Philosophy Discussion Forums

Fooloso4 wrote:Whitedragon:

… but how could they be vulnerable in paradise, even after eating the fruit?

Two points: first, you assume that their knowledge would include the knowledge that they were in a place where they would not be vulnerable. Second, they knew that they had disobeyed and were fearful of the consequences of being found out. So, they were vulnerable after all.

Please explain how it is not from eating the fruit, which convoluted their perception.

Their perception was accurate. Man is vulnerable. That perception is distinct from the judgment as to when and where and with regard to who and what we are vulnerable. We should also consider what it meant for Ham to see his father Noah naked (Genesis 9:22). His brothers covered their father and avoided seeing him exposed. To be naked means to not be able to hide what one wishes to keep hidden. Ham's transgression was not simply that he saw what he should not have (and that does not mean his father's naked body), he further exposes his father by telling his brothers what he saw.

They might have felt vulnerable, but they also felt afraid.

One does not feel vulnerable without being afraid.

That is the key, their behaviour changed when they ate from the fruit.

Of course it is. That is entirely consistent with what I have been saying. Only it is not simply a matter of changed behavior but of what Man became capable of doing with knowledge, that is, the ways in which he could and did now behave from generation to generation.

… they started fearing things, which held not threat.

But God had told them that if they ate they would die, and they ate. Their fear was not paranoia. They had something to fear. Proverbs and Psalms tell us that wisdom is fear of the Lord. Since they had transgressed they now had good reason to fear the Lord where they had none before.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom … (Genesis 3:6)

The story is far more complex than it seems at first. There can be no wisdom without knowledge. Their disobedience did not simply give them good reason to fear the Lord, it was the necessary condition for gaining wisdom. That means, in part, for knowing that it is wise to fear the Lord. But there is more to it. To disobey is to assert independence. Even God’s Law is not a sufficient guide for the actions of men. After Moses brings the Law two further necessities are acknowledged and instituted: kings and judges. The titles of two books that tell the story of what come after the Law. In other words, we are to some degree independent and thus must to that extent figure out how to act wisely.

Fooloso4, from what you are saying here it comes back to the OP question; you admit that humans in paradise, did do something wrong. It is also not convincing that they could not have had wisdom any other way, other than eating from the tree. In your own words, wisdom is to do the Lords will and to fear him. In addition, it is also not convincing to say that eating from the fruit had no negative impact on them mentally; can we truly say that? Wisdom in general is to teach people what you have already learned. Even Athena had a permeant sadness to her, due to all her wisdom.

There is only one conclusion we can draw from this; where there is no pain, there is no need for wisdom; because in a place where pain does not exist, the experience, shared with someone that is “innocent,” as you say, will evoke paranoia. Yes, they did disobey the Lord’s commandment, and that was reason to fear; but it seems one could not come into being without the other. In other words, wisdom with its sadness came before the sin, if you think about it carefully.

Lastly, let us take children playing. Many children, as we know, do not have the care of those with sorrow and hurt, who are of greater age. Now imagine these same “children” in a place where care and worry, does not exist. You cannot impart wisdom, without imparting the awareness of pain and worry. What would happen to those children if you share the knowledge of strife and sorrow; the awareness of it taints the safe haven and they would logically seek out what is bad.

Whitedragon wrote:Hi Dclements, listening to your video was interesting. Earlier posts would show you that we agree that the idea of right and wrong needs to be redefined and the way we see it should be in accordance with your view. Right and wrong is about what is beneficial for us and for others and what is not. We both should have a similar take on the notion, but for the sake of traditionalism, some people still use those terms. It also should be logical that if once both parties understand those terms the re-defined “right and wrong” should no longer pose a hindrance in conversation. There are some personal writing, which we gladly would share on the notion of right and wrong, but it is in abstract form, if you are interested.

What I'm trying to stress if one realizes that isn't a given that any particular action is either 'good' or 'evil' than it is pretty much a given that saying 'God' is 'good' and saying worshiping such a 'God' is also 'good' is heresy. Even if one doesn't believe in morality being subjective, it is also a given that all religious doctrine are pleads to authority fallacies. As 180 Proof (an agnostic member of another forum) "that which is asserted without proof can also be dismissed without any proof". Or in other words non sequitur and simple appeals to authority can be easily dismissed if one desires because they are merely one's opinion with nothing to support it; and one opinion (without any proof to support it) is really no better than any other that one wishes to follow.

I also don't think you fully grasp what I'm saying when I say it isn't a given that any action is 'good' or 'bad' and that I'm partial to nihilism. To actual believe such things (and lead a life by such thoughts) one needs to first be a skeptic to a degree and then allow such beliefs become more extreme than simple skepticism. I don't think you can fathom what it is like to have so much doubt if you are preaching that people need to believe in 'God'.

If you want to share any personal writings on the subject it might help for me to understand what you consider what it means for you when someone says it isn't a given that there is a 'right' or 'wrong' and how it differs from my definition of it.

Whitedragon wrote: Having studied the occult too we have experienced some phenomenon in that area, but as well in Christina areas. However, we will certainly not share it on an open forum for obvious reasons. If you wish, we can have a private conversation on the matter.

I guess if you also have a little background in it it isn't heresy as if I talked to someone that has no interest or background.. I guess too the best of my knowledge is that most of the occult is about trying to manipulate the subconsciousness mind to be more in-tuned with the conscience one; or perhaps manipulate the conscience mind to be more in-tuned with the subconsciousness one. While I have never seen anything like 'magic' (and haven't read anything that suggest any credible person has witness such an event), the idea of someone being able to 'brainwash' themselves in order to obtain so goal may not be all that trivial as it seems; given the right conditions of course. There were a few experience where me and my friends played with Ouija boards, visited haunted cemeteries and saw ghosts, and such so I'm not so easily to dismiss all paranormal stuff or at least as much as other skeptics; however such stuff kind of gets boring as you get a little older.

Whitedragon wrote: We do not believe that we are preaching on the forum, there is a big difference between preaching and religious reference. Besides, atheists often “preach” as much as theists do and you never see theists complain. For what it is worth, we are open to the wisdoms of all convictions: atheists, agnostics and other paths and have walked many of them ourselves. We prefer to keep those wisdoms with us, but work from a Christian starting point; and no, we are open to other’s opinions, not closed as you suggest. If we were closed, we would not have bothered to watch your video or google the lyrics.

The difference between preaching and conducting a philosophical debate is that the latter requires one to provide logical/rational reasons for why they believe the way they do the and the later doesn't bother with explaining such things and/or just assumes their opinions are correct. I may be wrong but I didn't see much effort to provide proof in your arguments.

Also I should note that many people that study philosophy become skeptics when they realize how difficult it is to support ideological, cultural, and religious beliefs.

Ormond:

Because I'm referring to what is an either/or reality.

Sorry. I missed this post before.
That is not the way I see it. You do not identify anyone but your wife as one who is of the highest moral authority. Those who I might name are considered to be moral authorities because of the ways in which they have shaped our ideas of morality, and they did this through their writings, which you seem to think would exclude them de facto.

Evaluating our own ideas and beliefs is philosophy.

Philosophy also shapes our ideas and beliefs, including our ideas and beliefs about what is moral and who is a moral authority and by what measure we might say they are the highest moral authority.

My wife does the work she does without the need of ANY such talking, or ANY such philosophizing, or ANY religion or anti-religion, her compassion is entirely sufficient.

Compassionate people differ on moral issues just like the rest of us. If what one concludes is good the other concludes is bad then compassion is not entirely sufficient.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

The larger point here is that the best part of religion typically has little to with intellectualisms.

That is a matter of opinion. There are many who regard theology and contemplative thought of the divine as what is best about religion.


Dark Matter:

Neuance is the last refuge of a failed argument, so I figure if you can't use a simple and common definition found in something like Wikipedia, you know you have nothing to say.

Here is the Wiki definition:

Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence". Different religions may or may not contain various elements, ranging from the "divine","sacred things", "faith", a "supernatural being or supernatural beings" or "some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life."

In post #130 I said:

Some define the term so broadly that there is nothing that is not religion of some kind including science and atheism.

Post #133:

If you define the term broadly enough then there is probably few if any cultures that do not have some kind of religion.

The Wiki definition confirms this. If religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, then by definition there is no culture without religion because the definition does not distinguish between them. If religion is ethics then by this definition there is no distinction between religion and ethics.

My argument has not failed. You ignore my argument. Unless you define religion as belief in God, and you perversely refuse to say whether you do or do not, the question of whether there is a culture without religion is irrelevant to my argument which was about God. I have already pointed that out, but you have proven that that you are incapable of following the argument because you are completely wrapped up in your inner monologue against a phantom adversary.

My, my. How quickly you forget the complete description of the 'forbidden fruit' when it doesn't support your thesis.

And what is it that you think I have forgotten?

There are different ways to interpret it, but I see it as telling us that by we “died” to the universe-reality by our judgments. By so separating ourselves from it, we did indeed become as “gods,” but what the serpent failed to tell Eve is that though we would be like gods, we would not in reality be gods and the wisdom of the would elude us.

There are different ways to interpret it, some more plausible than others. As a principle of interpretation I follow the idea that the best interpretations are those that make the most sense of the whole and that find support in the text itself. The serpent misled Eve but they did not die that day. It is an equivocation. They died because they were not able to eat of the tree of life, so, they died because of what they did on that day. The way you see it is a matter of conjecture based on what you bring to the text rather than what can be found in it. What the serpent says and what God says are not so different. Neither says anything about the "wisdom of the would [(world?]". Although in response to Whitedragon I suggested that one reason God did not want them to become gods was because they lacked wisdom.

So, Fooloso4, I hope you understand why I can't take you seriously until such a time you find that "strange object," called the "universe," and begin investigating First Principles.

What I understand is that you are locked in your own battle within your own mind. You cast me as the adversary by falsely attributing things to me. As evidence to the contrary, you will find, if you care to look, several threads in which I have discussed these issues. I suspect that it is your own lack of knowledge of the concept of first principles as it has been treated in the philosophical tradition from Plato to Aristotle to Descartes to Kant to Wittgenstein that is the reason you have failed to see it in some of our own discussions.

You mistakenly assume that because I do not agree with you that there must be because I have investigated what you have.

Whitedragon:

It is also not convincing that they could not have had wisdom any other way, other than eating from the tree. In your own words, wisdom is to do the Lords will and to fear him.

Right. Apparently Adam and Eve did not have the wisdom to fear the Lord, but of course if they did there would be no story, no genesis, no Genesis. Can there have been another way? As far as I can see only if there can be wisdom without knowledge. What is clear is that Eve saw that the fruit was desirable for gaining wisdom.

In addition, it is also not convincing to say that eating from the fruit had no negative impact on them mentally; can we truly say that?

But I did not say that.

Even Athena had a permeant sadness to her, due to all her wisdom.

Ecclesiastes also expresses the despair of wisdom:

For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief. (1:18)

But this is only part of it:

Wisdom is good, along with possessions, an advantage to all who see the sun. For wisdom is a shelter, and money is a shelter, but the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom keeps the one who has it alive. (7:11-12)

As with the dualisms of Genesis says that wisdom is either good or bad only captures part of it. It is both. It provides both shelter and sorrow.

Now imagine these same “children” in a place where care and worry, does not exist. You cannot impart wisdom, without imparting the awareness of pain and worry.
What would happen to those children if you share the knowledge of strife and sorrow; the awareness of it taints the safe haven and they would logically seek out what is bad.

As I understand it, there would be no need to “impart” wisdom. I do no think you can impart wisdom, but putting that question aside, there would be no need for wisdom. They could get along very well without it as long as the are innocent and provided for. If we were to share the knowledge of strife and sorrow with them I do not see why they would seek it out, unless it appeared to them to be something good, something worth having, something that brings pleasure. It is in this respect different from the tree of knowledge. Eve saw only what was good and pleasant and could not see the evil.

The Wiki definition confirms this. If religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, then by definition there is no culture without religion because the definition does not distinguish between them. If religion is ethics then by this definition there is no distinction between religion and ethics.

That's the point. See why I can't take you seriously?

Ormond wrote: The Vatican loves it's rebels, for it is the rebels that are constantly saying how important the Vatican is.

Really? I thought the rebels were those who generally oppose the Vatican; always criticising and lobbying for "reform". Surely it's the conservatives who are constantly saying how important the Varican is?

-- Updated December 23rd, 2016, 2:51 am to add the following --

Anthony Edgar wrote:

Ormond wrote: The Vatican loves it's rebels, for it is the rebels that are constantly saying how important the Vatican is.

Really? I thought the rebels were those who generally oppose the Vatican; always criticising and lobbying for "reform". Surely it's the conservatives who are constantly saying how important the Varican is?

It depends on which angle you're looking from.

-- Updated December 23rd, 2016, 3:41 am to add the following --

Ormond wrote: The fact is that people from all over the world have been trying to flood in to Western culture for centuries, and this is due at least in part to the moral foundation provided by Judeo-Christian philosophy. The people have voted, with their feet.

In the 20th century, the Marxists (Communists, mostly) of the world combined to free various African nations from the evil White colonial oppressors. But now what do we see? We see vast numbers of Africans risking everything - including their very lives - to flee de-colinisation to live with the Evil White Colonial oppressors in their heartlands (Europe)!

This developement would be comical if it weren't so sad and costly. Said anti-colonial Marxists ("the Destroyers", I call them) now have serioius egg on their faces, if you ask me. European (read: Christian) colonisation wasn't perfect, but it is now evident that it wasn't the great evil many have made and continue to make it out to be. Indeed, the Africans are voting with their feet.
Incidentally, I used to play golf with native Fijian (as opposed to an Indian Fijian) who told me that the worst thing that ever happened to Fiji was de-colonisation. And an Indian doctor told me that without colonisation by the English, India would be centuries behind where it is now in terms of development.

-- Updated December 23rd, 2016, 3:50 am to add the following --

Fooloso4 wrote:Anthony Edgar:

Atheism means there are no rules.

Every time I hear something like this I thank God man invented him. It really is quite disconcerting to hear theists talk about how they would behave without the fear of divine retribution. Atheism does not mean that there are no rules

The question is not whether atheists are capable of morality or not; the question is, what is the point of an atheist having morality?  Your god of science says humans are just a bunch of meaningless atoms - in which case, the thought of atoms having morality is absurd.  And how can morality exist within meaninglessness?  That don't make no darn sense to this hillbilly.  Morality is as distant from meaninglessness as east is from west.

Whether one lives one's life as a monster or a saint, it's all the same because it all adds up to the same thing - nothing.  Do good or do evil, your god of science simply doesn't care.  If you come from nothing and go back to nothing - what's morality got to do with anything?  Morality is as pointless as rearranging deck- chairs on the Titanic.

The fact of the matter is that there have been many cultures with high moral standards that never knew anything of your God.

Standards of morality vary from person to person, from culture to culture and from age to age, so the idea of there being a "standard" of morality is a bit flaky. Nevertheless, can you give me an example of what you consider to be a high moral standard in one of these pre-Christian cultures?

-- Updated December 23rd, 2016, 4:12 am to add the following --

Whitedragon wrote: Besides, atheists often “preach” as much as theists do.

Ya got that right!

Really? I thought the rebels were those who generally oppose the Vatican; always criticising and lobbying for "reform". Surely it's the conservatives who are constantly saying how important the Varican is?

By opposing the Vatican one is agreeing to their claim that it is they the Vatican who are important. A more credible manner of opposition is to simply ignore the Vatican, as many Catholics already do on many issues.

Dclements wrote:

Whitedragon wrote:Hi Dclements, listening to your video was interesting. Earlier posts would show you that we agree that the idea of right and wrong needs to be redefined and the way we see it should be in accordance with your view. Right and wrong is about what is beneficial for us and for others and what is not. We both should have a similar take on the notion, but for the sake of traditionalism, some people still use those terms. It also should be logical that if once both parties understand those terms the re-defined “right and wrong” should no longer pose a hindrance in conversation. There are some personal writing, which we gladly would share on the notion of right and wrong, but it is in abstract form, if you are interested.

What I'm trying to stress if one realizes that isn't a given that any particular action is either 'good' or 'evil' than it is pretty much a given that saying 'God' is 'good' and saying worshiping such a 'God' is also 'good' is heresy. Even if one doesn't believe in morality being subjective, it is also a given that all religious doctrine are pleads to authority fallacies. As 180 Proof (an agnostic member of another forum) "that which is asserted without proof can also be dismissed without any proof". Or in other words non sequitur and simple appeals to authority can be easily dismissed if one desires because they are merely one's opinion with nothing to support it; and one opinion (without any proof to support it) is really no better than any other that one wishes to follow.

I also don't think you fully grasp what I'm saying when I say it isn't a given that any action is 'good' or 'bad' and that I'm partial to nihilism. To actual believe such things (and lead a life by such thoughts) one needs to first be a skeptic to a degree and then allow such beliefs become more extreme than simple skepticism. I don't think you can fathom what it is like to have so much doubt if you are preaching that people need to believe in 'God'.

If you want to share any personal writings on the subject it might help for me to understand what you consider what it means for you when someone says it isn't a given that there is a 'right' or 'wrong' and how it differs from my definition of it.

Whitedragon wrote: Having studied the occult too we have experienced some phenomenon in that area, but as well in Christina areas. However, we will certainly not share it on an open forum for obvious reasons. If you wish, we can have a private conversation on the matter.

I guess if you also have a little background in it it isn't heresy as if I talked to someone that has no interest or background.. I guess too the best of my knowledge is that most of the occult is about trying to manipulate the subconsciousness mind to be more in-tuned with the conscience one; or perhaps manipulate the conscience mind to be more in-tuned with the subconsciousness one. While I have never seen anything like 'magic' (and haven't read anything that suggest any credible person has witness such an event), the idea of someone being able to 'brainwash' themselves in order to obtain so goal may not be all that trivial as it seems; given the right conditions of course. There were a few experience where me and my friends played with Ouija boards, visited haunted cemeteries and saw ghosts, and such so I'm not so easily to dismiss all paranormal stuff or at least as much as other skeptics; however such stuff kind of gets boring as you get a little older.

Whitedragon wrote: We do not believe that we are preaching on the forum, there is a big difference between preaching and religious reference. Besides, atheists often “preach” as much as theists do and you never see theists complain. For what it is worth, we are open to the wisdoms of all convictions: atheists, agnostics and other paths and have walked many of them ourselves. We prefer to keep those wisdoms with us, but work from a Christian starting point; and no, we are open to other’s opinions, not closed as you suggest. If we were closed, we would not have bothered to watch your video or google the lyrics.

The difference between preaching and conducting a philosophical debate is that the latter requires one to provide logical/rational reasons for why they believe the way they do the and the later doesn't bother with explaining such things and/or just assumes their opinions are correct. I may be wrong but I didn't see much effort to provide proof in your arguments.

Also I should note that many people that study philosophy become skeptics when they realize how difficult it is to support ideological, cultural, and religious beliefs.

Before sharing anything personal, do you agree that science cannot prove telekinesis or the existence of ghosts? If not, why can you make the allowance for it to exist in your paradigm of beliefs, but leave no possibilities for the existence of the Lord?

-- Updated December 23rd, 2016, 10:22 am to add the following --

Fooloso4 said,

Right. Apparently Adam and Eve did not have the wisdom to fear the Lord, but of course if they did there would be no story, no genesis, no Genesis. Can there have been another way? As far as I can see only if there can be wisdom without knowledge. What is clear is that Eve saw that the fruit was desirable for gaining wisdom.

There was another way; it is merely between betraying the one who gave you everything or enjoying the rest of immortality and bliss, what a stupid decision and yes, we might have done it too. The other way was to avoid the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and choose to eat from the tree of life. What bothers me about your answer, though, is that you are leaving out a very important point. We cannot impart wisdom on “innocents,” because that opens doors to someone else’s experience, experience that teaches us about sorrow, worry and pain.

You are right in saying there would have been no Genesis, or paradise story and that is the point. Who needs Genesis or even the Bible, when you can wander with the Lord himself?

-- Updated December 23rd, 2016, 10:24 am to add the following --

Anthony Edgar said,

Ya got that right!

Thanks, Mr Edgar

-- Updated December 23rd, 2016, 10:32 am to add the following --

To Fooloso4

You say their realizing they were naked was a connotation to their feeling vulnerable. Yet, when you read Genesis 2:25 “…and they were both naked, the man and the woman, and they were no ashamed.” Your statement within this context makes your claim of vulnerability incongruous. They clearly were naked in the beginning and it seemed to be a matter of ethics; so it seems the fruit of good and evil corrupted their views on ethics.

Before sharing anything personal, do you agree that science cannot prove telekinesis or the existence of ghosts? If not, why can you make the allowance for it to exist in your paradigm of beliefs, but leave no possibilities for the existence of the Lord?

This can be a good point, if we refine it just a bit.

It does seem credible to suggest that there may very well be things going on over our heads that we can't really grasp, given that every other species on Earth is in this same position. To the degree that is your point, if it is, then I think you're on to something I could be open to.

It seems far less credible for any of us to suggest that we understand the details of such things that may be going on over our heads, for example, a god's policy on homosexuality. This is the point where religious ideologues typically lose credibility with those not already part of their ideology.

Anthony Edgar:

Your god of science says humans are just a bunch of meaningless atoms …

The only people who say that are those who do not understand science. First, the belief that there is a “god of science” is both misinformed and misguided, and is something that only those who wish to defend their own version of God believe. Second, what it means to be human is not determined by your crude notion of materialism.

That don't make no darn sense to this hillbilly.

That much is clear.

… the idea of there being a "standard" of morality is a bit flaky.

I used the plural “standards” not the singular “standard”. As you said:

Standards of morality vary from person to person, from culture to culture and from age to age …

… can you give me an example of what you consider to be a high moral standard in one of these pre-Christian cultures?

I will give you two that are essential to Christianity - Plato and Aristotle.

Whitedragon:

The other way was to avoid the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and choose to eat from the tree of life.

That is not another way. It may have been a pleasant life without pain and suffering, and for that reason some may believe it would have been wise to choose this life, but it would not have been a life they could have chosen because they were wise enough to know that it was the better life. They lacked that wisdom. Knowledge is seductive, and, as God tells Cain, so is sin. According to Genesis and Jewish thought in general, we have the power to avoid the seduction of sin. Proverbs pits the seduction of wisdom against the seduction of the “foreign woman”. Paul, however, contrary to this teaching, claims that we are powerless against sin because Adam succumbed to its seduction. Knowledge and wisdom are not part of the equation, it is for him and his followers a matter of sin versus salvation.

We cannot impart wisdom on “innocents,” because that opens doors to someone else’s experience, experience that teaches us about sorrow, worry and pain.

But those who are “innocent” lose their innocence as a result of their own experience, or, according to some Christians, as the result of inherited or original sin. We cannot protect them from sorrow, worry, and pain. Wisdom means both the knowledge of how things are and how best to cope with it.

You are right in saying there would have been no Genesis, or paradise story and that is the point. Who needs Genesis or even the Bible, when you can wander with the Lord himself?

Without genesis you could not wander with the Lord because without generations you would not exist. Without knowledge Adam would not have known Eve. Those who are said to have walked with God are extremely rare - seven generations and 987 years from Adam to Enoch, three generation and 434 years from Enoch to Noah, and ten generation and 892 years from Noah to Abram. Three men in twenty generation and close to 2000 years. Christianity may tell a different story, but according to Genesis the average does not walk with God.

To Fooloso4

Knowledge and knowledge of good and evil is not the same thing, not even remotely. You also did not comment on the last post regarding the statement of Genesis 2:25. You can have knowledge, even scientific knowledge without having to eat from the fruit of good and evil; a question: how many things did you not know of and would never have discovered on your own, unless someone showed it to you?

Whitedragon:

They clearly were naked in the beginning and it seemed to be a matter of ethics; so it seems the fruit of good and evil corrupted their views on ethics.

I do no think it is quite so simple. This assumes that after their eyes were opened they felt ashamed of their nakedness, but that is not what the text says. As I have pointed out, the term for the garments they made is used elsewhere to mean battle armor (In fact it is only used one other place). That suggests a connection with vulnerability and the need for protection. But as I also pointed out there is a connection between nakedness and exposing what one wishes to keep hidden. Adam and Eve had nothing to keep hidden from each other and there was no one else in the garden to hide from, until they have something they try to hide from God. In addition, after eating the fruit of their knowledge included children. With the presence of others intimacy is connected with privacy.The passage immediately before the one you quote is about a man leaving his father and mother and cleaving to his wife. Obviously this refers to future generations. And it may be with regard to that perspective that the statement about not being ashamed is made. So, it may be that the change in their attitude is not a matter of corruption but reflects the change of circumstances that follow from eating of the tree of knowledge. None of this is meant to imply that there is a clear answer to the problem of nakedness, and this ambiguity is perhaps a reflection of our own ambiguous attitude toward nakedness. Genesis is not simply a story of what was but of what came to be. If Adam and Eve were not ashamed, how is it that we are?

Knowledge and knowledge of good and evil is not the same thing, not even remotely.

That is a matter of interpretation. As I said (#113) it is not clear what the term ‘knowledge’ (daath) means. You seem to interpret it narrowly to mean either ethical knowledge or an awareness of the presence or actuality good and evil, and that perhaps through experience of them. I interpret it more broadly and connect it with the ability to produce, from their nascent knowledge of how to make garments, to Adam knowing Eve, to agriculture and bread making, etc. Or more generally, the distinction between what we are given by the earth and what we must do in order to produce food and shelter and clothing. This may explain why God found Abel's sacrifice acceptable and not Cain's. I have provided textual support for this interpretation. What support can we find for your interpretation?

Some commentators take ‘good and evil’ or ‘good and bad’ to mean the dual nature of knowledge, a blessing and a curse. To be clear, this does not mean that by eating of the fruit of knowledge one knows all things, but that all knowledge bears fruit and that by partaking of knowledge by eating that fruit we change ourselves and our world for better and for worse. It is in this sense not a one shot deal. The tree of knowledge which was originally given continues to grow and bear fruit, but it is a tree that requires cultivation. There is a connection between knowledge, culture, and agriculture.

Another point regarding interpretation. Although we cannot step outside our own conceptual framework or horizon we may demand different things from an interpretation. For some what is important is what a text means for them either as an individual or for a group. It is a matter of either deliberate or unreflective appropriation. Meaning is not simply found in but imposed upon the text. From this perspective what the author of the text might have meant is either inaccessible or irrelevant. For others, however, the goal of interpretation is to attempt to understand the text on its own terms. This approach requires us to minimize what we impose on the text based on our own concepts and sensibilities. So, for example, when you say that “knowledge and knowledge of good and evil is not the same thing, not even remotely” even though that may be true from our perspective and understanding of the various forms of knowledge, we need to consider whether this perspective and understanding was shared by the authors of Genesis.

You can have knowledge, even scientific knowledge without having to eat from the fruit of good and evil

There is nothing that I am aware of in the text to suggest that knowledge of good and evil is only one kind of knowledge. Nothing in the text that leads to or supports this distinction.

… how many things did you not know of and would never have discovered on your own, unless someone showed it to you?

Probably not much. I do not see how this relates to the story.

Whitedragon wrote: Before sharing anything personal, do you agree that science cannot prove telekinesis or the existence of ghosts? If not, why can you make the allowance for it to exist in your paradigm of beliefs, but leave no possibilities for the existence of the Lord?

I personally believe that science can prove nearly anything;although whether something is repeatable enough in a laboratory or able to be measured somehow by existing technology is a problem in and of itself. Why it is easier for me to believe in ghosts and the possibility of very weak telekinesis/PK energy is that I have seen phenomenon that suggest it is possible of either of them to exist where the evidence for 'God' is incredibly lacking.

In fact what 'evidence' I do find pertaining to 'God' suggests that if he exists, 'he' is more of an 'it' and 'it' is hardly anything more than part of our collective conscience/collective super egos and it is very far from being anything like omnipotent, or omniscience. On top of that most of what is taught by Abrahamic religions is in complete opposition to what the word of 'God' should be; making mainstream religion more heresy/unholy than anything 'divine'/'holy'. The bible may contain some truth here and there, but it is buried in so much rubbish that it is hardly worth the effort. Although Dharmic religions do not focus on 'God' as we do, some of their teachings is closer to the truth than I anything I found through Abrahamic teachings. On top of that the only schism of Christianity to come close to the truth (which was Gnosticism), was wiped out by the church leaving anyone hoping to find 'God' through institutionalized religion little chance of doing so; without having to develop certain radical ideas of their own.

Of course it would be silly for people to worship or have reverence for some kind of collective conscience when it is easier to worship a cartoon of some old guy in the sky watching over us and a collective conscience can only show people a way to be 'good' or how to do what must be done instead of any kind of salvation, heaven, and eternal life; but I guess that kind of sums it up. There also exists the problem of there not being any 'collective conscience' at all, however I think science has reversed engineered some of how it works for us to accept it works on some level, It is also interesting to note there is hardly any difference at all between the phenomenon in the West where people claim to 'talk' or be 'touched by God' and Eastern Dharmic/Buddhist claims of what they experience when they become 'enlightened'. I believe even some theists I have talked to have agreed with me when I mention the problem with I (and sometimes they) refer to as the candy coated 'God' and the 'God' that some more experienced theists come to accept.

At any rate, from what I know there is little that can be done to prove the pie in the sky 'God' that some fools keep believing in can be proven to exist without us also being 'Gods' ourselves; because only some being that as omniscient and nearly as omnipotent as 'God' can prove that either himself or someone other than himself is 'God'. There also is the problem of what makes 'God' actually 'God', other than him being the creator and/or unmoved mover, if there happens to be more beings that omniscient and omnipotent beings than just 'God'. And even if 'God' happens to be both the creator and/or unmoved mover (on top of being omniscient and omnipotent), it isn't a given that those properties make him actually 'God'.

In a nutshell, I'd rather just stick to what I know through or about collective conscience, Dharmic teachings, and work from Søren Kierkegaard, than have to bother with some candy coated 'God' that is supposedly watching me from the sky or wherever else he might be. While I may be at fault for allowing my beliefs to be somehow biased by my own experiences, I think the same is true just about everyone else and at least such beliefs are not bound that much by religious dogma. Whether any theist or atheist agrees with me I really don't care, but then again neither would any Søren Kierkegaard's 'knights of faith' be bothered if only themselves believed as they do.

As I said earlier, it's clear to me that "eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" denotes a change in consciousness rather than just a change in lifestyle as Fooloso4 has suggested. Before eating this fruit, Adam and Eve's consciousness was united with God's, but after they ate the fruit, He could not find them or know what was on their minds. He asks them "Where are you?," "Who told you you are naked?," etc.

To be fair to the outnumbered Whitedragon, I'll attempt a challenge to your case.

Why it is easier for me to believe in ghosts and the possibility of very weak telekinesis/PK energy is that I have seen phenomenon that suggest it is possible of either of them to exist where the evidence for 'God' is incredibly lacking.

To me, it seems more precise to say that while proof is surely lacking, evidence is not. First, every species on the planet is unaware of what is going on over it's head, so it seems reasonable to propose we may be in the same situation. Second, billions of people report experience of God. Their reports are not proof, but to dismiss billions of people out of hand doesn't seem very objective. Third, evolution suggests a movement of matter and lower life forms towards complexity, intelligence, and power. Again, not proof, but not a lack of evidence either.

On top of that most of what is taught by Abrahamic religions is in complete opposition to what the word of 'God' should be; making mainstream religion more heresy/unholy than anything 'divine'/'holy'. The bible may contain some truth here and there, but it is buried in so much rubbish that it is hardly worth the effort.

I agree there is a lot of rubbish inserted by clerics over the centuries, but for instance, the core teachings of the New Testament seem very much worth considering. "Die to be reborn" is very profound advice which shows deep insight in to the human condition.

Of course it would be silly for people to worship or have reverence for some kind of collective conscience when it is easier to worship a cartoon of some old guy in the sky watching over us and a collective conscience can only show people a way to be 'good' or how to do what must be done instead of any kind of salvation, heaven, and eternal life; but I guess that kind of sums it up.

Except that the "old guy cartoon" story has lasted for at least 3,000 years and has deeply affected the lives of billions of people, whereas relatively few would have any idea what is meant by "collective consciousness" if they cared enough to even ask the question. Again, this is not proof of Abrahamic religion, but the incredible social success of this world view can not be dismissed casually. The most influential person in the history of Western culture is an obscure Palestinian carpenter with a three year career. Sounds pretty close to a miracle to me.

There also exists the problem of there not being any 'collective conscience' at all, however I think science has reversed engineered some of how it works for us to accept it works on some level, It is also interesting to note there is hardly any difference at all between the phenomenon in the West where people claim to 'talk' or be 'touched by God' and Eastern Dharmic/Buddhist claims of what they experience when they become 'enlightened'.

An argument which validates the Abrahamic tradition more than it debunks it.

At any rate, from what I know there is little that can be done to prove the pie in the sky 'God' that some fools keep believing in can be proven to exist without us also being 'Gods' ourselves; because only some being that as omniscient and nearly as omnipotent as 'God' can prove that either himself or someone other than himself is 'God'.

This is based upon an assumption that human reasoning is relevant to subjects as large as gods, a highly speculative assertion which is much easier to defeat than prove.

There also is the problem of what makes 'God' actually 'God', other than him being the creator and/or unmoved mover, if there happens to be more beings that omniscient and omnipotent beings than just 'God'. And even if 'God' happens to be both the creator and/or unmoved mover (on top of being omniscient and omnipotent), it isn't a given that those properties make him actually 'God'.

Same error as above.

In a nutshell, I'd rather just stick to what I know through or about collective conscience, Dharmic teachings, and work from Søren Kierkegaard, than have to bother with some candy coated 'God' that is supposedly watching me from the sky or wherever else he might be.

Ok, this is a personal choice which everyone is entitled to. I'm not debating your personal choice, only any claim that such a choice can credibly speak to the largest of issues in a universal manner.

Felix wrote: Before eating this fruit, Adam and Eve's consciousness was united with God's....

I like this way of putting it. And this is not some abstract intellectual historical theological assertion thing which requires endless debate etc. It's a real thing in the present everyday real world anybody can experiment with themselves.

If a reader doesn't like the word God, simply replace that word with Nature or reality or whatever you want. Don't get stuck on this step, it's not important, just choose the concept that sits well with you and keep moving. The experience of unity is what's important, not how we analyze and explain it.

This is not complicated. Which would rather do, have the experience sex, or read an analysis of sex? Which is more meaningful and fulfilling? Which would you choose? See? Simple!

What creates the illusion of separation between "me" and "God/Nature/Reality", thus creating an interest in "unity", is the electro-chemical information medium we are made of, thought. This is important to understand because it means that we can't think our way to the experience of unity. Even if this post is 100% correct and you memorize it and agree with it completely in every respect, that won't get you the experience of unity, because this post is just a big pile of the very thing obstructing that experience.

When you're driving across town and your dog has his head out the window, your dog is fully in the moment of the wind upon his face. He's right there, right now, one with reality. Your dog is having that experience of unity because his focus is not being distracted by lots of abstractions, symbols, thinking. And you love your dog for this very reason, he brings the power of unity with reality in to your life.

Religious people can get quite wound up about this experience because it merits that response. But religion is not what's important. Religion is just a method, a means that works for some people, and not for others. If it doesn't work for you, just forget about it, let it go, and keep your eye on the ball....

The experience of unity. Escape from the fantasy of division.