know if we are the only animals with full awareness and consciousness. That defies simple observation. Our awareness, the product of our highly evolved brain, is likely more developed than Chimps, dogs, and cats. But it is blind assumption to assume that before us, animals had no awareness. As a neuroscientist, I have seen powerful high tech studies of consciousness of animals including man.

At Central Washington U. in Ellensburg, WA, USA they have chimps who have learned to communicate with sign language. I know, I visited there and talked to Chimps who asked me to play a game. They were not taught the word duck. They knew signs for water and birds. So when a duck landed near the compound the female chimp signalled "water-bird.

Why are Christians so chauvinistic, and arrogant to think they are so gut damned superior to other life. Gazelles are faster, Elephants are bigger, lions are more lethal predators except for crocodiles, birds and bats can fly under their own power. Your arrogance of superiority is because you refuse to look outside and see the trees.

Amergin
 
I have been free to search for the truth myself.

I don't affiliate with an organized religion either. I agree with Krishnamurti that truth is a pathless land, that truth cannot be learned from a book.


By then I was an atheist. What made me atheist? The Bible which I read without being told in advance how to believe it. It convince me the Anthropomorphic evil god depicted could not exist. I do not deny the possibility of a god but JHWY, Allah, and Christ Trinity make no sense.

If you don't deny the possibility of a god sounds like you're more agnostic than atheist?

My personal experience has been that theists are more open to conversation with agnostics than atheists.


For 1700 years the Church has burned alive thinkers...

Years ago, when I first parted paths with my Christian upbringing, I used to spew the same hatred as you do towards the Abrahamic faiths. But as I get older I'm realizing that modern Christianity is much different than the olden days; it still has its faults (so much that I don't consider myself Christian), but it has many positives as well.

You do bring up some historical facts that I wasn't aware of, which I appreciate. But I think you'd get further in an interfaith forum if you tone down your message and don't associate modern Christianity with the burn-at-the-stake days. Most modern Christians probably turn off their brains and are not open to discussion once they sense your hatred. Plus hate does a person no good, it's like taking a poison pill yourself and hoping it affects someone else.


I believe based on my experiences and the Bible, that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are frankly EVIL. They have brought unimaginable suffering to the world. Read a good history book.

Guns, Germs, and Steel is my favorite history book, followed by A People's History of the United States. Much of the suffering you describe is detailed in such books.

But I don't think the past is prologue in this case.

You think the small Protestant church near my house, mostly attended by little old ladies, is EVIL? The one that does service projects in the community? The one that consoles community members at a time of need? The one that fundraises if one of its members becomes ill and can't afford the hospital bills?

Please explain to me how this small church brings suffering to today's world. I haven't seen any stake-burnings advertised recently...


Positive Religions include Deism, Quakerism, Baha'i, Wicca, Neo-Pagan, Australian Aborigine, and some Native American Nature religions are quite positive. Also the non-theistic religion of Secular Humanism is the most ethical religion I have seen.

I think all organized religions, including the ones you mention + the Abrahamic faiths, have their positives and negatives. Because ultimately they are organized by humans who themselves have strengths and weaknesses.


I will fight any government Scottish or UK that restricts the rights of religious believers but reserve my right to criticise them.

Agreed, hopefully you can keep to constructive criticism. Religion bashing does no good in my experience and opinion. I agree with many of your anti-religion points but your negative tone and hatred is a turn-off even though I've been agnostic for over 20 years. Imagine how quickly a member of the Abrahamic faiths likely disengages from discussion once they read your posts.

Unless you're just here to rant and not to discuss?
 
My two cents worth:

As we all know, the Garden of Eden story is metaphorical. .

Adam and Eve are mythical or metaphorical.
What part of Etu's statement did you miss that caused you to go on such a rant to attempt to prove that the tree of knowledge and any Adam and Eve didn't exist.

We believers are not all literalists or even mostly literalists...as a percentaage, I believe that there are more atheist literalists than there are Christian...
 
It is an unproven assumption that man suddenly achieved a different awareness. We don't know if it was fundamentally different from Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, or Homo neandertalensis. We don't know if it was qualitatively different from other Apes, monkeys, cats, or dogs. All we know it that we acquired speech long before we became Homo sapiens. Neandertals and Heidelbergs had the same identical FOXP2 gene that is required for vocal speech. We know that many animals understand our language even though they cannot talk (lack the FOXP2).



Adam and Eve are mythical or metaphorical. Modern humans are indeed animals. We are not plants, fungi, or bacteria. On the progression from Australopithecus gracilis through Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo antecessor, Homo rhodesiensis, to Homo sapiens was a gradual line over 4 million years. There is no sudden line making two Homo sapiens "human" with umbilical buttons had "animal parents" who likely were indistinguishable from their children.

The line separating human animals from non-human animals is just an arbitrary designation of human chauvinism and narcissism. Genetics, anatomy, and intelligent actions show the idiocy of denying that we have two eyes, a nose, a mouth with teeth, a brain (cerebrum, diencephalon, brainstem, cerebellum, and spinal cord.)



Animals are aware of time. My dogs tell me they are hungry at approximately 0600, 1200, and 1800. My cat comes in and wakes me up if I am 10 minutes late arising in the morning. They get bored if I spend time on the computer for too long (time.)

Animals are quite aware of our demise. This story is true. A Glascow constable made rounds every day for years with his dog (forgot his name). When the constable died, the dog visibly mourned. He went to the funeral. And for several years he walked from home to his old master's grave lying down and crying.



Bollocks! There is no evidence that there was a Tree of Knowledge. That was a fable to keep people stupid and obedient to the war lord. Spirits were invented by pre-historic men to explain the unseen cause of movement, springs, rivers, volcanoes, and earthquakes. Spiritual belief was not evolution but retro-evolution, and a tool for those in power.

You do not know if we are the only animals with full awareness and consciousness. That defies simple observation. Our awareness, the product of our highly evolved brain, is likely more developed than Chimps, dogs, and cats. But it is blind assumption to assume that before us, animals had no awareness. As a neuroscientist, I have seen powerful high tech studies of consciousness of animals including man.

At Central Washington U. in Ellensburg, WA, USA they have chimps who have learned to communicate with sign language. I know, I visited there and talked to Chimps who asked me to play a game. They were not taught the word duck. They knew signs for water and birds. So when a duck landed near the compound the female chimp signalled "water-bird.

Why are Christians so chauvinistic, and arrogant to think they are so gut damned superior to other life. Gazelles are faster, Elephants are bigger, lions are more lethal predators except for crocodiles, birds and bats can fly under their own power. Your arrogance of superiority is because you refuse to look outside and see the trees.

Amergin
Please read what I post a little more carefully next time.
 
Amergin, please listen to IG and wil. What we try to do here is discuss, objectively. I am a physicist by education and a skeptic by nature, however I am a Christian and a mystic by choice. While the historical validity of the events you shrill us with is most likely, do not believe that all Christians or Jews or Muslims fall for the inerrancy crap that you yourself fall back into.

The tree of knowledge was and is a metaphor. Only the most pathological of the theists believe it literal. It was a metaphor in the same way, and for the same reason, the Magen David became a metaphor for Rosenzweig... philosophy and thought and consciousness tell us nothing about the Great Abyss, Death.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.
 
Just some corrections on your historical trivia, Amergin: the Church did have a long tradition of burning people alive, but Bruno is actually the only case of a Copernican being burned (and it was probably more because he was a secret agent for Elizabeth's government); Copernicus didn't "get away" with anything (he made sure his book would not be printed until after he was dead); and we have no idea what the content of Hypatia's teachings were: her crime was that she was teaching at all, being female; and she wasn't "drawn and quartered", she was given "the death of a thousand cuts" (pieces of flesh scraped off with oyster shells until she died).
 
15. And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. - Genesis 1:15

I recall watching a youtube about how according to this passage god created man with free will. But to me it says the exact opposite. To me what it says is that if Adam "man" seeks to acquire knowledge that he will die. In other words it reads like whoever wrote this didn't want men to become smarter, like it was an attempt to subject men to ignorance. Any thoughts?


The story isn't about general knowledge, but about the awareness of evil and its effects. The old adage holds true here, "Ignorance is bliss". Had evil never been "known", we would only know what was good. The tree of knowledge of "good and evil" symbolizes a path, just as the tree of life symbolizes a path. Evil was introduced into the world by mankind's own actions because of the path mankind chose. Mankind chose to pursue evil and the natural consequence of that choice was to experience the effects thereof. This removed mankind from the garden (paradise).


The story suggests that mankind's eyes were opened (We became aware of our capacity to do evil things). The story also suggests that mankind was ashamed of their actions, so much so that they tried to hide themselves. There is much more to story than what meets the eye, mojo. Take the serpent for example. The serpent symbolizes desire. Eve desired to know evil. Her desires deceived her into thinking she would become wise and knowledgeable like God. Adam willingly followed her lead and chose to pursue evil as well.


Also, the serpent was said to be cursed to consume the dust of the ground for the rest of its days. Mankind was created from the dust of the ground according to the Genesis account, which implies to me that mankind (who represents the dust of the ground) would be consumed by evil desire until our evil desires are conquered. This can only be achieved by following the path (tree) of life.


The scriptures state that the wages of sin (pursuit of evil) is death (destruction), hence we essentially destroy ourselves by our evil pursuits. The tree of life (path of life) has been "preserved" for mankind to choose over evil, however. We know and are aware of the effects of both good and evil in today's world. It is ultimately up to mankind to conquer our evil desires and pursue the path of life as Jesus did. Jesus embodies the potential of mankind. We are sons of man and can be children of God when we choose the path of life over the path of destruction.


The tree (path) of life is still available to each of us, preserved and kept so we might one day choose it over evil. If we continue to desire and pursue evil, we (the sons of man) will be destroyed. If we choose the path of life, we will one day live abundantly as Gods children in a heavenly "kingdom" ruled by God, who is (in part) love. The choice is ours, but in order to choose life, we will need to conquer our evil desires. In order to slay the dragon, we must first know the dragon, which amounts to knowing thyself. If we can slay our desires to pursue evil, we will know life as it was in the beginning (paradise).


Devil in the Mirror
 
It is an unproven assumption that man suddenly achieved a different awareness. We don't know if it was fundamentally different from Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, or Homo neandertalensis. We don't know if it was qualitatively different from other Apes, monkeys, cats, or dogs.
but we do know that it happened,because we are here.

All we know it that we acquired speech long before we became Homo sapiens. Neandertals and Heidelbergs had the same identical FOXP2 gene that is required for vocal speech.
How do we know that? The earliest records for any language was the Sumerians. How do we know anything earlier than this?

Animals are aware of time. My dogs tell me they are hungry at approximately 0600, 1200, and 1800. My cat comes in and wakes me up if I am 10 minutes late arising in the morning. They get bored if I spend time on the computer for too long (time.)
I don't think this is what I was getting at, perhaps time in a very simple way, yes. I'd be sure if their environment was alien to them and a clock was set in front of them, they would disappoint you in their time-keeping abilities.

Animals are quite aware of our demise. This story is true. A Glascow constable made rounds every day for years with his dog (forgot his name). When the constable died, the dog visibly mourned. He went to the funeral. And for several years he walked from home to his old master's grave lying down and crying.
This is the Pavlov Dog theory and doesn't mean anything more than an animal with a habitual tendency, remember for the most part 'we' project our emotions and outlooks onto the pet, just as we do with other humans. Have you watched the Dog Whisperer by chance? Ceasar demonstrates with every episode just how much of an animal dogs are, just how habitual and easy they are to manipulate physcologically.


My Post:The significance of eating from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is this spiritual evolution to that of an animal that is fully aware and conscious of itself.
Bollocks! There is no evidence that there was a Tree of Knowledge. That was a fable to keep people stupid and obedient to the war lord. Spirits were invented by pre-historic men to explain the unseen cause of movement, springs, rivers, volcanoes, and earthquakes. Spiritual belief was not evolution but retro-evolution, and a tool for those in power.
I think I made my self clear that this was metaphorical.

You do not know if we are the only animals with full awareness and consciousness. That defies simple observation. Our awareness, the product of our highly evolved brain, is likely more developed than Chimps, dogs, and cats. But it is blind assumption to assume that before us, animals had no awareness. As a neuroscientist, I have seen powerful high tech studies of consciousness of animals including man.
It seems that way, the possibility leans in that direction, scientists (aside from you), psychologists, tend to agree with what I say, matter of fact it is they from where I gathered my stance on this. But, as an agnostic I will admit that, no I am not positive.

At Central Washington U. in Ellensburg, WA, USA they have chimps who have learned to communicate with sign language. I know, I visited there and talked to Chimps who asked me to play a game. They were not taught the word duck. They knew signs for water and birds. So when a duck landed near the compound the female chimp signalled "water-bird.
Come on professor, this as you are well aware of is behavioral learning, if they could teach themself these 'tricks' then they would be human would they not? But, there certainly is a fascination with the chimp and language and communication, if they are using symbols to communicate with us it would show that they have the capacity to understand and comprehend.

Why are Christians so chauvinistic, and arrogant to think they are so gut damned superior to other life. Gazelles are faster, Elephants are bigger, lions are more lethal predators except for crocodiles, birds and bats can fly under their own power. Your arrogance of superiority is because you refuse to look outside and see the trees.
Just for the record, I am not christian.
 
15. And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 16. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. - Genesis 1:15

I recall watching a youtube about how according to this passage god created man with free will. But to me it says the exact opposite. To me what it says is that if Adam "man" seeks to acquire knowledge that he will die. In other words it reads like whoever wrote this didn't want men to become smarter, like it was an attempt to subject men to ignorance. Any thoughts?


IMHO, the prohibition to eat from the tree of knowledge was only to incite man's curiosity and rush him to acquire knowledge. The opposite is rather true, that man dies for lack of knowledge. Prophet Hosea himself said that people perish for lack of knowledge. So much so that as Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, they did not die, but acquired the attribute of knowledge in terms of their intellect and could distinguish good from evil.

Then, we have a good example in the faithfuls of Jim Jones. If they had applied their ability to know their insane leader a little better, they could have avoid their massive suicidal catastrophe for lack of knowledge. It means that knowledge rather brings life, while faith only, brings death.
Ben
 
The eating from the Tree of Knowledge is clear evidence that religion considers free expression and knowledge as it major enemies. The Tree of Knowledge fable is the core of repressive religion.
The (understandable) exoteric assumption here is that there was something to gain by eating the fruit. Careful contemplation of the text might indicate (dependent upon the insight of the contemplator) that rather than gain by the act, man would lose by it ... that is the discreet yet orthodox tradition, made explicit in the term 'fall'.

(Let aside the fact that the logic of this argument depends upon a self-declaration of this supposed repression ... go figure ... )

It is evident that prior to the act, man did not, nor would he, know death as we understand it now.

It is also evident that creation was made for mans' sake, as God didn't need one, and man was to play a pivotal role in the 'realisation' of creation — not simply as gardener, but co-creator.

It is worth contemplating what is meant by 'made in our own image' when the Deity possesses no image, no visage, as such.

It's also worth noting, for those esoterically inclined, that all this occurred in a domain more 'subtle' than that which resulted from the fall, as the man discussions of 'clothed in flesh' signify.

Finally, pre-lapsarian man was a spiritual being, pure intellect. By intellect one does not mean 'intelligence' but rather a way of knowing that is direct, intuitive and experiential, it's not so much the knowing of another, as the becoming of another by the free gift of self to other, and the free gift of other to self.

I think the phrase 'by my lights' says more than we might ever realise ...

When man fell, this 'inner eye' of the soul, this inner light that both reveals and illuminates, was occluded, the outer eye opened, and man lost the interior sense of the being of things, and was left struggling to understand the nature of things, from superficial appearance only, thus 'reason' which is lower than intellect, grapples with the sense of things, that is, the sensible data he receives through his physical faculties.

He was left working with reflected light, rather than himself being a source of light.

In pride he thought he could become like God, in reality he became less than himself, and has been trying to find his way back ever since.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Back
Top