WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-10-2011, 10:41 AM
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Paradise Lost:
"Their act of eating the forbidden fruit symbolizes the abuse of human freedom. Their act represents the temptation to "play God", rejecting any dependence on God by deciding completely on their own what is good or bad." -Anon

"deciding completely on their own what is good or bad" -> They didn't even know what both were or their difference. This is what they're teaching us now. DAMN.

Sht :|.

Honesty is not doing what is right because you fear that there is someone watching over you, Honesty is doing what is right even when there is no one looking
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2011, 04:53 PM
RE: WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Hey, Jah.

What this person means, I suspect, is that the eating of the fruit GAVE them that knowledge. Once they possessed that knowledge, they began to decide for themselves what was good and what was bad; a job that up until that point had been the domain of God (or chance, or causality, or insert governing force here). So it was an abuse of freedom both in the act of consumption and in the descision to "play God" once they had that knowledge.

Daniel Quinn speaks about this a great deal in his critique of the common interpretation of the Story of the Fall.

Daniel Quinn Wrote:What the Semitic authors knew was only the present fact that their brothers from the north were encroaching on them in a murderous way. They hadn't been physically present in the Fertile Crescent to witness the actual birth of agriculture, and in fact this was an event that had occurred hundreds of years earlier. In their story of the Fall, they were reconstructing an ancient event, not reporting a recent one. All that was clear to them was that some strange development had saddled their brothers to the north with a laborious lifestyle and had turned them into murderers, and this had to be a moral or spiritual catastrophe of some kind.

What they observed about their brothers to the north was this peculiarity. They seemed to have the strange idea that they knew how to run the world as well as God. This is what marks them as our cultural ancestors. As we go about our business of running the world, we have no doubt that we're doing as good a job as God, if not better. Obviously God put a lot of creatures in the world that are quite superfluous and even pernicious, and we're quite at liberty to get rid of them. We know where the rivers should run, where the swamps should be drained, where the forests should be razed, where the mountains should be leveled, where the plains should be scoured, where the rain should fall. To us, it's perfectly obvious that we have this knowledge.

In fact, to the authors of the stories in Genesis, it looked as if their brothers to the north had the bizarre idea that they had eaten at God's own tree of wisdom and had gained the very knowledge God uses to rule the world. And what knowledge is this? It's a knowledge that only God is competent to use, the knowledge that every single action God might take--no matter what it is, no matter how large or small--is good for one but evil for another. If a fox is stalking a pheasant, it's in the hands of God whether she will catch the pheasant or the pheasant will escape. If God gives the fox the pheasant, then this is good for the fox but evil for the pheasant. If God allows the pheasant to escape, then this is good for the pheasant but evil for the fox. There's no outcome that can be good for both. The same is true in every area of the world's governance. If God allows the valley to be flooded, then this is good for some but evil for others. If God holds back the flood then this too will be good for some but evil for others.

Decisions of this kind are clearly at the very root of what it means to rule the world, and the wisdom to make them cannot possibly belong to any mere creature, for any creature making such decisions would inevitably say, "I will make every choice so that it's good for me but evil for all others." And of course this is precisely how the agriculturalist operates, saying, "If I scour this plain to plant food for myself, then this will be evil for all the creatures that inhabit the plain, but it'll be good for me. If I raze this forest to plant food for myself, then this will be evil for all the creatures that inhabit the forest, but it'll be good for me."

What the authors of the stories in Genesis perceived was that their brothers to the north had taken into their own hands the rule of the world; they had usurped the role of God. Those who let God run the world and take the food that he's planted for them have an easy life. But those who want to run the world themselves must necessarily plant their own food, must necessarily make their living by the sweat of the brow. As this makes plain, agriculture was not the crime itself but rather the result of the crime, the punishment that must inevitably follow such a crime. It was wielding the knowledge of good and evil that had turned their brothers in the north into farmers--and into murderers.
SOURCE

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ghost's post
24-10-2011, 04:59 PM
RE: WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
I actually ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil... Cool

Doesn't exist, sayeth the fruit.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: