I'm a Theist

[Age]

Yep. And it has done me no good.

Jesus said something about that you have to accept heaven like a child. Makes perfect sense to me.

And to me to.

[odysseus]

BardoXV
More specifically a Lutheran but I listen to a lot of Atheist programs and call-in shows. Mostly I agree with the Atheist as they demolish the Theist who tries to prove the existence of God. I look at the old testament as parabel since Jesus had to learn the practice somewhere.

What, exactly, do you observe in the world that warrants theism? I mean, you have to start with the world,THEN you move on to interesting ideas. This way, all those extravagant thoughts, the endless metaphysics that have no real basis in actuality can be dismissed and you can look to only what the world allows. So, what is there in the world that inspires your thinking?

[Age]

Remember the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden. From the tree of knowledge.

Sorry, A.,...I have to correct your quotation: it's "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". In other words, its' knowledge of the quality of evil in things (because "good" already existed, but was only not known because everything was good).

You'll also find that knowledge of other things is nowhere forbidden, and was in fact, encouraged.

I agree that plumbing the depths of evil is a bad idea. But other than that, I disagree that knowledge is forbidden or dangerous.

Why is "plumbing the depths of evil is a bad idea"?

How would one know what is evil or bad, if they had not plumbed the depths of them?

Or, does "plumbing the depths" means some thing else to you?

[Age]

I agree that plumbing the depths of evil is a bad idea. But other than that, I disagree that knowledge is forbidden or dangerous.

Nice. But when you DO eat of the Tree of Know_Ledge, there R consequences ...as Ansiktsburk said...there are thoughts that you definitely do not want to find.

Oh, I forgot to add - those thoughts when analysed are MORE knowledge.

Have you ever eaten from the Tree IC?

Obviously, the story of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil has already been done by humanity, itself.

The story is obviously not in relation to an individual human being. The result of eating from that tree has already been set and thus is already in motion, of which human beings as One are already in the process of.

[Age]

Nice. But when you DO eat of the Tree of Know_Ledge, there R consequences

Check again, Atto: Genesis 2:17 "...but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

And human beings as a WHOLE are on that path right now, when this is written, towards death.

It's not "the tree of knowledge." It's "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." There is NO "tree of knowledge."

There is one, but it has nothing to do with any thing here nor with any religion whatsoever.

[surreptitious57]

Knowledge in and of itself is morally neutral because in isolation it is neither good or bad
What it is subsequently used for is something else and that is on the good / bad spectrum

[surreptitious57]

The tree of knowledge is simply a metaphor because no actual tree exists
Knowledge is however like a tree for it is something that grows over time

[Immanuel Can]

Knowledge in and of itself is morally neutral because in isolation it is neither good or bad

Well, that's contestable, of course. There are some kinds of knowledge I would admit are likely not usually -- and perhaps not ever -- good. But perhaps there is no knowledge the content of which is so foul it can be put to no good use at all.

I think we'd have to have some test cases to establish that. I wonder if anybody can think of a kind of knowledge so evil that it has no good application at all. I'd be interested in knowing that.

What it is subsequently used for is something else and that is on the good / bad spectrum

That's a little different from what the Bible means by "knowing evil," though. To "know evil" is to be experientially and personally dexterous with how to set oneself against God, and to go against the will and character of God in one's actions. That's in and of itself never a good thing, Biblically speaking.

[Age]

Thats pretty cool. You have another translation in english. In my scandinavian language it simply "kunskapens träd"(the tree of knowledge).

Then I humbly submit that the Scandinavian translation you're using is wrong.

LOL

But the one that 'you' just happen to use "immanuel can" is NOT wrong, am I correct?

To show that, here is original Hebrew upon which the manuscripts of all our translations, both English and Scandanavian, depends.

The original Hebrew reads:

but you must not
לֹ֥א (lō)
Adverb - Negative particle
Strong's Hebrew 3808: Not, no

eat
תֹאכַ֖ל (ṯō·ḵal)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect - second person masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 398: To eat

from
מִמֶּ֑נּוּ (mim·men·nū)
Preposition | third person masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 4480: A part of, from, out of

the tree
וּמֵעֵ֗ץ (ū·mê·‘êṣ)
Conjunctive waw, Preposition-m | Noun - masculine singular construct
Strong's Hebrew 6086: Tree, trees, wood

of the knowledge
הַדַּ֙עַת֙ (had·da·‘aṯ)
Article | Noun - feminine singular construct
Strong's Hebrew 1847: Knowledge

of good
ט֣וֹב (ṭō·wḇ)
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 2896: Pleasant, agreeable, good

and evil;
וָרָ֔ע (wā·rā‘)
Conjunctive waw | Adjective - masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 7451: Bad, evil

So you see that the phrase "of good and evil" is in the original.

Which leads to ask, where did the alleged "original" one come from?

If any translation leaves it out, that's just not correct.

That is, from 'your' interpretation it is just not correct.

How do you know what 'your' interpreted "original" did not come from a misinterpreted one itself?

Human beings commonly have this error of thinking or believing that the version or interpretation that they have and use is the right and correct one, which is extremely funny to watch and observe, especially considering what thee actual Truth is here.

That knowledge is dangerous doesnt sound all that far-fetched. I could live without anyone coming up with the concept of nuclear bomb. Few people would like to know their death date. And so on.

Perhaps. But it's not the Biblical idea.

So you would have to come to that conclusion on the sort of how-I-like-to-think-about-it basis you cite above. It's not in the Biblical record.

[attofishpi]

Why are you not stating:- Because it places no prohibition on knowledge of any kind, except for TWO kinds...the knowledge of good AND of evil?

I explained earlier, but in a message to someone else. Apparently, you didn't see that message, so I'm reprise briefly, for your convenience.

There was no speaking of "knowledge of the good" while everything was "good," and evil was simply an utterly unknown quantity. To know good was the same as to know anything that existed. But to come to know evil is also to recognize that it is the opposite of the health, life, harmony, rightness and so forth that had previously characterized life here...so it entails that you not only learn what evil is, but for the first time can speak about what "good" you have lost in the process.

So the two are entailed.

There is nothing wrong in our discourse to simply 'knock off' the end bit 'of good and evil' - to save typing - you are being pedantic, you knew what I was talking about.

There's all the difference in the world between saying, "God said getting any kind of knowledge was wrong," and saying, "God said that getting knowledge of evil was wrong."

But you know full well that is not what I was implying, and that I WAS talking about the Tree of Know_Ledge of Good and Evil!!

Is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil ...a tree of knowledge? YES! You need to work on your logic.

[Age]

You need to try it yourself to imagine nothing. It is possible.

Naw.

However, it's possible to imagine something, and then imagine it's nothing. Like you could imagine a black field, and pretend it's nothing. Or you could imagine a whiteness, and think you've "seen" nothing. But you've imagined a black field or a white screen, and those are not nothings.

It's not possible to imagine nothing. To imagine nothing is to have no imagining.

But it is very possible to imagine nothing. You are obviously just not capable of doing this yet.

[Age]

Why are you not stating:- Because it places no prohibition on knowledge of any kind, except for TWO kinds...the knowledge of good AND of evil?

I explained earlier, but in a message to someone else. Apparently, you didn't see that message, so I'm reprise briefly, for your convenience.

There was no speaking of "knowledge of the good" while everything was "good," and evil was simply an utterly unknown quantity.

But obviously evil was simply already known.

To know good was the same as to know anything that existed. But to come to know evil is also to recognize that it is the opposite of the health, life, harmony, rightness and so forth that had previously characterized life here...so it entails that you not only learn what evil is, but for the first time can speak about what "good" you have lost in the process.

So the two are entailed.

There is nothing wrong in our discourse to simply 'knock off' the end bit 'of good and evil' - to save typing

There's all the difference in the world between saying, "God said getting any kind of knowledge was wrong," and saying, "God said that getting knowledge of evil was wrong."

Did God ever say that getting the knowledge of evil was wrong, itself?

If you were to suppose that that makes no difference, then typing really isn't the problem; more likely, reading is.

[Age]

The tree of knowledge is simply a metaphor because no actual tree exists

But the tree of knowledge does exist.

Knowledge is however like a tree for it is something that grows over time

The tree of knowledge of good and evil has its branches spread out to ALL human beings, growing over time.

And, the roots of this tree go all the way back to when human beings were only living with, and only being, good.

[Age]

Knowledge in and of itself is morally neutral because in isolation it is neither good or bad

Well, that's contestable, of course. There are some kinds of knowledge I would admit are likely not usually -- and perhaps not ever -- good.

Will you give any examples?

But perhaps there is no knowledge the content of which is so foul it can be put to no good use at all.

I think we'd have to have some test cases to establish that. I wonder if anybody can think of a kind of knowledge so evil that it has no good application at all. I'd be interested in knowing that.

Considering it was 'you', "immanuel can" who just wrote; That it is contestable that knowledge in and of itself is morally neutral, of course, and then went on to say: There are some kinds of konwledge I wold admit are likely not usually -- and perhaps not EVER -- good, then I suggest you would be the first one who obviously should and would have some test cases.

What it is subsequently used for is something else and that is on the good / bad spectrum

That's a little different from what the Bible means by "knowing evil," though.

Do you actually really and truly BELIEVE that, just from your own individual interpretation of the bible, the bible and your interpretation of it actually has and IS thee Answer/s to Everything?

To "know evil" is to be experientially and personally dexterous with how to set oneself against God, and to go against the will and character of God in one's actions. That's in and of itself never a good thing, Biblically speaking.

So, WHY do 'you', "immanuel can" have absolutely NO True idea about how to set "yourself" against God?

Are you even aware that the very reason WHY you do NOT know how to set "yourself" against God, is the reason WHY you are continually going against the actual 'will and character of God' in your behaviors?

As you say, the bible is telling you that what you are doing is never a good thing, but 'you' will just NOT let go of 'your' "self".

You will keep fighting for your very OWN assumptions and interpretations of things, BELIEVING them to be what is absolutely true, right, and correct , and even more humorously is you BELIEVING them to be what God says and Truly wants.

To be able to show that you know how to set oneself against God, you would first have to, like me, be able to explain very simply and very easily who and what 'you' ARE and then set that against who and what 'God' IS.

Are you prepared to do that? Will 'you' even give a go?

[uwot]

"Well, that bit is just him saying that spacetime is, in effect, analogue, rather than digitised."

That bit, as I understood it, was the summing up of the whole piece, which, as I say, is not quite the same as declaring it non-empty, or something. I think he'd like the idea of space-time being 'context' for object and forces acting on and interacting with each other (but, then again, mebbe not).

The thing with Einstein, is that he's all things to all people. It's a bit like the Bible, there's even an old testament and a new one. So just as you can take an eye for an eye as your basis for justice, or turn the other cheek, so you can opt for space being a void, as per special relativity, or you can go for spacetime being the spongey stuff of general relativity. Or, as physicists do for practical purposes, not give a monkey's and just use the maths that suits your current purpose.

Well, like I say, objects and forces act on and interact with one another. Action over a distance is evident all the time.

Well there's stuff that happens that has a number of hypothetical mechanisms. Few physicists believe in magic.

I think Al just had a problem with quantum jiggery-pokery.

Ain't that the truth.

Anyway, I've evoked Al's ghost enough, and probably abused him more than a little bit. Certainly, I concede that yours is the superior understanding (you're Mr. Science)...

I'm just as bewildered as anyone.

And: just to be even more contrary, that goddamned cat in the box, it's alive or it's dead, it ain't both dead and alive till, as big brains say, it's observed.

Yeah, Schroedinger is another one who gets interpreted according to taste. His point was just that there are some absurd consequences of taking quantum mechanics literally, not that any particular interpretation is correct.