[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 164 KB, 357x325, 31118_000_005_05.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8933594 No.8933594 [Reply] [Original]

> God: 'don't eat from the tree'
> Adam and Eve: 'Okay'
> Adam and Eve proceed to eat from the tree

Why were they so stupid? Is there any genuinely good explanation/justification for their actions?

>> No.8933601

God's a spook, apples are tasty.

>> No.8933602

snek tricked 'em

>> No.8933603

>>8933594

They could not possibly understand prescriptions before they had understanding of morality.

>> No.8933604

>>8933594
The in-text explanation is that they were tempted by the serpent and promised god-like wisdom if they ate from it, and their pride got the better of them.

A more metaphorical interpretation of the story would use the fruit of the tree as an allegory of prideful rebellion against God's law.

So pride and greed pretty much either way.

>> No.8933606

>>8933594
They didn't know God from Evil mane. How would they even know they're not supposed to eat them?

>> No.8933609

>>8933606
*Good from Evil
>>8933604
Not quite mane. 10 times that depth tbhfam.

>> No.8933612

>>8933594
It's a weak plot device to get a conflict started and actually make story interesting...only nothing but dribble came from it. Boring fucking dribble.

>> No.8933633
File: 17 KB, 658x332, 3iX7fOi0Yy1ywUa0TSgi7RzReV4V93NnUzjXVKE_3og.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8933633

>>8933602
The first story in the bible follows a simple bamboozling.

Is the rest of the Bible this poorly written?

>> No.8934037

>>8933594
The snake is inside of every human - it's called temptation and it is a glimpse of power you can gain with knowledge. They were not stupid, they were just too weak in their curiosity and too strong in their will to power. Why? Cause knowledge is the sweetest fruit of labor. And you wanna taste that fruit. We all want to taste that fruit. But the real dilemma is - how do you use your knowledge? do you used it for good or for bad? do you used it at all? do you not want it anymore? would you rather have stayed in the blissful ignorance?

>> No.8934046

>>8934037
You know it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil not the tree of knowledge, right?

>> No.8934060

>>8934046
all knowledge stems from a basic understanding of what's right (good) and what's wrong (evil)

>> No.8934064

>>8933609
>Not quite mane. 10 times that depth tbhfam.
yeah some retarded nigger is gonna write us a 250 character twitter post in niggerspeak about how he's smarter than you
fucking kill yourself you prideful faggot

>> No.8934092

>>8934046
actually, it's the three of knowledge of all things, good and evil

>> No.8934104

>>8934092
then why aren't we omniscient?

>> No.8934108

>>8934060
cool claim, care to support it?

>> No.8934120

>>8934104
We are, because we have word. That's why man is the master of all things, he who names.

>> No.8934121

>>8934092
Ok I might be convinced. You're saying it's used as a merism.

>> No.8934134

>>8933594
can satan just take the form of god instead of snake and tell them he changed his mind? I mean I guess the snake plan worked anyways so who cares but that plan seems unbeatable.

>> No.8934136

Because Eve was a stupid cunt

>> No.8934147

>>8934134
sneaky

>> No.8934161

>>8934134
>can satan just take the form of god
wait... what if that was what he was doing all throughout the bible?

>> No.8934170

>>8934161
aren't there people who believe the god of the old testament is an impostor or the demiurge?

>> No.8934176

>>8934134
>>8934161
Is there any proof he can look like anything besides a fallen Angel or a serpent?

the Bible clearly refers to Satan as "The Serpent".

Revelation 12:9 "And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

>> No.8934183

>>8934161
what if all teh bible and stuff is true except god does it as a prank and sends all the believers to hell

>> No.8934187

>God: "You can eat everything here and nothing will ever hurt you but don't eat from that tree for reasons I will not explain"
>A&E: "uh, sure, I guess"
>Serpent "Eve that tree won't actually hurt you, it tastes good like everything else and it doesn't make any sense God would put something bad here
>Eve: "Oh hey that makes perfect sense. I should tell Adam about these dank apples that totally don't hurt you"
>Adam: "Hey these apples are pretty good and nothing bad happened, wonder why God told us not to eat these. Oh, we should probably put some pants on"
>God "REEEEEE FUCKING NORMIES GET OUT OF MY GARDEN I DON'T CARE THE APPLES DON'T HURT YOU I'M GOING TO HURT YOU NOW AND THAT INCLUDES YOU SERPENT"
>Serpet: "fug XDDDD"

TL;DR God's an autist

>> No.8934192

>>8934176
Friendly reminder that the Revelations you and I have read is a Europeanized, butchered revision of Hebrew mythology from an age after the initial Hebrew mythology fell out of cultural standing.

In other words we don't get half the shit being talked about and neither did the people who wrote it. Ultimately the Revelation comes as close to being mythologically valid as John Gardner's Grendel.

>> No.8934194

>>8933594
Sure is Reddit in here.

>> No.8934214

>>8934187
the bad thing that happened is that they saw death. they were not immortal anymore, unlike animals who are because of their lack of awareness of death. and the presence of death in the garden of bliss is not possible

>> No.8934252

>>8933594
God needed them to eat the apple such that all of humanity could come into existence, and get this little project rolling. Therefore he designed them in such a way that when he sent his right hand in to tempt them, they'd do exactly what he wanted them to.

>> No.8934260

>>8934252
This is an absurdly dumb post.

>> No.8934279

>>8933594

>old testament
>eating the fruit of knowledge and gaining free will cursed humanity forever
>new testament
>Jesus loves sinners who repent more than those who don't sin at all

What did God mean by this?

>> No.8934282

30 posts and no answer about how Eve was first to come up with idea of eating forbidden fruit, and how it means that women are inferior, and men are cucks. I am honestly suprised at you /lit/ in this snowy, thursday night

>> No.8934298

>>8934260
>God isn't omniscient
>God didn't know that in designing humans in that fashion they would necessarily eat the fruit under those conditions

>> No.8934319

>>8934298
>b-b-but God planned people to fail so that he could judge their character!
>that totally doesn't make God a manipulative asshole or anything though

>> No.8934324

>>8933594
Because it was a false god aka "demiurge"; and the snake who urged Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge was an angel trying to wake up humanity to that fact.

>> No.8934325

>>8933594
It's the same reason your girlfriend fucked your best friend.

>> No.8934342

>>8934324
i dont get it is this legit theory, or are you joking?

>> No.8934345

>>8934319
>God judges people
>Everyone doesn't go to heaven

>> No.8934349

>>8934214
that's some petty revisionism, God states that eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge makes them flawed as it gives them knowledge which only God should possess, and he adds pain, sorrow, starvation and eventual Death to the list of their punishments himself.

it boils down to a point about the Abrahamic God that modern translators often ignore or revise; the element of supremacy over humans that must be strictly maintained, even down to the inability of humans to speak God's name (hence the tetragrammaton).
Abraham's God is an asshole who plays favorites and often changes his mind, a trait shared with many early deities in various cultures, but the Hebrew culture itself never advanced to a point of humanism in which this trait of God could be reflected on, probably due to the extreme trials faced by the Israelites themselves. So when a decidedly more advanced and humanitarian people revitalized the faith they revised these elements.

>> No.8934358

>>8934345
>New Testament says everyone's gonna go to heaven anyways after God's Army storms the gates of Hell
>eternal torment is just a prank bro

>> No.8934364

>>8934342
Not them but it sounds like something from Blavatsky like Isis Unveiled (not that Isis), or The Secret Doctrine. Or just Foucault's Pendulum.

>> No.8934373
File: 146 KB, 388x400, 1473121428017.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8934373

There's an excuse for Eve, but not for Adam.

Adam witnessed God create thing while Eve didn't. Eve only believed in God's power by word of mouth, not experience.

>> No.8934381

>>8934342
>>8934364
It's called Gnosticism.

>> No.8934383

>>8934342
It's standard gnostic cosmology. The material world (i.e. the body) is a prison for the soul ruled by the demiurge. That's why the material world, and life is so imperfect and full of suffering.

>> No.8934393

has no one here read paradise lost?

>> No.8934397

Because Adam and Eve were stupid, or rather they interpret actions directly. God telling them not to eat from the tree is the equivalent of God telling them not to eat from the tree while he was looking. They've fundamentally understood that they'll be chastised, but only while he was there.

>> No.8934401

>>8934358
>Eternal torment was an idea introduced in the Bible, and not a heresy introduced into canon by the Catholic Church at a later date

>> No.8934421

>paintings of the garden show the serpent as a snake with no legs
>serpent had legs until god punished him for tempting adam and eve

non-canon

>> No.8934434

>>8934298
>>God isn't omniscient
Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, "Where art thou?"

If God is omniscient why didn't he know where Adam was? Checkmate, demiurge worshippers.

>> No.8934463

>>8934434
>God didn't know where Adam was
>God wasn't intentionally asking this to elicit an emotional response from Adam

kek

>> No.8934464

>>8934381
>>8934383
i know this word: "gnosticism", i was asking about that
>and the snake who urged Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge was an angel trying to wake up humanity to that fact.
who wrote that?

>> No.8934495

>>8934401
>Implying God didn't personally torment those he perceived as having slighted him or even at random (see: Job)
>implying Sheol doesn't exist

>> No.8934498

>>8934463
So he was being manipulative?

>> No.8934513

>>8934495
>She'ol in the Hebrew Bible, is a place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of the moral choices made in life, a place of stillness and darkness cut off from life and from the Hebrew God.[1]

Hmm...

>> No.8934533

>>8934495
>>8934498
>God wasn't taking actions that will maximize utility in the long run

>>8934513
Nice

>> No.8934540

>>8934533
>God is a utilitarian
Huh, now all the morally reprehensible aspects of God make sense.

>> No.8934563

>>8934092
Actually its just the world tree and nidhoggr

>> No.8934568

So, if they didn't have knowledge of good and evil, how did they know it was evil to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

>> No.8934585

>>8934464
I think it was in the Nag Hammadi library or Pistis Sophia. They both are codices that pre-date the birth Jesus or come from around that time period.

>> No.8934590

>>8933594
Eve's fault. That's why women suffer painful child births.

>> No.8934614

>>8934590
actually that's because of the location of the pelvic bone required for standing upright

>> No.8934628

>>8934614
>implying God didn't invent the pelvic bone

>> No.8934637

>>8934170
>demiurge
fuck that guy

>> No.8934639

>>8933594
It's a parable you dumb shit. Man is doomed to folly, prepare for consequences.

>> No.8934648

>>8934170
Old Testament: God kills innocent children because of their birthplace (Egypt). Presented as a good.

New Testament: Herod kills innocent children because of their birthplace (Bethlehem). Presented as bad.

>> No.8934652

>>8934639
/thread

>> No.8934655

>>8934319
God is a massive jerk throughout the whole Old Testament
He pulls a "it's just a prank bro!" on Abraham and his goddamn son

>> No.8934667

This thread reminded me of something I was thinking about Christianity recently.

>supernatural events in the Old Testament are symbolic and teach a lesson, they are not meant to be taken literally
>supernatural events in the New Testament are literal, and if you don't believe them you're a heretic

Any apologists care to explain this?

>> No.8934672

>>8933601
>>8934187
>>8934252

>the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was an apple

>> No.8934673

>>8934667
Easily. You said it yourself.

OT is sacred revelation and understood as symbolic.

NT is tainted with politics and "right understanding."

>> No.8934682

>>8933594
read paradise lost

>> No.8934686
File: 81 KB, 600x456, laughingsnek.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8934686

>>8934682
as if OP had the patience or intelligence for this

>> No.8934688

>>8934673
Are you Jewish?

>> No.8934701

>>8934688
No. I am a bad Catholic / Gnostic heretic.

OT is tribal knowledge, and understood as such. NT was used as a political tool in the early centuries AD. The consequences of the Catholic Church claiming orthodoxy was everyone else in the local Joe-Bob cult became heretics. This is basic stuff come on now.

>> No.8934704

>>8933633
Edgy boi

>> No.8934714

>>8934701
>The consequences of the Catholic Church claiming orthodoxy was everyone else in the local Joe-Bob cult became heretics. This is basic stuff come on now.
Yeah, my rational mind tells me this but I'm having a hard time shaking the spooks I got from being raised Catholic.

>> No.8934726

>>8934104
Have you not reached enlightenment? Have you not read the Greeks!?

>> No.8934734

>>8934726
Blasphemy! Heresy!

>> No.8934737

Pretty sure it's as simple as the fact that the average human barely has the mental strength or intellect to keep themselves breathing.

Most authors are fairly privileged or at least didn't grow up around common-folk, so they go almost their entire lives not having to interact with what could be considered the average human.
If I told any random lowbrow that resides in the town I grew up in that eating a light bulb would give them godlike knowledge, they would almost certainly do it.

>> No.8934743

>>8934726
I read Homer, Plato, Pre-socratics, and some Epictetus. I still don't know everything.

>> No.8934745

>>8934714
Just remember what Catholic means: "universal." This is humans claiming ownership of a truth. ie, only one correct way to understand the biblical narrative. They went so far as to ban certain books and call them heretical, then in the centuries that followed they persecuted anyone who didn't toe the party line. Fuck the Holy See. Fuck them right in their corrupt asshole.

>> No.8934747
File: 25 KB, 515x357, 15232241_1339460412740845_5054180494488911359_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8934747

>>8934743
If you really did read Plato, you should know that you know nothing.

>> No.8934748

>>8934745
B-but they're guided by the Holy Spirit so they can't be wrong!

>> No.8934758

>>8933633

it was written by Jews so yes

>> No.8934759
File: 39 KB, 576x472, 13672319.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8934759

>>8934748
The holy spirit is literally a spirit of enlightenment. It [metaphorically] impregnated Mary and created an avatar of goodwill. Her son went on to teach the greatest, most practical philosophy we've ever known. Unlike the postmoderns or other post-Renaissance memesters, Christ's teaching made a practical purpose for desire and the selfish urge. It sublimated animal instict for a cultural revolution of extreme tolerance. Motherfucker was a hundred Gandhis. And what did the human species do with this philosophy? Monetized it, perverted it, and made "proper belief" into a cause for war. Fuck fuck fuck this species I hate you all.

>> No.8934771

>>8934759
>And what did the human species do with this philosophy? Monetized it, perverted it, and made "proper belief" into a cause for war. Fuck fuck fuck this species I hate you all.
Mote, beam, etc.

Although I'll admit murdering people for having a different opinion is a pretty fucking significant mote.

>> No.8934786

>>8934176
>the bible clearly refers to...

no the translation of revelations you are quoting refers to satan as an ancient serpent. genesis never claims the serpent to be anything other than a crafty animal.

>> No.8934787

>>8934759
>argument that morality stems solely from christianity
Christianity owes its continued existence to the death throes of the Roman Empire and would have died to history as had many other would-be messiahs were it not for extremely beneficial timing.
Meanwhile the vast majority of its tenets were not only well within the practice of normal society at the time, but were also independently concluded with and without "divine enlightenment" all around the world.

Joshua son of Joseph was a historically significant rabbi of the Jewish faith whose validity was skyrocketed thanks to lucky timing. From a philosophical and historical standpoint, the prophet Muhammad was arguably more influential on the course of history through his own actions.

>> No.8934794
File: 44 KB, 600x600, 14095835_1165918076802245_873862937459851925_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8934794

>>8934787
>blah blah blah
I never said Christianity had exclusive claim on moral teaching, you fucking faggot.

>> No.8934795

>>8934737
enlightenedbymyintelligence.png

>> No.8934809

>>8934795
I don't consider myself enlightened, or necessarily intelligent. My opinion of the average person is just very low

>> No.8934813
File: 1.90 MB, 312x250, 1482258110592.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8934813

>>8934787
>i've never read a book but I watch youtube videos

>> No.8934818

>>8934787
>Joshua son of Joseph was a historically significant rabbi of the Jewish faith whose validity was skyrocketed thanks to lucky timing.
Not only that, but the fact that he was killed, and died as a martyr. Imagine what the world would be like if Pilate killed Barrabas instead. You can't.

>> No.8934820

>>8934809
First off my point is that your statement of "everyone is a drooling retard EXCEPT ME" is ridiculous. Second off intelligence is relative so if you think the average person is so dumb, then yes, you do think of yourself as highly intelligent

>> No.8934824

>>8933603
this is a good nurture determinist's explanation

>> No.8934825

>>8934809
if you're not "necessarily intelligent" then are you average?

>> No.8934828

>>8934820
>>8934825
>samefag does a double take

>> No.8934843

>>8934820
I can't really see how you perceived that I think I'm the only intelligent person there is or something. Obviously there are billions of people more intelligent than me

>>8934825
across the entire human race, I'm probably average. On the island I grew up on, probably above average.
If I had the money to live somewhere where I was by comparison an idiot, I would.

>> No.8934846
File: 5 KB, 372x116, beingthiswrong.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8934846

>>8934828

>> No.8934897

>>8934818
It wasn't Pilate's choice, that was kind of the whole point

>> No.8934903

>>8933594
Eve was a roastie and therefor thought she was above the rules, Adam was in love.

>> No.8934923

>>8934897
I disagree, I think Pilate still is guilty for sentencing someone to death when he knew he didn't deserve it. His excuse is the same as war criminals who claim they are "just following orders".

>> No.8934928

>>8934176
That's a retcon. The old testament never even implied that the serpent was Satan.

>> No.8934943

>>8934639
Unless God decides that you're special, and then you will be a King who commits horrific acts and will be beloved.

>> No.8934968

>>8934943
Like who? I can only recall Saul, David and Solomon and all of them gained and then lost God's favor due to their misdeeds.

>> No.8934983

>>8933594
Its a trick question anon, they were fated to eat the fruit, God just fucked with them by saying they had a choice in the matter.

>> No.8935017
File: 63 KB, 817x857, 40keks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8935017

>>8934943
Do you seriously not recognize those are parables as well? Cautionary morality tales on the dangers of desire? Just how illiterate are you?

>> No.8935049

>>8934540
So if God is utilitarian, does that mean he isn't all-powerful? Because if God truly wishes the best for us, and is allowing the suffering of humanity to continue because he cannot produce a better alternative, then God is under the power of some kind of rules.

>> No.8935059

>>8933594
Quo warranto

>> No.8935063
File: 12 KB, 500x333, 14051766_1666431503676008_2185991187723544401_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8935063

>>8935049
>be a 1174th subgradient soul
>trying to comprehend god on 4chan

you're talking about the PROBLEM OF EVIL.

god is beyond your definition, fucko. aside from this, suffering is not evil. a more intelligent human would recognize the utility of suffering.

>> No.8935136

>>8935049
Ignoring the non-utilitarian theodicies, the utilitarian response to this is that there are better and worse kinds of happiness. Sure God could just magic you happy, but happiness born from struggle is more robust, worthwhile, long lasting, et cetera.

>> No.8935180

>>8934120
>We are, because we have word. That's why man is the master of all things, he who names.
wow, that's like the most nihilist thing to say. opinions, languages, thoughts, concepts are not worthy of being hyped over sensual experience

>> No.8935184

>>8935136
>Sure God could just magic you happy, but happiness born from struggle is more robust, worthwhile, long lasting, et cetera.
spoken like a true man. THis is why men are so shit compared compared to women.

>> No.8935303

>>8934279
read the parable of the prodigal son for your second statement: the virtuous son gets the inheritance, but the prodigal son, though he fucks everything up, is still deserving to be welcomed by the father. both are to be welcomed as loved members of a family despite a past of sin yet there is no preference for the prodigal son.

>> No.8935316
File: 121 KB, 720x562, alexander and diogenes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8935316

>>8934373
this.

god's rule of 'don't eat that fruit' was given unto adam, before eve was created. the notion that women are inferior because of an old, traditional story written by men is nothing but a misreading by people wishing to justify misogyny. if anything, adam is to be at fault.

but, i'm not really a feminist and i don't think such a view should be of primary concern in reading these kinds of texts. it reads more to me to be a condemning parable about the power of humanity's faculty of free will; that we as humans with the ability to choose between A and B means that our actions have consequences far greater than we can imagine. expulsion from the garden is an example of this. just as cain and abel is an anti-murder parable, sin crouches at the door. but we can, by our free will, expel it just as ably as we can nurture it.

>> No.8935406
File: 5 KB, 300x168, farts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8935406

oh well you see the reason for that is because its a fictional situation

>> No.8935478

>>8933594
Why even have the tree there at all?

>> No.8935631

>>8933594
Adam and Eve existed with God in a pure state.

They were unaware of evil.

The concept of a lie was alien to their minds, as far as the text implies.

When the snake speaks to Eve, he presents her with several worldview-shattering possibilities.

1. Someone may say something which is not true.

2. Someone may do this in order to keep from your something beneficial - even to maintain an advantage over you.

3. This is who God really is; He is not who you know Him to be.

4. The glory which you have seen and attribute to God is actually a state of being available to you and Adam, if only you partake of this fruit. Implying, then, for the first time, that there was a state of being beyond their current state - this is the first exposure to a lack of fulfillment.

All in all, I consider it a similar test to what the angels in heaven must have been exposed to via Luciferian corruption.

Unlike man, they were not procreated from an already pure or impure being, they were individually created by God, pure.

This is why some could fall into sin, while others remained pure and could continue to dwell with God.

Still, the exposure to the unknown of Evil must have been similar. It was a concept which, Biblically, seems as though it must have been as alien to the angels of heaven as to Adam and Eve.

Anyway, Adam and Eve fell for the snake's trap because at this point, they were in a position where either the snake was lying or God was - however, if God was lying there was the potential for gain, if the snake was lying the was only the potential for loss. The desire for potential gain, the drive of human desire, turned out to be more motivating than the fear of loss. At least, for the two of them.

>> No.8935637

>>8935316
that picture is neat, i tell you dang ol hut.

>> No.8935640

>>8933594

God made man to take the apple.

>> No.8936305

>>8933594
The bible is full of stupid people doing stupid things. Don't bother find meaning in it.

>> No.8936408

>>8936305
>ask me how I can tell you haven't read it

>> No.8936416

>>8933594
It is because we as human beings are sinners and must repent! Adam and Eve represent the inherent sin within us all! You or I would have done just the same because we are filthy and disgusting creatures! Only through the grace of god can we hope to save ourselves from our animalistic ways!

>> No.8936429

>>8934747
If you read Plato, you should know that you already knew everything.

>> No.8936444

>>8934639
How are you supposed to know which parts are parable or metaphor?

>> No.8936450
File: 10 KB, 200x199, paranoid keanu reeves.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8936450

>>8935316
>but we can, by our free will, expel it just as ably as we can nurture it.
Not longer than 40 minutes ago I put away Steinbeck's East of Eden having read just this discussion in the book.

>> No.8936466

>>8934176
>clearly
>only one source and it's not even "the serpent", just "that ancient serpent"

shiggy

>> No.8936487

>>8934282
women are sluts
— Corinthians 3:1

>> No.8936512

>>8935180
how so?

>> No.8936519

>>8933594
The snake spooked them.
Literally everything was their property, and all God asked was that they follow their own self-interest.
But the snake comes along and tells Adam and Eve that doing what they correctly believe to be killing themselves will make them gods (don't ask him what this means- you need to know good & evil before you can even comprehend this).
And they fucking believe him and fucking go ahead and fucking do it.
I know, I know, it's hard to believe. But get this:
A few thousand years the snake comes back and tells everyone that if they go harrass everyone else, telling them that acting like a fucking normal human being will get you tortured for all eternity, and then get themselves tortured to death like common criminals, they'll get to be gods (as Adam and Eve were, actually), for real this time.
AND THEY FUCKING GO AND DO IT.

>> No.8936632

>>8936444
If science disproves it, it's a parable/metaphor.

>> No.8936639

they didnt eat the apple the devil wrote the bible and hes a LIAR

>> No.8936646

>>8935180
>>8934120
https://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/s/smcmahon/courses/hist249/readingguide/files/leguin-unnames.pdf

Naming in this sense is tied up with the act of taking dominion over things, by evaluating them and choosing to define them with our own terms. "Defining them by how we see them and not how they are" so to speak.

>> No.8936670
File: 94 KB, 477x602, dore.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8936670

>>8935316
So could it be said that Eve's fault was ignorance, and Adam's was pride? Or are they both guilty of the same sin of pride for wanting to eat the fruit anyway?

PS. What are some other myths involving gardens, anyone?

>> No.8936852

>>8933594
Why are you analyzing the fan fiction of some stone age sandnigger tribesmen?

>> No.8936862

This thread is proof that the Catholic church was right. Laymen should be banned from expounding and interpreting the holy scriptures.
The way you guys manage to take the profound mysteries of human nature and transform them into memes via nothing but the power of your mental retardation is frightening. Also I never want to hear /lit/ speak one ill word of reddit ever again. You're on par.

>> No.8936889

>>8934161
There was a medieval group who believed that, they were branded as heritics and were burned at the stake. Catharism.

>> No.8936898

>>8933594
Humans did nothing wrong
Fucking demiurge scumbag's fault

>> No.8936899

>>8934161
>>8936889
Wouldn't that mean Satan is more powerful that God if he can influence humanity in such a way, or at least implies that God is apathetic with regards to humanity.

>> No.8936907

>>8936444
reading comprehension is pretty neato

>> No.8936914
File: 28 KB, 423x750, 1481385207657.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8936914

It can be fruit of moral sense.

It can be tree of conciousness, they tasted it and poof you are concious being and thus you are suffering (out of the paradise of unconciousness).

>> No.8936915

>>8936862
/thread

>> No.8936917

>>8936862
>Also I never want to hear /lit/ speak one ill word of reddit ever again. You're on par.
That's only because many posters are in fact redditors -- like you.

>> No.8936923

>>8936914
>it can be whatever you want because what the text says isn't important

>> No.8936924

>>8936917
how in the fuck does he resemble reddit?

>> No.8936926

>>8936923
this is what christians do though. writers of the books in bible should have done better work, so many misconsumpsions

>> No.8936935

>>8936926
>other people do it so it's okay for you to do it
>it is the authors fault people speaking a different language in a different culture have misconceptions

>> No.8936945

>>8936935
I didn't imply it was okay and I don't think what other people do or use their doings to justify mine whatsoever

>green text green text ass ass cock piss ass piss

>> No.8937044

>>8934134
I guess God wouldn't allow that, or at least do something to show that the "God" they're seeing isn't real.

>> No.8937048

>>8934648
Herod isn't God, that's the difference. Killing somebody doesn't make God evil, if it did, nobody would die.

>> No.8937071

>>8934667
They both are true, although due to differences in purpose, authorship and style some aren't literal. Many, in fact I would say most, OT stories are indeed literal. The dichotomy is due to people concentrating on the non-literal ones (since taking them comletely literally will obviously lead to untruths) and NT has simply lesser percentage of them.

>> No.8937117

>>8937071
>Many, in fact I would say most, OT stories are indeed literal
Let me guess: the ones that aren't able to be proved false are literal.

>> No.8937136

>>8933594
They never agreed to obey though

>> No.8937188

>>8937117
Not exactly, the text itself often provides clues as to whether it's literal or not, although there are cases where both literal and non-literal interpretation could be true: the story of Jonah for example, he technically could have been really swallowed by a fish (it's not possible under normal circumstances but we are talking about an omnipotent God here) and it could be true. There are cases where only non-literal interpretation can be true, because that's what non-biblical sources say, like Creation story. Either way, the ones provably non-literal have never been declared (by the Catholic Church) to be literal, if that's where you are going from.

You shouldn't be surprised by this, a truth and another truth can't contradict themselves.

>> No.8937240

>>8934187
This is some real 12 year old "I hate my mom for making me go to sunday school"-tier shit right here

>> No.8937250

>>8934279
>people who don't sin
I hope you don't think this about yourself

>> No.8937251

You forget the context. Pleasekeep to your porno, demonrace. <bendsdown> Real thinking not for lobosspecies. Bye di bye.

>> No.8937537

>>8936914
That guy is pretty cool

>> No.8937568

>>8934187
>REEEEEE FUCKING NORMIES GET OUT OF MY GARDEN

I kek'd, couldn't help it

>> No.8937570

>>8933594
HOLY shit man, you've answered your question with that pic. Check out Adam. He is enjoying the fuck out of that Apple.

>> No.8937581

>>8936862
>This thread is proof that only people that think the way I believe they should think should be allowed to read the Bible
Also:
>Book has the profound mysteries of human nature
>Doesn’t want everyone to read it

>> No.8937588

>>8933594
There is no really satisfying explanation for why they would have disobeyed God, because the story is more symbol than plot.

>> No.8937608

Check out Jordan Peterson's explanation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJVtAIIHxu0

More on his channel

>> No.8937614

>>8937188
>the story of Jonah for example, he technically could have been really swallowed by a fish (it's not possible under normal circumstances but we are talking about an omnipotent God here)
Yeah, so because you can't "prove" Jonah was never swallowed by a fish, it could be real. You can't "prove" there was some dude with superhuman strength that was lost when you cut his hair, so it could be true. You can't "prove" that some dude didn't walk on water 2000 years ago, so it could be true. God of the gaps.

>> No.8937654

>>8937614

I'm not trying to prove that these miracles were true, that's matter for another discussion - you asked me how the literality/nonliterality works in a Christian worldview and I answered it. Notice, in A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW - one assuming they are true. I'm not trying to prove each one, I'm answering in a framework where they are assumed to be true and only need to be checked whether they are literal or non-literal. Now you are trying to show logical fallacy in my post by referring to a conclusion I never made and which you never asked me to prove. Stop being a retard.

>> No.8937726

>>8937654
>A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW - one assuming they are true.
Well of course, if one assumes something is correct they'll assume it's correct. That doesn't say anything profound. My question is why is it so important to assume NT supernatural events are literally true. Even more so, why do some insist that accepting the supernatural events of the NT as literal is more important than the learning from the lessons the stories teach? Heresy is a sin worthy of excommunication, according to the Catholic Church.

>> No.8937952

>>8937726
>My question is why is it so important to assume NT supernatural events are literally true.

Taking for example crucifixion and resurrection, it wouldn't have worked if it didn't literally happen. Jesus says that the biggest reason for his miracles was for people to see that he really is God, and it would be therefore illogical to conclude that the descriptions of them aren't literal. The existence of dates in the Gospels without any symbolic meanings, as well as inclusion of historical people who happened to live around these dates strongly suggests that they are intended to be historical. Whether quotes are word-for-word is discussable, since even if the original saying was slightly different (in form, not in any way in meaning, obviously) it would still have been said with the same intent and impact and therefore the quote could be considered true, even if non-literal. Either way, Gospels are definitely intended to be literal history of events that happened. Acts are a similar case - if Apostles were real and what happened to them in Gospels was real too, why would the continuation of them, describing in a clearly non-symbolic, similar to the one of Gospels, manner their life and events surrounding them, why would it be metaphorical?

There isn't much to write about the later parts about NT barring Revelations, since they are mostly essays referring to previous stories and sometimes life of their authors, which was perhaps known to the receiving party - it would be completely bizarre if statements like "When I was in X with my helper Y" were somehow metaphorical, especially considering the Acts.

Revelations are another matter: they would be nonsense if taken completely literally and must be in majority non-literal.

>> No.8937962

>>8937608
Fuck you, Jordan.

>> No.8937970

>>8937608
Does he believe in the flood literally?

>> No.8937988

>>8933594
Idk mayne. You probably voiced in your head at least once to not waste any time posting this thread on this board. Yet here we are, all so greatly enlightened but your utterly original counter argument about what's Eve n' aDam man.

>> No.8938002

>>8933612
>dribble
New meme?

>> No.8938045

>>8937952
>Jesus says that the biggest reason for his miracles was for people to see that he really is God
Does he? From what I recall, he always dodges the question ("why can't you see what is right in front of you?").

>Either way, Gospels are definitely intended to be literal history of events that happened.
Seeing as how there are at least 30 years of oral tradition that separates the gospels from the events, it seems quite likely that embellishments and legends could be added to the historical record.

>> No.8938054

>>8937952
>Taking for example crucifixion and resurrection, it wouldn't have worked if it didn't literally happen.
What wouldn't have worked? Mainstream Christian theology wouldn't work?

>> No.8938394

>>8938045
>Does he? From what I recall, he always dodges the question ("why can't you see what is right in front of you?").

See John 10:37-38

>Seeing as how there are at least 30 years of oral tradition that separates the gospels from the events, it seems quite likely that embellishments and legends could be added to the historical record.

Once again, I'm assuming Christian worldview here, and more precisely if that wasn't clear, Catholic one. The authors couldn't have added "embellishments and legends", because this would make the story untrue, unless they are paraphrases of events that actually happened. By the way, there is another way to show that NT stories actually happened (I'll remind that in Catholic framework before you sperg out again) is that we venerate several NT figures as saints, so they must have been real people.

>> No.8938614

>>8938394
>we venerate several NT figures as saints, so they must have been real people.
Not that anon but please explain your logic behind this reasoning. It seems so absurdly stupid that I'm sure I'm just missing something here.

>> No.8938650

>>8933594
Because when an omnipotent being puts a fucking tree of knowledge within your reach when he could have put it anywhere else in the universe, and allows a serpent to tempt you into taking it, you're obviously carrying out his will. Next you'll be asking why Lucifer rebelled. You can't have it both ways: if the "Honest, our God is literally omnipotent and omniscient" foolishness is taken seriously, than everybody's doing what God wants and there is no conflict or problem. That's why almost none of the pagan faiths were stupid enough to assert their deities were literally all-powerful: no dramatic tension left.

>> No.8938685

>>8935631
>They were unaware of evil.
>The concept of a lie was alien to their minds, as far as the text implies.

I think you're misunderstanding what is meant by "knowledge of good and evil". In the biblical sense it's not knowing what is good and bad but it's judging good and bad not by god's standard, by by your own human standard. And that is what is meant by "to be like gods", because only god can judge. The sin of Adam and Eve isn't that they wanted to know what was good and bad but it was their effort to supplant god in the natural order.

>> No.8938852

>>8938614
As Catholics, we treat saints as real people in Heaven, we can't consider them as metaphors or whatever. Therefore, if you assume that Catholicism is true, you automatically assume that saints are real.

>> No.8938910

>>8938394
>John 10:37-38
>Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.
Those works could be the good things he says and does. The devil can do illusions and "magic" like miracles. If every person who did something unexplainable by science was the son of God, we'd have a lot more messiahs.

>, I'm assuming Christian worldview here, and more precisely if that wasn't clear, Catholic one. The authors couldn't have added "embellishments and legends",
That's just circular reasoning. "We believe it because we believe it". Assuming a Christian worldview doesn't convince people to adopt a Christian worldview. You don't seem to be a very good apologist.

>> No.8938927

>>8938852
Oh. So it really is just retarded logic.

>> No.8938936

>>8938927
What's retarded in it?

>> No.8938998

>>8938910
>That's just circular reasoning. "We believe it because we believe it". Assuming a Christian worldview doesn't convince people to adopt a Christian worldview.

And I didn't try to convince people to adopt a Christian worldview - I tried to explain it, and explaining a worldview assumes, at least for the sake of explaining it, it's true.

For example if I told you that in Norse religion Thor is Odin's son, it would be correct, even if Norse religion isn't true - for the sake of explaining it, I worked under the assumption of it being true. It would be retarded to say that Thor and Odin don't exist, therefore in Norse mythology the latter isn't the former's father. It's in the same way retarded to claim that if Christianity isn't true, Christian doctrines aren't true in Christian worldview.

Where in my posts have you seen me trying to argue that Christianity is true?

Whole the time I've been making my arguments in the framework of it - how could I explain the implications of teachings Christianity if I worked in the framework where they are false?

>> No.8939002

>>8938936
Your proof is based entirely on a belief. As if you can't offer concrete evidence of existence of physical beings (not of God, but of normal, real people).

Let's use this logic in a different context. I believe in Zglatorx. Belief in Zglatorx necessarily implies that you are mentally retarded. Does that make you mentally retarded? Of course not - only a real psychologist could test you and with complete certainty find out whether you are or are not retarded. What I believe can't affect the outcome of the test. And that - actual evidence - is expected of you if you want to say any statements about the physical world.
I personally don't find existence of the people you call saints improbable, but your logical process is unacceptable.

>> No.8939018

>>8939002
It would be true to say that if you believe in Zglatorx, you believe that I'm mentally retarded though.

If you read my previous posts, you would see an analogical, and equally true, logic: if you believe in saints and that Bible is true, you can deduce that you believe that events in NT describing them must be true too.

>> No.8939022

>>8933602
more like eve tricked adam

>> No.8939025

>>8934252
You mean his left hand surely?

>> No.8939039

>>8938998
Look at my original question. >>8934667

I know Christian/Catholic tradition says certain supernatural aspects are literal and to doubt their veracity is sinful. Explaining why this is by saying "Catholic tradition tells us so" doesn't reveal any information.

>> No.8939046

>>8939018
Ok - I understand that.
That is very dangerous, though. As I said, you can't base statements regarding the physical world on pure belief. If I believed you were retarded, I'd be wrong. We are both (I assume) looking for truth, and would avoid such unreliable ways of finding it.

>> No.8939049

>>8938685
I disagree, but I don't feel like explaining why now.

If this thread is still here when I wake up tomorrow, then I'll give my reasons why.

>> No.8940757

bump

>> No.8940855

>>8934349
>probably due to the extreme trials faced by the Israelites themselves
Historical revisionism, the religion likes to tell of being slaves and in the desert and so on, but the bad thing was only the Babylon exile thing. The Egypt bit was just a lie.

>> No.8940858

>>8934513
>>8934533
It's a lazy metaphor for dead in the ground.

>> No.8940873

>>8934134
He didn't actually take a snake form, that's just a flawed translation/interpretation.

>> No.8940916

>>8938002
>New
New meme?

>> No.8941233

>>8938685
Okay, I woke up, so I'm back - as promised.

When we want to analyze scripture (although really this can apply to any kind of analysis), particularly this passage, as it is the first, you must begin with what is presented.

After the text is analyzed in its literal interpretation you then proceed to contextual interpretations, beginning with the most relevant context, and broadening scope gradually. After it has been taken in these contexts, you can then begin to analyze the scripture symbolically and allegorically.

In this way, the greatest potential meaning of the scriptures is revealed.

In this case of the Genetic story of creation, it is no different. We begin first by taking the text itself as is and, zooming in, so to speak.

(I realize you may understand this already, but I leave it here for those who may not.)

When we zoom in to the circle created by the recounting of the creation in Genesis, we see Adam and Eve, separate from all beings, save the LORD God, and the animals.

Adam and Eve were created pure. Due to this, they themselves possess no evil whatsoever.

This alone is sufficient to suggest they lacked knowledge of evil, because, as we see through Christ's teaching, evil thoughts count as sin.
It seems unlikely that man could possess knowledge of evil and yet think no evil thoughts. Still, we can find more textual evidence.

God, Himself, is obviously not communicating evil to them. There would be no need. If they remained pure, the Earth would remain pure (Gen.1:26, Gen. 3:17, Rom. 5, I Cor. 15, and other scriptures) for it is through man's sin that sin came to Earth, and, man's offspring, being procreated from a pure being, would always be pure.

Likewise, it is pointed out to us via Gen.3:11, that man and woman did not even realize they were naked. Such concepts were alien to their minds. They were as children.

No, if we take the scriptures literally, then it is not the sin of supplanting the natural order of which they are guilty (although, this is implicit, and the natural order was actually still supplanted, as we will see later), but something far more rudimentary and appropriate to the level of understanding we are shown they have. It is the sin which is probably the first sin every person commits in their childhood - the sin of disobedience - of exalting the personal will over the will of God.

Adam and Eve, who were as children, heard the spoken commandment of God and disobeyed it.

Now, is it fitting that the serpent should tempt man to fall via a method which mirrors the reasons for his own fall from heaven? Absolutely.

However, we also see, repeatedly, in the scriptures themselves the affirmation that by eating the fruit what was to be gained was not the power to judge, as they were already meant to rule and subdue the Earth (Gen.1:26), but the ability to know good and evil (Gen.2:4, Gen.3:22, etc.,.).

I will continue this in another comment.

>> No.8941241

>>8933603
>prescription
proscription

>> No.8941271

It's a metaphor you see, humans were like other animals and lived in the wildernes. Disobeying YWHW means they abandoned their life among nature and pursued a "civilized" life full of useless comodities. That's our original sin and the root of all evil

>> No.8941338

>>8941233
We also know that Eve, though tempted in the fashion you and I have both mentioned, was deceived (Gen. 3:13, and Timothy 2:14).

Adam, however, was not (Gen. 3:17, and Timothy 2:14). Adam chose to sin, knowingly, for only two reasons we can surmise from scripture - to "listen to the voice of his wife," and to "be as God, knowing good and evil." As was mentioned.

Now, having said all this. I think it is time we "zoom out." I spoke of hierarchies of relevancy earlier, so now we must remember what the most relevant context for Genesis is.

The original context for Genesis is the Torah - the first five books of Moses. Until Joshua wrote the book of Joshua sometime later, with subsequent books necessarily taking place after even greater lengths of time, the people of Israel had only the Torah to understand the creation in Genesis. Therefore, we must assume that God intended it to be comprehensible from this point of view, and sufficient for them to understand (of course, if you believe it is not the written word of God, then you must assume this was Moses' design - either way we may take the passage as it is).

I mentioned that the natural order was still supplanted, and perhaps I should explain how, as this is a good time.

When God created man, the intended order (Gen. 1:26) is God, ruling Man, Man ruling Earth. However, we see that immediately proceeding the man's fall to sin, Earth becomes unruly. Man must now toil to bring it into submission (Gen. 3:17-19).

Through later scriptures, especially relevant to Christians, we are made aware of a spiritual shift which had taken place in Eden.

When Christ is fasting in the desert, Satan appears to him and offers him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time (Luke 4:5-7). The reason Satan, himself, gives for his power to do this is they [the kingdoms of Earth] have been given to him.

Taking this passage alone, we don't know at what point, by what means, or for what reason they have been given him. However, as we see in many places later in scripture, the transfer of the authority over Earth took place in the garden.

When Adam chose to sin rather than obey God, his authority over Earth was given to the serpent. However, through Christ's sinless life, death, and resurrection, Christ regained all authority which man had lost, and even the keys of Sin and Death.

This is why man, who places his faith in Christ's atonement for Sin, is seated with Christ (Col. 2) in the restored natural order, and now has the choice to present himself to God in righteousness, or to present himself to Sin in unrighteousness (Romans 6).

In fact, his power to judge has now been extended - no longer does man merely judge the natural domain, but Redeemed Man will now judge the spiritual domain as well, under Christ (1 Cor. 6:3-4, 1 Cor. 15:21-22, and others).

This is a part of the reason Christ is called the "Last Adam." The restored line will never be broken again.

>> No.8941401

>>8941338
Now, there are also some really interesting implications contained in Man's desire for knowledge.

As I'm sure most of you know, Martin Luther called Reason, the Devil's greatest whore.

As the philosopher and scholar William Barret surmises, it is likely in this same vein that Jonathan Swift named the dwelling place of the rationalist rulers, Laputa - La puta, in Gulliver's Travels.

What I'm getting at now is the allegorical interpretations of the creation story of Genesis. I think considering these is of special value to any non-believer in the scriptures, and just as valuable to any believer as God, Himself asserts in Isaiah and in the Gospels that he teaches things in parables and in layers.

If we look at Genesis allegorically, the theme is very simple.

"At what point does man cease to be a part of nature, an innocent - a child, and become it's adversary, or become a man?"

The answer lies in the fruit.

It is at the point which man gains "Knowledge of Good and Evil" that he must leave "the garden." It is at this point that "God" and "Nature" cease to provide for him and he must toil against it to provide for himself.

So what then is the "knowledge of good and evil?"

It is nothing more than our power of Reason. The ability to be "rational." That is, the ability to make comparisons by means of "ratios."

So - when Adam and Eve are capable of the abstract reasoning required to understand their own actions, they are no longer children - no longer to be sheltered, no longer to be provided for. They are now "like" their parental figure and must leave the nest and venture into the harsh, adversarial world.

One can also look at this a different way.

"At what point in Man's history did we cease to be whatever we were before and become "Man" - become what we are now?"

It is at the moment which we gained the power to Reason.

Now we see how deep the words of Martin Luther reach back!

Taken in this light, man became what he is by means of reason, but it is this very ability - this power, which permits us to be separated from God, or, if you prefer, from our "perfect" pre-reason state.

Returning to Swift's allegory, it was the Laputans, the rationalists who were so abstracted from reality that they had to be awakened from their deep contemplations by means of clapper who ruled the "men of Earth."

In other words, by abstracting himself from his own body (via Reason), man gains the extraordinary power to rule the Earth, but in so doing, ceases to be a creature of the Earth, as he was, and becomes a creature of the air.

And this, is where we touch on Kierkegaard!

Kierkegaard said, in his 'Journals,' "It was intelligence and nothing else which had to be opposed. Presumably, that is why I, who had the job, was armed with an immense intelligence."

Kierkegaard's war was the was which began in the garden. It was to was against the power Reason gives man to abstract himself from himself, from his natural state, and God.

>> No.8941410

>>8941401
I could go on, but I'll end it at that for now, and permit the person whom I was answering to speak.

>> No.8941758

>>8933594
something 200 posts, i will explain quickly to the T. Because they didn't know god, if they knew him they wouldn't eat that.

You shall know thy god; Christianity 101.

>> No.8941763

>>8934373
also this and;
>>8934136
somewhat this.

>> No.8942075
File: 661 KB, 958x775, 1454025201545.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8942075

>200 posts trying to make sense out of jew literature

>> No.8942218

>>8942075
Its origin is irrelevant.

It is, without question, one of the most important texts ever written, and has had an impact on the course of Western and Southeast Asian civilization which is basically unrivaled.

>> No.8942358

>>8941758
Know thyself.

>> No.8942398

>>8941401
I think you're more or less right about reason/rationality or more generally conscious thought being what the "fall" of man represents. I see the story as describing what makes humans somehow "unnatural," unique among animals. However I disagree that reason is an "evil" that is to be suppressed. With knowledge of evil comes knowledge of good, and the freedom to choose between the two. Reason does not necessarily lead to choosing evil.

>this power, which permits us to be separated from God
It is also through this power that permits us to willingly choose to be united with God/willingly choose good over evil. Intuitively it seems to me that choosing good is somehow "better" than being good because that's all you can be.

>> No.8942456

>>8942398
I don't mean that it is an evil to be suppressed, but rather, that we may reason ourselves into destruction or salvation, as we will.

This is both respective of God, and irrespective of Him, as was His intention.

I agree with you completely on the matter.

In fact, I am of the opinion that it was for this purpose - to allow man the power of choice, that the tree was placed in the garden in the first place, and Man was permitted to eat of it.

I agree wholly with everything you've said.

>> No.8942569

>>8933594
Imagine being the memelord who made this shit up.
>and then God said don't eat
>and then they go and eat the absolute madmen
>thousands of years later people are still trying to make sense of this nonsense