Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

[Greatest I am]

Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

For you, me, and Adam to answer this question; we need the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam may have needed what he was denied by Yahweh to know if the tree of the knowledge of all things, is good or evil to eat from. As scriptures say, he was mentally and morally blind without it.

You and I cannot see any better than Adam could when our mental eyes are blind on issues and without knowledge of them.

It seems that Yahweh put Adam in a catch 22. Damned to being mentally blind and as bright as a brick and unable to reproduce or condemned to death if he educated himself.

Regards
DL

[Luxin]

E

[Greatest I am]

The knowledge of good and evil (knowledge of good actions/fruits and evil actions/fruits) helps one if one understands both and has the power to do good and therefore enjoy good fruits or consequences, and to avoid evil and its evil fruits or consequences.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents the physical world and its incomplete knowledge. The complete knowledge of the spiritual realm is represented by the tree of life.

With Adam and Eve, the basic side of sex and its enjoyment is represented by the fruit of the tree of the knowledge (TOTK). Sex is a pleasure of life, but only a good thing with spiritual Love, which is not present in the physical realm TOTK. The TOTK is a "trap", but they are warned not to eat its fruit, or enjoy sex without love (lust).

If our knowledge of good and evil is limited to the physical world, emotions and feelings, then what feels good is not ultimately good and we don't have the full picture, which should include spiritual Love.

You add a lot to the story, while the bible itself tells you not to.

Nowhere in Genesis is sex or love even spoken of.

They have become as gods in the knowing of good and evil.

You seem to think that that excludes spiritual knowledge and you thus restrict thye gods as well as humans.

Regards
DL

[Impenitent]

one cannot purposefully do either if one doesn't have some inkling of what they are...

prosecuting the ignorant seems unjust

-Imp

[Nick_A]

Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

For you, me, and Adam to answer this question; we need the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam may have needed what he was denied by Yahweh to know if the tree of the knowledge of all things, is good or evil to eat from. As scriptures say, he was mentally and morally blind without it.

You and I cannot see any better than Adam could when our mental eyes are blind on issues and without knowledge of them.

It seems that Yahweh put Adam in a catch 22. Damned to being mentally blind and as bright as a brick and unable to reproduce or condemned to death if he educated himself.

Regards
DL

But even living in society do we distinguish good from evil?

"Literature and morality: Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring. Imaginary good is boring; real good is always new, marvellous, intoxicating. Therefore "imaginative literature" is either boring or immoral (or a mixture of both). It only escapes from this alternative if in some way it passes over to the side of reality through the power of art— and only genius can do that." Simone Weil

Imaginary good and evil is one thing while real good and evil is something else. Who has experienced the difference

[Greatest I am]

one cannot purposefully do either if one doesn't have some inkling of what they are...

prosecuting the ignorant seems unjust

-Imp

I agree.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

For you, me, and Adam to answer this question; we need the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam may have needed what he was denied by Yahweh to know if the tree of the knowledge of all things, is good or evil to eat from. As scriptures say, he was mentally and morally blind without it.

You and I cannot see any better than Adam could when our mental eyes are blind on issues and without knowledge of them.

It seems that Yahweh put Adam in a catch 22. Damned to being mentally blind and as bright as a brick and unable to reproduce or condemned to death if he educated himself.

Regards
DL

But even living in society do we distinguish good from evil?

"Literature and morality: Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring. Imaginary good is boring; real good is always new, marvellous, intoxicating. Therefore "imaginative literature" is either boring or immoral (or a mixture of both). It only escapes from this alternative if in some way it passes over to the side of reality through the power of art— and only genius can do that." Simone Weil

Imaginary good and evil is one thing while real good and evil is something else. Who has experienced the difference

We all have from our Socratic cave.

Yes. Societies, mostly accurately, distinguish good from evil. They all have legal systems.

Regards
DL

[Nick_A]

GIA

Imaginary good and evil is one thing while real good and evil is something else. Who has experienced the difference

We all have from our Socratic cave.

Yes. Societies, mostly accurately, distinguish good from evil. They all have legal systems.

https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciBhan.htm

Plato realises that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and no artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature.

Plato points out that our normal definitions of good and evil are the results of acquired external interpretations. In this way they are mechanically secular and subject to legal systems. However Plato refers to the right conditions of the human soul which humanity can evolve to experience. The real undiscoveed country.

[bahman]

Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

For you, me, and Adam to answer this question; we need the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam may have needed what he was denied by Yahweh to know if the tree of the knowledge of all things, is good or evil to eat from. As scriptures say, he was mentally and morally blind without it.

You and I cannot see any better than Adam could when our mental eyes are blind on issues and without knowledge of them.

It seems that Yahweh put Adam in a catch 22. Damned to being mentally blind and as bright as a brick and unable to reproduce or condemned to death if he educated himself.

Regards
DL

If death is evil then how the knowledge of good and evil could be good. Quite ironic!

[nothing]

Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

For you, me, and Adam to answer this question; we need the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam may have needed what he was denied by Yahweh to know if the tree of the knowledge of all things, is good or evil to eat from. As scriptures say, he was mentally and morally blind without it.

You and I cannot see any better than Adam could when our mental eyes are blind on issues and without knowledge of them.

It seems that Yahweh put Adam in a catch 22. Damned to being mentally blind and as bright as a brick and unable to reproduce or condemned to death if he educated himself.

Regards
DL

It takes a "believer" to ever "believe" evil is good / satan is god (irrespective of what they are and/or are not). Hence: all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "believers" such to bring suffering and death into the world. This is reflected in the (late) Piscean Age as:

"believer vs. unbeliever"

wherein the two fish of Pisces denote the conflicting 'I believe' and 'I know' states which lead into Aquarius, the Age of Knowledge. As you can imagine, between a "believer" and an "unbeliever" only one of those can have good and evil conflated/confused.

The two trees can be seen as binary roots 'to know' and 'to believe' in relation to the universal conjugate binary 'all' and 'not':
{to know all (thus) not to believe} = approaches all-knowing (god-or-no-god)
{to believe all (thus) not to know} = approaches all-belief-based ignorance (causing suffering/death)
_____________________________
wherein the former is the tree of living (forever) and the latter is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The key is: Adam was asked a yes/no question as to whether or not he ate from the tree. Thus the question on the mind of god was 'from which tree dost thou eat?' and in the case of Adam: he failed to account for his own actions and blamed the woman, "believing" it was her fault (the word 'eve' is in "believe"). This is reflected in/as the hijab/niqab/burqa wherein "believing" men "believe" the woman is responsible for the actions of the man.

[Greatest I am]

GIA

Imaginary good and evil is one thing while real good and evil is something else. Who has experienced the difference

We all have from our Socratic cave.

Yes. Societies, mostly accurately, distinguish good from evil. They all have legal systems.

https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Anci/AnciBhan.htm

Plato realises that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and no artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature.

Plato points out that our normal definitions of good and evil are the results of acquired external interpretations. In this way they are mechanically secular and subject to legal systems. However Plato refers to the right conditions of the human soul which humanity can evolve to experience. The real undiscoveed country.

Thanks for this.

Socrates was a realist and knew that all undiscovered countries were in our minds. That is where all the gods are born. He saw gods as synonymous with law.

The study of the inner man shows that they were Gnostics seeking Gnosis.

Regards
DL



Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

For you, me, and Adam to answer this question; we need the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam may have needed what he was denied by Yahweh to know if the tree of the knowledge of all things, is good or evil to eat from. As scriptures say, he was mentally and morally blind without it.

You and I cannot see any better than Adam could when our mental eyes are blind on issues and without knowledge of them.

It seems that Yahweh put Adam in a catch 22. Damned to being mentally blind and as bright as a brick and unable to reproduce or condemned to death if he educated himself.

Regards
DL

If death is evil then how the knowledge of good and evil could be good. Quite ironic!

If statements without a then statement are not worthy.

To base your verdict on an "if" is hardly worthy.

Death is good for carbon based life forms.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

For you, me, and Adam to answer this question; we need the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam may have needed what he was denied by Yahweh to know if the tree of the knowledge of all things, is good or evil to eat from. As scriptures say, he was mentally and morally blind without it.

You and I cannot see any better than Adam could when our mental eyes are blind on issues and without knowledge of them.

It seems that Yahweh put Adam in a catch 22. Damned to being mentally blind and as bright as a brick and unable to reproduce or condemned to death if he educated himself.

Regards
DL

It takes a "believer" to ever "believe" evil is good / satan is god (irrespective of what they are and/or are not). Hence: all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "believers" such to bring suffering and death into the world. This is reflected in the (late) Piscean Age as:

"believer vs. unbeliever"

wherein the two fish of Pisces denote the conflicting 'I believe' and 'I know' states which lead into Aquarius, the Age of Knowledge. As you can imagine, between a "believer" and an "unbeliever" only one of those can have good and evil conflated/confused.

The two trees can be seen as binary roots 'to know' and 'to believe' in relation to the universal conjugate binary 'all' and 'not':
{to know all (thus) not to believe} = approaches all-knowing (god-or-no-god)
{to believe all (thus) not to know} = approaches all-belief-based ignorance (causing suffering/death)
_____________________________
wherein the former is the tree of living (forever) and the latter is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The key is: Adam was asked a yes/no question as to whether or not he ate from the tree. Thus the question on the mind of god was 'from which tree dost thou eat?' and in the case of Adam: he failed to account for his own actions and blamed the woman, "believing" it was her fault (the word 'eve' is in "believe"). This is reflected in/as the hijab/niqab/burqa wherein "believing" men "believe" the woman is responsible for the actions of the man.

To give credit where credit is due; it was Eves fault.

A good fault, --- or happy faults and necessary to god's plan, --- as sung by Christian.

Adam had the good sense to not say no.

Regards
DL

[nothing]

To give credit where credit is due; it was Eves fault.

A good fault, --- or happy faults and necessary to god's plan, --- as sung by Christian.

Adam had the good sense to not say no.

Regards
DL

Eve was responsible for her own actions, and Adam was responsible for his own.
The original sin relates to whether or not one is able to account for their own actions.

Adam could not account for his own actions, thus blamed the woman (who followed his example by blaming the serpent).
To say it was Eve's fault is to ignorantly do the same: blame the woman. This practically evolves into the veil/hijab/niqab/burqa
wherein "believing" men become single-eyed and possessive of women while religiously abusing them.

Adam had the poor sense to blame the woman. Christians don't even know the ten commandments,
else they would not be Christians bearing a (false) testimony of a crucifixion/resurrection
which allegedly occurred ~2000 years ago, not to mention the problem of accepting
a human sacrifice as atonement.

Knowing all not to believe tends towards any/all all-knowing state, god-or-no-god. This is what the serpent meant when it said one will surely not die but become like god knowing good and evil. However, knowledge of good and evil does not come lest by way of (first) knowing the original sin (the truth is in plain sight at all times from all places). If unknowing of this, the only valid knowledge is knowing one knows not, else: belief.

[Greatest I am]

To give credit where credit is due; it was Eves fault.

A good fault, --- or happy faults and necessary to god's plan, --- as sung by Christian.

Adam had the good sense to not say no.

Regards
DL

Eve was responsible for her own actions, and Adam was responsible for his own.
The original sin relates to whether or not one is able to account for their own actions.

Adam could not account for his own actions, thus blamed the woman (who followed his example by blaming the serpent).
To say it was Eve's fault is to ignorantly do the same: blame the woman. This practically evolves into the veil/hijab/niqab/burqa
wherein "believing" men become single-eyed and possessive of women while religiously abusing them.

Adam had the poor sense to blame the woman. Christians don't even know the ten commandments,
else they would not be Christians bearing a (false) testimony of a crucifixion/resurrection
which allegedly occurred ~2000 years ago, not to mention the problem of accepting
a human sacrifice as atonement.

Knowing all not to believe tends towards any/all all-knowing state, god-or-no-god. This is what the serpent meant when it said one will surely not die but become like god knowing good and evil. However, knowledge of good and evil does not come lest by way of (first) knowing the original sin (the truth is in plain sight at all times from all places). If unknowing of this, the only valid knowledge is knowing one knows not, else: belief.

You are using the word fault like what occurred was evil.

Christians sing, and as their dogma says, without sin, Yahweh's plan would be derailed.

Sin is a good thing, which lines up with the Jewish take of Eden being where man was elevated because he furthered god's plan.

Adam and Eve are to be praised. Not vilified.

If the cast in the yarn that is scriptures cannot be seen as hero's, then all, including god are seen as losers.

That is not good for adult fairy tales.

Regards
DL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWcASV2sey0