Moderator: Moderators
My first thoughts when I read the above question:William wrote: So I was wondering what thoughts others might have on the subject of what kind of world we would live in without this knowledge,...
You will not get anywhere in the truth if this is false.William wrote: In the story, the GOD appears not to want human beings to know of good and evil, and that in gaining the knowledge, the problems began for humanity.
Divine Insight wrote:William wrote: So I was wondering what thoughts others might have on the subject of what kind of world we would live in without this knowledge,...So you are not among those who claim that good and evil are simply 'opinion'?My first thoughts when I read the above question:
If we are not to have the knowledge of good and evil, then we would clearly need to live in a world that contains no evil. After all, how could we possibly live in a world with evil if we have no knowledge of evil? How could that work?
Assuming indeed that the Serpent was evil (because it deliberately lied) then - while evil existed in that regard, Eve cannot have known that was the case because she was ignorant about such things.If Adam and Eve had no knowledge of evil, then they could not know of evil. I've actually brought up this point many times in discussions of Eve and Serpent. How could Eve have possibly even guessed that the Serpent was lying if Eve had no knowledge of lies?
What I am mainly interested in though, is what kind of a world would we exist in if we - all of us - had no conceptual understanding of good or evil.
But if Eve had no knowledge of good then why would you think she would understand what truth was? In relation to the story, if she had any idea of truth, it was in what Adam taught her, and in regard to that Adam taught her that to touch the fruit (let alone eat of it) would mean she would die.In fact, whatever the Serpent told Eve, Eve would have no choice but to believe that it must be TRUTH. How could it possibly not be the truth? Eve would have no clue that not telling the truth could even be possible, for if she had that knowledge then she would have the knowledge of evil.
Now it could be argued that the pair knew that things died, but they could not have understood death as something evil, because they did not understand what evil was, and while they might have not wanted to die, they would not understand that living was good.
This is true. Which is why I am interested in what kind of a world we would be in if we had no understanding of the concepts of good and evil.If Adam and Eve weren't supposed to have the knowledge of evil, then there shouldn't have been any evil serpents walking around in their world. What sense would it make to expect people who have no clue about evil to be able to deal with evil serpents?
To clarify here, I don't mean 'what kind of a planet' - let the planet be exactly as it is. By 'what kind of a world' I am speaking about human societies.
Exactly - or good.Also what would it mean to have no knowledge of evil?
The same would go for if he were really kind to her. In order for neither good or evil concepts to be formed, they would basically have to be unemotional morons.What if Adam was really mean to Eve? Would that be "evil" if Adam didn't KNOW that being mean to Eve was evil?
What if Eve got fed up with Adam's constant abuse of Her and decided to hit him on the head with a big rock and he died. Would that have been an "evil act" if Eve didn't know that it is evil to hit people on the head with a big rock?
Indeed. So good and evil have to be more than 'opinions' and to live on this planet as it is, it cannot be the case that GOD would not want human beings to be ignorant unemotional morons because that would just be weird.A world without any knowledge of good and evil would be pretty weird.
Well, even putting aside that - things still wouldn't work out very well for the human race without concepts of good and evil.Supposedly even the angels and the Gods know about evil. Why should humans be exempt. It seems like a useful thing to know if there are evil serpents walking around on the loose.
But in order to do that, one would have to exist in such an environment where nothing could possibly ever go wrong or harm any one. That is what the JWs (and others) argue about when explaining why evil presently exists. It is because we live on a planet which is not all good.A world where there is no knowledge of evil would need to be completely free of any evil. That the only way it could work.
But even putting that idea aside, where is the guarantee that one won't pick up a rock and shunt in someone's head? After all, having no knowledge of good or evil just means that one is free from the knowledge of good or bad actions.
Creating a place where no objects exist which could be misused through ignorance, won't work either because one may have to create a world of non material things so that no one could ignorantly harm anyone else or even themselves.
Again, that is what many on this board argue. That knowledge of good and evil are not the problem. Acting on knowledge of evil is the problem.Ironically, the other way around would work just fine. There would be no problem at all living in a world that is totally free of any evil people yet the inhabitants themselves could KNOW of evil and just not act on it.
But that of course, flies in the face of the Garden story because quite clearly the GOD did not appear to want the pair having the knowledge of good and evil in the first place.
As the story goes, it appears the GOD wanted human beings to exist without ever dying, as unemotional morons.
Agreed. That is often why I say I understand something but that does not mean that I agree with it.After all, a LOT of humans know of evil things that they would never do and strongly oppose. So having knowledge of evil does not make a person evil.
Also, it would have to be fair to say that a LOT of humans know of good things that they would never do and strongly oppose. So having knowledge of good does not make a person good.
Then again, it could be argued that there is little evidence that a LOT of people outwardly express strong opposition to good things. For some reason, evil is quiet in that regard, likely so that evidence is not so hard to find...evil acts are best achieved in secrecy...certainly there is evidence for that which is uncovered from time to time.
She made her choice to disobey the command not to eat and her thinking she was doing the right thing is immaterial. Every sinner sins for a good reason - then they die.How could Eve have possibly even guessed that the Serpent was lying if Eve had no knowledge of lies?
If you were to follow the line of discussion presented in this thread you will be able to understand that the story plainly says that the pair of humans had no concepts of 'doing the right thing' as they were ignorant of any knowledge of good or evil.She made her choice to disobey the command not to eat and her thinking she was doing the right thing is immaterial.
I find it is more profitable to speak for myself rather than for everyone else.Every sinner sins for a good reason - then they die.
ttruscott wrote:William wrote: In the story, the GOD appears not to want human beings to know of good and evil, and that in gaining the knowledge, the problems began for humanity.The story itself shows that the fruit had something about it which allowed for anyone who ate of it to then have knowledge of good and evil. Until that happened, the pair were ignorant of that knowledge, and the GOD in the story required them to be that way, forever...if indeed he wanted them to obey his command.You will not get anywhere in the truth if this is false.
My understanding of The Garden of Eden StoryGOD gave them a command not to eat.and
The GOD gave Adam that command, and Adam passed that knowledge on to Eve, adding to it as well.
The specific command given was not to eat of the fruit. Anyone ignorant of good and evil isn't going to comprehend what a 'command' means. The better way to prevent someone doing something you don't want them to do is to make sure that they have no access to that thing in the first place.
Scripture didn't exist at that time and the pair had no access to it as a result.This command must be interpreted by scripture itself.
That implies guilt, and according to the story the guilt wasn't felt until the fruit had its affect. No command therefore could have convicted the pair until after they had become aware of good and evil.Commands are given to convict us of sin:
The law did not exist at the time of the story. The command given needn't have been made if the tree had not been in the garden in the first place.Romans 7:7 ...Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law...
with
Romans 3:20 Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin.
Thus, it has to be admitted that the GOD was interested in the results of this particular experiment. Would he have pliable beings who were basically unemotional morons which would do whatever they wanted without knowing whether their actions would be good or evil, or would they succumb to both the temptations which the GOD had placed in the Garden, and become emotional beings who were aware of good and evil?
It is logical to think that any GOD would rather have an emotional being which knew about good and evil than simply moronic beings who had no idea about that and acted more like robots than living beings.
This explains why both the tree and the Serpent were in the Garden.
...which both suggest that they got the command so as to have their eyes opened to their great sinfulness which they were rejecting as characterized by their not being ashamed.
As the story goes, they were ashamed once they ate the fruit. Before that they had no reason to have such an emotion as shame. The way you speak of it, they were already sinful before they ate the fruit, and just needed to partake of the fruit (through not obeying the command) and then they would be able to see just how sinful they were in reality.
What you are saying here is that the GOD knew these two were already sinful before they even had a command from him, and that what was required was for the Humans to be commanded about the forbidden fruit which was placed in the garden to tempt them (with the obviously necessary addition of the Serpent to goad them on) in order that by breaking the command and eating the fruit they would then be able to see themselves the way the GOD saw them already. So that they might not be ignorant of their nature.One of the greatest characteristics of a sinful person is that they cannot obey a command of GOD... HE gave them the command to prove they could not obey, thereby proving they were indeed sinful and should be ashamed.
In regard to this, it appears to me that what is being said is that self awareness to that degree that you are seeing yourself as you 'truly' are - an imperfect creation, and the sinfulness is in the way one sees oneself. The Serpent did not appear to see itself as sinful, and thus - even that it knew good from evil, it did not accept that it was a bad thing. It saw what the GOD was doing as being a bad thing.They ate, they saw their sin called nakedness and they were ashamed. This was the greatest gift HIS grace could have given them in their whole lives because without it they were eternally sinful and not ashamed, just like the serpent.
But what justification for the GOD to make human beings who are sinful by nature and then find a way in which to show them that was the case, by devising the method in which to do so? Why create a sinful being in the first place and then want it to know that it is sinful?
And I find a number of clear suggestions your conclusions are wrong. So what? My interpretation exposes the story to be a good story, a good plan that worked incredibly well. Your version makes it absurd or GOD evil...William wrote: [Replying to post 5 by ttruscott]
If you were to follow the line of discussion presented in this thread you will be able to understand that the story plainly says that the pair of humans had no concepts of 'doing the right thing' as they were ignorant of any knowledge of good or evil.She made her choice to disobey the command not to eat and her thinking she was doing the right thing is immaterial.
Very ordinary - the pleasures and profits of sin...same as anybody.What are your good reasons for sinning?Every sinner sins for a good reason - then they die.
William wrote:But what justification for the GOD to make human beings who are sinful by nature and then find a way in which to show them that was the case, by devising the method in which to do so? Why create a sinful being in the first place and then want it to know that it is sinful?
ttruscott wrote:William wrote:But what justification for the GOD to make human beings who are sinful by nature and then find a way in which to show them that was the case, by devising the method in which to do so? Why create a sinful being in the first place and then want it to know that it is sinful?You define everything in the story against all the goodness of GOD then ask for justification of why it is this way???
No. Specifically I responded to your assertions on the matter of the GOD in the story. Why throw that back at me, as if I am the one who is making the GOD out to be - not particularly good?
Your own replies seemed to be that which was 'couched'. Where did you learn these things about the supposed explanation about the GOD in the story wanting humans to see the sinful nature of their being - that they were sinful even before they partook of the forbidden fruit?MY answer is that you are arguing conclusions as if they were premises and operating from a bias that is couched as "knowing the truth of the story."
I certainly think that I gave enough logical reason to question your interpretation of said story, and even went so far as to point out the dependencies in your interpretation as well as the gaping holes of logic in regard to the actions of the GOD and his supposed righteousness.The story does NOT mean what you claim it must mean and your claims to your special understanding mean nothing until you have give a reason why it must mean what you say.
Rather than complain about perceived indiscretions on my part (which you fail to show any evidence for) why not focus on answering my observations directly?
Because at present you have offered nothing short of a diabolical idea of GOD which is unacceptable to myself and indeed anyone with any kind of moral knowledge, and for that I am sorely tempted to tell you to get thee behind me.
But I shall wait and see if you can explain why the actions of this GOD are not diabolical.
