Is it Important to Have Knowledge of G&E?

[William]

Linked Topic: The Knowledge of Good and Evil

From the Thread Topic: Questions for those who believe in free will

Replying to The Tanager in post #132] Discussion between The Tanager and William:

All in all it appears to me to be that you believe "free" will is about moral considerations, which are built from human concepts [how the individual defines/accepts the definitions of nature] rather than the nature of nature [because nature is not bound by moral considerations.]
The definitions created this way bring about moral awareness which would otherwise be absent and are largely done through some supernatural authority outside of nature [because nature has no morals] and thus deities are created to compensate, and morals are forced into nature through that means.

I think free will is primarily about moral considerations built from our human nature given to us by the Creator. Not all of nature is moral but I think humans are naturally so.

If that is the case and your thinking is correct, then we need to identify why "not all of nature is moral but humans are naturally moral" - I will create another thread on that question.

It appears to me that with the premise;

"Free will is primarily about moral considerations built from our human nature given to us by the Creator."

that free will therefore comes after the acquiring of KGE.

IF the premise is true THEN the story that humans acquired KGE through disobeying a command not to eat the fruit which is credited with giving humans such knowledge, must be false.

This because, in order to have "moral considerations" one has to have that "knowledge of good and evil", and thus IF The Creator built this knowledge into the nature of the human instrument [as a given] THEN there is no requirement for any "Forbidden fruit" to be the object/means through which KGE was obtained, as it was already implanted with the natural human condition by The Creator.

Q: Is the argument above logically sound?

[William]

Is the argument above logically sound?

No, because your "given" is incorrect:

It is not my 'given' - as the OP explains, a Christian [The Tanager] argued this as a given.

I'm not saying that not eating that particular fruit was built into Adam and Eve as a moral command. They intellectually understood right and wrong. Right includes trusting an omnipotent being's judgment. God told them not to eat of a particular tree. They intellectually knew disobeying God was wrong and would lead to what God deemed evil. They went with deciding for themselves what was 'good' and 'evil.'

No. The story-line continues to show that the God did not want humans having this knowledge as it was declared that the humans were like "us" [the Gods] "knowing good and evil" and that they should be expelled from the garden so that they didn't have access to the fruit of the tree of life.

We know by the story that it was not the eating of the forbidden fruit which caused them to start dying [and eventually die] but rather it was because of being denied access to the fruit of life.
Since we also know that the God in the story had warned them of this consequence, the God would have known that the pair would have to be kept away from the fruit of life should they ever eat the forbidden fruit...so the meeting to decide the couples fate was merely a formality.

This baloney about the couple "knowing intellectually" that it was wrong to "disobey God" is merely straw-clutching and does not address the image of the God as presented, which is as a manipulative entity who did not even trust his own handiwork and who not only placed temptation in the path of the humans of the story but who also did not intervene when they were in a dangerous position.

It [the biblical] is an image which has cursed the world, and is completely out of synch with nature in that it presents as something which cannot possibly be The Creator of the Universe, any more than the golden calf or any other graven image can be.

[myth-one.com]

This baloney about the couple "knowing intellectually" that it was wrong to "disobey God" is merely straw-clutching and does not address the image of the God as presented, which is as a manipulative entity who did not even trust his own handiwork and who not only placed temptation in the path of the humans of the story but who also did not intervene when they were in a dangerous position.

It [the biblical] is an image which has cursed the world, and is completely out of synch with nature in that it presents as something which cannot possibly be The Creator of the Universe, any more than the golden calf or any other graven image can be.

Well, one cannot understand it without understanding the reason man was created in the first place:

1. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, and caretaker angels to rule over the earth.
2. These angels were given freedom to make choices over the fate of the earth.
3. However, some of these angels under the leadership of Lucifer (or Satan) rebelled against God.
4. As a result of their sinful rebellion and their abandoning of their earthly responsibilities, the earth had become formless, void, and dark.
5. Beginning in Genesis 1:3, God returned to the earth, re-created the earth to it’s original good condition, and created man a little lower that the angels.
6. Man was different from the angels in that man did not know good from evil and man was mortal.
7. Upon sinning by eating from the tree of knowledge, man became closer to the angels in that he understood good from evil.
8. The ultimate purpose of man is to replace the existing original angelic caretakers.
9. Thus man is in training to ultimately fulfill that purpose.
10. We are here to learn that obeying the commandments of God is always the proper choice.
11. We learn this lesson by freely choosing our way and failing.

What is presently playing out on the earth is a microcosm of what occurs in the spiritual world.

We are getting a taste of life. We will then make a choice as to whether or not we desire to extend that taste of life into an everlasting spiritual life in the heavenly world.

Those of us who choose to do so will replace the original angels who left their earthly estate and rebelled against God.

The conclusion of each person's short human life on earth should be to learn that there is a better way to live, God's way. Having learned this lesson, these new spirits being produced for the Kingdom of God should be less inclined to revolt.

The method of training is a microcosm of the human parent/child relationship.

Typically, little Johnny and Jane do not learn to not touch the hot stove by being "commanded" not to touch the hot stove. They learn to not touch the hot stove when they touch it and get burned.

The God/mankind relationship is the same. Do not eat the fruit, lest ye die. But it looks really good, and the snake is okay with it, so Adam and Eve eat the fruit and suffer the consequences.

=========================================

NOTE: Under mankind's dominion over the earth, the earth is prophesied to reach a state of tribulation unseen since the beginning of the world!

What can we learn from all of this?

=============================================

The original angels failed and destroyed the world due to sinning against God.

Mankind will fail and destroy the world due to sinning against God.

Gee, perhaps we should obey God.

In fact, one of the world's wisest men after a lifetime of seeking treasure, women, and whatever appeared to bring him pleasure; reached this final conclusion of the whole matter of life:

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. (Ecclesiastes 12:13)

When resurrected a thousand years after the Second Coming, what will Adam & Eve have learned from their first human life?

Probably to fear God, and keep his commandments!

[William]

This baloney about the couple "knowing intellectually" that it was wrong to "disobey God" is merely straw-clutching and does not address the image of the God as presented, which is as a manipulative entity who did not even trust his own handiwork and who not only placed temptation in the path of the humans of the story but who also did not intervene when they were in a dangerous position.

It [the biblical] is an image which has cursed the world, and is completely out of synch with nature in that it presents as something which cannot possibly be The Creator of the Universe, any more than the golden calf or any other graven image can be.

Well, one cannot understand it without understanding the reason man was created in the first place:

Sure - one cannot accept the false image with accompanying data invented in order to 'explain' how the false image is 'real'.
Let's have at it;

1. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, and caretaker angels to rule over the earth.

Since there is no mention of these Gardeners [angels] in the original story, [only later on added in other stories] why should one accept the Angelic Gardeners story as legitimate? As an 'add on' it serves to give hearsay evidence which supports the false image. [to legitimize the golden calf].

[*]These angels were given freedom to make choices over the fate of the earth.

In other words to manipulate the natural order of how the Earth evolved? Or 'something else'? [you will need to elaborate].

[*]However, some of these angels under the leadership of Lucifer (or Satan) rebelled against God.

Why? Did they see the falseness in this image? Who was behind the presentation of said image? Was there some doubt as to the validity of the claims?

[*]As a result of their sinful rebellion and their abandoning of their earthly responsibilities, the earth had become formless, void, and dark.

Why so? Did the non-rebellious Angel Gardeners find it impossibly to maintain the project because part of their number had 'let the team down'?

This then speaks to the Angel Gardeners as being an essential element of the evolution processes of Earth...in computer terminology, 'the algorithms' - for we understand enough to know about DNA and coding etc...such are evident within the forms the Earth produces. They are real things in relation to this Universe. Certainly relevant to the narrowing down [MilkyWay Galaxy].

Since it also speaks of the Angel Gardeners as individual beings with their own ability to choose, they [ a portion] chose to no longer being those algorithms. They no longer wanted to be used by this being claiming to be "The Creator" for the purpose of terraforming the Planet Earth.
Perhaps they did not want to participate in and experiment to get being placed upon the planet, to then worship them as gods?

[*]Beginning in Genesis 1:3, God returned to the earth, re-created the earth to it’s original good condition, and created man a little lower that the angels.

What 'original good position'? Did these Angel Gardeners maintain that 'good position' up to the point where some of their number then chose to no longer participate in the maintaining?
Furthermore, how then did The Creator 'restore' the planet to its 'former glory' and why did The Creator not simply do it that way in the first place instead of having Angel Gardeners to it?

[*]Man was different from the angels in that man did not know good from evil and man was mortal.

So then we enter Stage Two of the experiment. Placing an "inferior being" into the creation - or even placing an equal consciousness into an inferior receptacle [human form] so that the being would not be aware that it had a former existence.
Keeping that human unaware of morality and knowledge which would help it to come to terms with its environment.
How is that helpful to the human being?

[*]Upon sinning by eating from the tree of knowledge, man became closer to the angels in that he understood good from evil.

Was this a requirement. Was it some pre-planned as a necessary step that humans would have to undertake?
One has to ask, as if not, then why place temptation in the path of humans, as clearly the God-Entity and the non-rebellious Angel Gardeners must have [for some reason] wanted this to be a possible outcome.

[*]The ultimate purpose of man is to replace the existing original angelic caretakers.

A promotion which could not be obtained unless humans had eaten the forbidden fruit.

[*]Thus man is in training to ultimately fulfill that purpose.

Therefore you are now arguing that humans had to eat the forbidden fruit, otherwise how else could they replace the rebellious Angel Gardeners?

[*]We are here to learn that obeying the commandments of God is always the proper choice.

Because of the "or else" - correct?

[*]We learn this lesson by freely choosing our way and failing.
[/list]

The thing is...what exactly is the purpose of the Earth in this proposal you are drawing out? Why would any beings choose to exist within this particular universe when other - better - choices might be available to them?

Lets face it - The Angel Gardeners were not themselves ever going to be the beings which were planted upon the Earth - as their task was simply to make the environment livable {terraform the planet so that it could be inhabited by lifeforms] so those Angels were not expecting to lose their positions any more than one would be expected to be demoted from being a member of the Crew of a Starship of the Galactic Federation and abandoned upon some primitive outpost planet...yet is that not [perhaps] the story we are being told here?

What is presently playing out on the earth is a microcosm of what occurs in the spiritual world.

We are getting a taste of life. We will then make a choice as to whether or not we desire to extend that taste of life into an everlasting spiritual life in the heavenly world.

Those of us who choose to do so will replace the original angels who left their earthly estate and rebelled against God.

The conclusion of each person's short human life on earth should be to learn that there is a better way to live, God's way. Having learned this lesson, these new spirits being produced for the Kingdom of God should be less inclined to revolt.

This only explains how a false image can get away [become out of control - become a life of its own] on those beings who presented said false image.
Not to argue that you yourself are not attracted to such outcomes, but rather to ask why on Earth - or anywhere else in the Galaxy/Universe for that matter - one would desire such a fate?

It appears to be bait on a hook for those who are carried along by its promises. But the question which requires sensible answer is 'why?' - Why believe such things as legitimate images of The Creator? There is nothing significant within creation which leads us to assume the story is true and is a case of a matter of fact.

The method of training is a microcosm of the human parent/child relationship.

In that case, one can assume that the parent is also learning - but tell me why a parent would be concerned that some of its children simply don't like the idea of this particular "promise" - why can one like existing [as in 'being'] while choosing to reject certain environments as something one would want to exist within for eternity?

Typically, little Johnny and Jane do not learn to not touch the hot stove by being "commanded" not to touch the hot stove. They learn to not touch the hot stove when they touch it and get burned.

Typically parent of said Johnny and Jane are not all-knowing and all powerful and always on call etc...so not a very good algology unless you are able to agree that the image of the biblical God as presented is more 'a God in training' than an actual Overall Creator of All That Is.

That would inject more sense into your overall story if you could admit such.

The God/mankind relationship is the same. Do not eat the fruit, lest ye die. But it looks really good, and the snake is okay with it, so Adam and Eve eat the fruit and suffer the consequences.

Very bad parenting. Not something one could expect from a being who created this universe, given all the marvels so far uncovered. There is a distinct disconnect between your story/version/image of The Creator and the creation itself...something Christianity continues to fail to address - even in bullet points.

=========================================

[Purple Knight]

I understand you might not have given the bible narrative much thought and I do jot mean to grill you, but to have to ask: Do you presume that Adam and Eve were created without a conscience and literally didn't know the difference between good and evil solely based on the name attributed to the tree they eventually ate from?

I don't know. I honestly think it's the main question of the thread. The main possibilities that present themselves are:

1) That Adam and Eve, before the apple, actually didn't know the difference between good and evil at all and were completely innocent, and the only reason neither one cracked the other one open and ate the stuff inside is that nobody told them that their bodies were made out of meat.

2) That pre-apple Adam and Eve were good the way an animal is good when it cares for its offspring and its mate instead of eating them. In other words, they had the basic makings of a conscience in that they had an instinctive awareness that they oughtn't do certain things such as eat their babies. I'm aware that the babies didn't come until after Eden, but in this option I'm supposing that they would have known not to eat their own babies even in Eden.

If it's 2, the question becomes what knowledge exactly the apple added.

[2timothy316]

I understand you might not have given the bible narrative much thought and I do jot mean to grill you, but to have to ask: Do you presume that Adam and Eve were created without a conscience and literally didn't know the difference between good and evil solely based on the name attributed to the tree they eventually ate from?

I don't know. I honestly think it's the main question of the thread. The main possibilities that present themselves are:

1) That Adam and Eve, before the apple, actually didn't know the difference between good and evil at all and were completely innocent...

"So it said to the woman: “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?”At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’” - Gen 3:1-3

Eve repeated verbatim what was good and what was bad.

[Tcg]

I understand you might not have given the bible narrative much thought and I do jot mean to grill you, but to have to ask: Do you presume that Adam and Eve were created without a conscience and literally didn't know the difference between good and evil solely based on the name attributed to the tree they eventually ate from?

I don't know. I honestly think it's the main question of the thread. The main possibilities that present themselves are:

1) That Adam and Eve, before the apple, actually didn't know the difference between good and evil at all and were completely innocent...

"So it said to the woman: “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?”At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’” - Gen 3:1-3

Eve repeated verbatim what the law was. Now, did Eve know what was bad?

No, Eve did not repeat verbatim God's command. God said:

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

God said nothing about touching the fruit. Regardless, this isn't evidence of a conscience, but rather a memorization, and a faulty one at that, of God's command.


Tcg

[2timothy316]

I understand you might not have given the bible narrative much thought and I do jot mean to grill you, but to have to ask: Do you presume that Adam and Eve were created without a conscience and literally didn't know the difference between good and evil solely based on the name attributed to the tree they eventually ate from?

I don't know. I honestly think it's the main question of the thread. The main possibilities that present themselves are:

1) That Adam and Eve, before the apple, actually didn't know the difference between good and evil at all and were completely innocent...

"So it said to the woman: “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?”At this the woman said to the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But God has said about the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden: ‘You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.’” - Gen 3:1-3

Eve repeated verbatim what the law was. Now, did Eve know what was bad?

No, Eve did not repeat verbatim God's command. God said:

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

God said nothing about touching the fruit. Regardless, this isn't evidence of a conscience, but rather a memorization, and a faulty one at that, of God's command.


Tcg

Because you were there, that is why you know what Eve knew?
If this isn't evidence that she knew what was good and bad then why did Eve offer any resistance to eat at all? Why repeat what she thought the rule was? Why remember anything? What is 'evidence of a conscience'? Please enlighten us all.

Why don't we read, "Duh, fruit is good....duh I eat....duuuuuuuh...me bring to husband....duuuuhhh he eat".

Please give an an example of an adult with a perfect brain that can't grasp the concept of eat/don't eat.

[William]

I understand you might not have given the bible narrative much thought and I do jot mean to grill you, but to have to ask: Do you presume that Adam and Eve were created without a conscience and literally didn't know the difference between good and evil solely based on the name attributed to the tree they eventually ate from?

I don't know. I honestly think it's the main question of the thread.

In part it is. Once again Christian Thinking forces the issue. We have [as always] 2 main 'camps' with Christianity whereby one camp {1} accepts that A&E had no prior understanding of G&E and the other {2}, [expressed by JW & The Tanager] is that A&E did indeed have some semblance of understanding of G&E - enough as it were - to warrant being judged by the biblical God as 'guilty'.

The 'camps' came about due to non-theist argument which questioned the sensibility of the story [which was/is the more popular {1} position], and thus camp {2} was created to [attempt] answering said questions.

The main possibilities that present themselves are:

1) That Adam and Eve, before the apple,

Be aware. It was never called an "apple", or by any fruit name known to humans.

actually didn't know the difference between good and evil at all and were completely innocent, and the only reason neither one cracked the other one open and ate the stuff inside is that nobody told them that their bodies were made out of meat.

I understand where you are going with this analogy, but sticking to the story, they appear to be fruit and vegie peps who where not introduced to eating the flesh of mammals until as they were being clothed in animal pelt by the GoD in the story.
No doubt the GoD strapped a couple of legs of meat and some ribs to their backs and taught them how to make fire at this stage. "Him" being so merciful and all.

2) That pre-apple Adam and Eve

Pre "Fruit of KGE" be the one...pre "moral awareness" or "full extent of moral awareness"

were good the way an animal is good when it cares for its offspring and its mate instead of eating them. In other words, they had the basic makings of a conscience in that they had an instinctive awareness that they oughtn't do certain things such as eat their babies. I'm aware that the babies didn't come until after Eden, but in this option I'm supposing that they would have known not to eat their own babies even in Eden.

If it's 2, the question becomes what knowledge exactly the apple [sic] added.

Exactly. What [exactly] did the fruit do in relation to KGE? Was it an instant download? Something that crept up on them over years? What chemicals which made up the flesh and juice in said fruit accomplished this feat, and - above all - why did the Terraformerites [GoD and His AnGels - the 'us' they referred themselves as being - {in the bible}] place the Forbidden Tree in the garden... [?]

...so that A&E would speed up the process of moral awareness if they succumbed to temptation?
Because it is clear that if humans never had any awareness [access] to moral knowledge, we could never had made it to this point in our creative history, without that.

[so we need to check for anomaly and we find it in the evidence that humans are out of synch with the rest of the mammals {and the Earthly Rhythms in general}
We are creating immense Particle Accelerators while our nearest cousins are still in denial of their true potentials]

And if the Terraformer's [Angelic Gardeners {Scientists}] did not want us to go that way ever {1} then we have scientists who do not trust in their [tampered with] creation enough to let them loose on the planet as they predict it [maybe] would not end well...

But then the dilemma of having to explain why the Angelic Scientists placed the tree in the middle of the garden at all...and the answer has to be;

"Because they were hedging their bets"

But this seems quite the unnecessary gamble...unless they were unsure as to 'how to proceed'?

So they allowed for the possibility...but then it gets awkward. I can imagine the debate/discussion...

Angel Scientist #1:What if they disobey?

Angel Scientist #2:Then they fail the test.

Angel Scientist #1:Is that fair?

Angel Scientist #2:It is necessary to call it a "fail" because that is what it will be to us.

Angel Scientist #1:But - if they fail, does this not reflect upon us?

Angel Scientist #2:Yes. We will be their failed gods.

Angel Scientist #1:But that presents them with a false image of The Creator.

Angel Scientist #2:Yes - but we are technically their creators.

Angel Scientist #1:I think it need be one or the other but not both. Essentially by speeding up the natural process we are fudging the results in order to make some type of point - but that point is not pointing at The Creator, but a false image of The Creator.

Angel Scientist #2:Yes. But that would be interesting and we could learn a lot through their reaction.

Angel Scientist #1:*Thinks about it*
Yes. I suppose so...but we need to build into this, the opportunity for them to come to the knowledge of The Creator and understand that we were just trying to assist them in that process.

Angel Scientist #2 & Angel Scientist #1:[looking at each other with an "aha" moment] Jesus Christ!

[JehovahsWitness]

I don't know. I honestly think it's the main question of the thread. The main possibilities that present themselves are:

1) That Adam and Eve, before the apple, actually didn't know the difference between good and evil at all and were completely innocent, and the only reason neither one cracked the other one open and ate the stuff inside is that nobody told them that their bodies were made out of meat.

2) That pre-apple Adam and Eve were good the way an animal is good when it cares for its offspring and its mate instead of eating them. In other words, they had the basic makings of a conscience in that they had an instinctive awareness that they oughtn't do certain things such as eat their babies. I'm aware that the babies didn't come until after Eden, but in this option I'm supposing that they would have known not to eat their own babies even in Eden.

If it's 2, the question becomes what knowledge exactly the apple added.

3) The had perfectly attuned instinct and highly developped consciences coupled with specific instructions as to what was good and bad which they understood. And it is in fact you as a reader misunderstands the significance of the name of the tree and the expressions "knowing good and bad"

Of course option #3 involves entertaining the notion that you don't know everything about bible language and would have to reject the anti-biblist's cherished baby namely literal take on scripture which renders it illogical and has Adam and Eve puzzled as to whether they should eat their own excrement or put rocks in it and beat each other to death with it.



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Does the expression "knowing good and bad" have to be understood in the absolute?

Many interpret the observation found in Genesis 3:22 to mean Adam and Eve had no concept of the notion of good and bad/evil prior to their eating from the tree of knowledge but this literal interpretation contradicts the narrative which clearly indicates that they knew what was good and since (bad is the opposite of good) by virtue of that alone, had to have had an intellectuel and practical grasp on the meaning of good and abad as it related to them.



The Bible Encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures, VOL II p.180 provides the following commentary

After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit (Ge 2:17; 3:5, 6), Jehovah said to his associate in creative work (Joh 1:1-3): “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad.” (Ge 3:22) This apparently did not mean merely having knowledge of what was good and what was bad for them, for the first man and woman had such knowledge by reason of God’s commands to them. Furthermore, God’s words at Genesis 3:22 could not pertain to their now knowing what was bad by experience, for Jehovah said that they had become like him and he has not learned what is bad by doing it. (Ps 92:14, 15) .

YOU SHALL BE LIKE GOD

Scripture indicates God created humans in his image with free will and the capacacity to make moral decisions but the Devil implied to Eve that her disobedience would make her "like God" in a way she had not been previously. Not, as explained above, introducing her to the concept of good and evil, but by taking up on herself the freedom to decide for herself what the standards for both would be. Eve would become a god unto herself with nobody that to tell her what to do.

Evidently, Adam and Eve got to know what was good and what was bad in the special sense of now judging for themselves what was good and what was bad. They were idolatrously placing their judgment above God’s, disobediently becoming a law to themselves, as it were, instead of obeying Jehovah, who has both the right and the wisdom necessary to determine good and bad. So their independent knowledge, or standard, of good and bad was not like that of Jehovah. Rather, it was one that led them to misery.​—Jer 10:23 - ibid.

CONCLUSION: Adam and Eve's sin was not the key to their grasping moral concepts but rather a bid for the freedom to decide for themselves what "good and evil" would be.





JW


RELATED POSTS

How could Eve have known who to obey?
viewtopic.php?p=1040358#p1040358

What is the significance of the tree's NAME?
viewtopic.php?p=849045#p849045

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

ADAM &EVE, ORIGINAL SIN and ... THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND BAD