And the Lord did say...

[Phoenix]

I *could* jump in, but really, you 2 seem to be having so much fun.

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

That would mean admitting he screwed up.

Any corrective action on his part, including banishment, is an admittance to this I would argue. God seemingly has no issue later in destroying almost the entire human race in Noah's time over essentially the same problem (still being a matter of good and evil)--yet here he decides simply to move them away from the Tree of Life. It seems a curious action to me.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

If it's an act of self-preservation, why even put the trees?

A curious question--And from the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and bad." Genesis 2:9.

And yet, even assuming God realizes the potential consequences of this (which it would seem strange for him not to), his action of removing Man from the garden is specifically stated to be in the interests of preventing him from taking also from the Tree of Life. But Man has already acquired one of the similarities to God--why not the other as well?

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I guarantee you that if Eden were found, one cherubim cannot stop 100 guys with machine guns.

So confident. Which text do you base this assumption upon?

And just to note, cherubim is actually the plural, cherub being the singular--we might still be outnumbered.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

However, biblically, good and evil predates us. After a million times, Satan *would've* tempted them sooner or later.

Didn't quite catch your meaning here, obliged if you'd restate it.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Why was Satan even there in the first place?

According to Christian thought, of course, since the serpent is never identified, and it just being a talking serpent fits with the current mythology.

Seeing as you bring this up, I see no reason to address the serpent as Satan unless it is specifically asserted. But that does raise the question as to why exactly the serpent was so interested in Eve's affairs.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

You'd lose your "it was your fault" excuse.

Still seems rather ridiculous, this being the one instance I can think of where God shows any interest in justifying himself so extravagantly. So, God created Man specifically with the intention of making him fall and then punishing him for that for millennia following? Sounds almost self-defeating, unless God created Man out of a repressed divine sadism, complicated by his need to project his self-punishment upon humanity for the mistake of their creation.

Of course, not all Judaic accounts of the creation are as kind as our accepted Genesis. One might take into account the Cabalistic story of the Breaking of the Vessels, wherein gross matter was created as an aborted world in a sense, the spillover of divine substance when the light of God burst from its vessels and the evil qelippot took shape along with the world. Or one could look to Gnostic tradition which holds the Creator God, YHVH, of the Old Testament to actually be the evil party involved. But I digress; the above examples were merely to show that a consensus on the matter is not complete.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Nice thought. The serpent never lies, and in fact, helps us.

Difference is, Zeus punished Prometheus. God is more of a "curse you and your offspring" kind of guy.

Who is the serpent then? Is it Satan or Prometheus, or is it God himself? Nobody talks much about this short-lived but fascinating character.


*In case you forgot.

[Einon SAMA]

I'm afraid I lost you here--"and while also eating from the tree, they were to know Good and Evil, Right from Wrong?" God specifically stated that they were not to eat from the tree, so I assume I'm misunderstanding your assertion.

Sorry for the confusion, but what I meant was that while in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Life, ofcourse to continue living. They weren't forbidden from eating from that Tree, but of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad.

I think you might have your trees mixed up. There are two trees, the more famous being the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, the other being the Tree of Life. Man took from the first tree (Knowledge) and gained knowledge of good and bad, but God banished him so that he could not take from the second tree (Life), which would have granted him life eternal. If I misunderstood, please restate your original idea.

The second tree, the Tree of Life does grant life, but no indication it grants life eternal by eating one fruit. The reason for the banishment. If Adam had continued to eat from from that Tree as well, he'd live forever, which he doesn't. Why? Because God kicked him outta there.

Ignorance is bliss?

Again, I say ignorance of things unesassary. God didn't want us knowing those things, why should we? How does it help you and I? It only adds confusion and problems. So, is it bliss? Why not, but is that a bad thing...in this case?

At Genesis 3:14 (which I did not include in the first passage) God specifically states the punishments of Snake, Woman, and Man; for Woman these are pangs in childbirth and the lordship of Man, while for Man it is toil for food (some also cite here eventual death, as God does mention this, but there's question on whether that's actually part of the ordained punishment). God has there stated the punishment. He then takes a break and gives them clothes[20]. After he has done that, he speaks/thinks to himself about the possibility that Man might also take from the Tree of Life and so live forever, and "So the Lord God banished him from the garden of Eden[.]" This would lead me to argue that God did not banish Man from Eden as punishment for disobedience (he made him toil for food) but rather to keep him from eating of the Tree of Life and living forever. Your further argument is addressed below.

Okay, I understand what you are saying and agree with you. But I think I've stated what I think the purpose of the banishment was for above.

That's a possible rationale, but there is no particular reason to believe that Adam could not have been made to toil for food within Eden, it even being a garden. There is also no reason that the Woman's punishments could not have been carried out within Eden, and the Snake, the instigator of the act, is not even banished. Also, I would argue that there is no indication that Man would live forever in Eden, though this is also commonly assumed. The only stated reason that God gives for the banishment is to prevent Man from eating of the Tree of Life and living forever. That is why I focus my questions on this.

You say you would argue that there is not indication that Man would live forever in Eden, eh? Well what do you suppose the Tree of Life was? Surely they ate from it, for they had no reason not to. In fact, if you really think about it, they HAD to eat from it to continue to live. What other purpose could the Tree of Life have? Therefore, again, Man was taken away from it.

But neither Adam nor Eve knew "bad" at that time.

Um, no but they knew what not to do. Almost same difference. Just because they did not know what "bad" was, doesn't excuse what they did. They knew the consequences.

Your hypothetical children do not necessarily know what bad is, yet you still punish them.

What problems?

Lets see...problems like...death...maybe?

All fair points, but I would argue them entirely subjective. For instance, is Eve's action of taking the fruit responsible for murder? One could argue yes, but the more common villain is Cain, the first to introduce murder to the human race. But if we decide to bypass Cain and in fact trace it back to the "root," at what point do we know to stop? Eve ate the fruit, but only because the serpent deceived her. The serpent deceived her, but only because he was given the opportunity by the very existence of the Tree. The Tree seems somewhat odd to blame, seeing as it just sat there, put in place by God. So, if we looked at it in the manner of the blame game, if we ask Adam he blames Eve, if we ask Eve she blames the serpent, if we ask the serpent he blames God (assumedly skipping over the Tree itself), if we ask God he blames humanity. It's a vicious cycle.

If in fact God created that humanity with free will, then anything goes. That serpent chose to rebel.(This is me saying I believe that said serpent is Satan, and can argue for that with the Bible. But thats another topic.) Is it God's fault that the serpent decieved Eve, because he gave the Serpent the ability to rebel and lie? If you want to look at it that way, then thats fine by me. Just because something doesn't work as you invisioned it, and it has the ability to work as you invisioned it and would like it, doesn't make it your fault.

[Phoenix]

Again, I say ignorance of things unesassary. God didn't want us knowing those things, why should we? How does it help you and I? It only adds confusion and problems. So, is it bliss? Why not, but is that a bad thing...in this case?

So yes, according to you, ignorance is bliss. Should I bother to learn about philosophy, then? Why should I bother answering the questions that have been with mankind since day 1?

Some of us have knowledge in a higher regard than "on a need to know basis".

If in fact God created that humanity with free will, then anything goes. That serpent chose to rebel.(This is me saying I believe that said serpent is Satan, and can argue for that with the Bible. But thats another topic.) Is it God's fault that the serpent decieved Eve, because he gave the Serpent the ability to rebel and lie?

Is it God's fault that none of his creations seem to work out as he envisions them?

If you want to look at it that way, then thats fine by me. Just because something doesn't work as you invisioned it, and it has the ability to work as you invisioned it and would like it, doesn't make it your fault.

Really. You make 2 people who are innocent. You give them all, then in the dead middle, you put a tree and say "don't do this".

If I'm able to figure out what's going to happen, but God isn't, then LOL. I know more than God.

[Hidden]

I will just very quickly address a few of the comments directed at me and then provide a new passage, being short on time. Though conversation may certainly continue on the previous passage, this will be the new focus of the thread.

Originally Posted by Einon SAMA

Again, I say ignorance of things unesassary. God didn't want us knowing those things, why should we? How does it help you and I? It only adds confusion and problems. So, is it bliss? Why not, but is that a bad thing...in this case?

Bliss is generally regarded as a good thing, yes; that stance is actually acceptable, I simply wanted to know if that was what the message was thought to be. Purely for consideration, not necessitating conversation at this point--would that stance of ignorance be reflected through the rest of the religion and its followers?

Originally Posted by Einon SAMA

You say you would argue that there is not indication that Man would live forever in Eden, eh? Well what do you suppose the Tree of Life was? Surely they ate from it, for they had no reason not to. In fact, if you really think about it, they HAD to eat from it to continue to live. What other purpose could the Tree of Life have? Therefore, again, Man was taken away from it.

That seems a very reasonable argument, so we'll accept it at this point, the Tanakh providing no indication either way; the only thought I would take to the contrary would be the fact that it was only a single fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, often cited as the counterpart to the Tree of Life, that was needed for Man's fall; but this is mere speculation.

Originally Posted by Einon SAMA

Your hypothetical children do not necessarily know what bad is, yet you still punish them.

I punish them to teach them--Man was "taught" by eating of the Tree and then punished (though not with the consequence originally attributed to the act). An interesting thought, but let us continue.

The focus that I intended from this passage, ultimately, was this question from God: "Now that Man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever?" This was the reasoning responsible for Man's banishment, and so the answer to that question would seem of considerable interest to mankind even now; however, in almost any reading of Genesis, it is entirely passed over. This now having being explored somewhat and open to anyone's consideration, I feel free to move the thread to a new subject matter. I'm much obliged to all contributors.

-----------------------------------------------

Having passed the third part of his natural term of life in the forest, a man may live as an ascetic during the fourth part of his existence. First he must abandon all attachment to worldly objects. He who, after passing from order to order, after offering sacrifices and subduing his senses, tiring with giving alms and offerings of food, becomes an ascetic gains bliss after death....

Departing from his house fully provided with the means of purification, let him wander about absolutely silent. He must care nothing for enjoyments that may be offered to him. Let him always wander about alone to attain final liberation. The solitary man, who neither forsakes nor is forsaken, gains his desired results. He shall possess neither a fire nor a dwelling. He may go to a village for his food. He shall be indifferent to everything, firm in purpose, meditating and concentrating his mind on Brahman.[...]He shall live in this world, but desire only the bliss of final liberation.

*taken from the Manusmriti (Hindu text), chapter 6

Four stages of life are described in the Manusmriti: student, homeowner, retirement, and ascetic. The stage which is outlined in the above passage is that of the ascetic, the last and most accomplished stage where one may come closest to the possibility of moksha, or release from the cycle of rebirth.

I didn't bother coming up with any specific questions for this passage, the text being unfamiliar enough to most Western readers that it might suffice for consideration in itself. But what do you think of this portrayal of an "ideal," if it is indeed that?