Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

[Foxfyre]

Is it a sin to seek knowledge?


Is it a sin to want to open one’s eyes instead of being blind?


Is it a sin to do as scriptures urge us to do?


Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.


Gen 3:2 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:


Adam and Eve were doing exactly what we are all told by scriptures to do, yet God seemed quite upset.


Why is seeking knowledge and ignoring a vile command to remain in ignorant bliss wrong or a sin?


Are you sinning when you seek knowledge and becoming more like God?


Regards

DL

The problem with any scripture is the difference between reading it as it means in our 21st century language and understanding or reading it through the eyes of those who wrote it.

Reading through the eyes of those who wrote it, the second Creation story in Genesis is the allegorical teaching of the Garden of Eden and the original sin, or the first occasion in which humankind, given free will, spoiled God's perfect Creation. The sin was not in seeking knowledge, but in the effort to become as wise and powerful as God instead of loving and obeying God.

From Genesis 3:
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The message as demonstrated throughout scripture is we will always suffer negative consequences when we decide we are smarter, wiser, stronger, or more clever than God and bypass His counsel in favor of our own desires.

Yes but scriptures urge us to be Godlike and God admits in Eden that A & E did just that.

Would you punish your child for wanting to and taking the steps to be just like you?

Regards
DL

And where do you read in the Genesis stories that God wants us to be godlike or referred to Adam and Eve in that way? God obviously intended that mankind be obedient and walk in the way ordained by God which was to enjoy God's perfect creation.

The Genesis stories are symbolic of the sin entering the world, first in the individual Eve, spread to the man Adam, and later on we see how it pervaded the entire family and Cain and Abel, then to the community in the story of Noah, and then throughout the world in the story of Babel. And all along the way we see the consequences and results of that sin as a righteous God will not go against His own Law. We see the old-fashioned Jewish explanations for why things are the way they are, and that there are consequences for sin. And there is a repetitive theme of Creation - Sin - Judgment - Consequence - Redemption that runs through it all.

I recognize that there are many recurring themes. Some good and some evil.

But to your question. You are correct that Genesis does not speak of us striving to be God like but it does clearly elsewhere.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The rest is just good basic parenting that any parent would recognize.

Are you a parent and don't you want your children to reach or exceed whatever you are and can put into them?

As a parent, that is not only my goal but also my duty.

Would God have less of a duty to his children knowing that they can become as Gods in the knowing of good and evil?

Is God less responsible of a parent than humans?

Regards
DL

P. S.
Scriptures say that Eve was deceived so sin came through the man.
This leads to a stranger situation where Adam is more culpable yet God reward him with dominion over Eve. I would have thought that it would have been the other way around but then Christianity would not be the immoral misogynistic creed it is if it acted out of character.

Scriptures do not say that Eve was deceived by Adam or that sin came through the man. Eve was deceived by the serpent and then she persuaded Adam. Adam had already been given dominion over Eve by virtue of him being created first and by virtue of him, not God, saying what the woman would be called. The rest of the story unfolded from there. In ancient Jewish teachings, what God named belonged to God. And a person that named something was given dominion over whatever he named.

Jesus' teaching many millenia later was an admonition to not sin. And he further taught that to accomplish that it was necessary for God/Jesus to 'wash away' the sin that is inherent in all humankind. Two different teachings for very different purposes.

 

[hangover]

Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Jesus said, "Seek the truth and you will find it." That's knowledge.

 

[HaShev]

Penelope,
The NT says he was slew(stoned) and hanged on a tree.
Acts 5:30 Acts 10:39 Acts 13:29 1 Peter 2:24
Yeshu son of Mary of 100bc the Christ Rome lifted higher then the other figures in The Jesus mythology was indeed stoned and hanged on passover not crucified on a cross.
The Crucified Galilean christ at the time of Herod was Yehuda of Galilee a whole other figure. The crucified Christ by the Jordan in the a.d. era was Theudas. His apostles were the martyrs.

You asked:
"Are you trying to say that Jesus is
Lucifer?"
Yes, take the time to look up the dying god rites of the canaanites morning star son of baal.
DAGON(fishman god)=Baals father which lost it's pull so then Baal became his son who surpassed him on the throne, then Baal lost it's charm and so the morning star had to die to surpass his father Baal as most high in heaven. Which is why they never discuss this father by name in the NT. But admit father and son are one because they are the same story and harvest scam=$$$
The wife of baal is Isis said to be the same as Ishtar (easter) who's mythology says son is the morning star.
Note: early text like the gospel of truth scroll (Rev) revealled the original trinity was Father mother son, then became father /word (story)/son before word became holy spirit. Now we see were that fits as we found tablets predating Jesus about Baal which had the exact same stories and Dec 25th was his birthdate.
Look up the Baal Passion play tablets for reference.

 

[HaShev]

quote"Scriptures do not say that Eve was deceived by
Adam or that sin came through the man. Eve was
deceived by the serpent and then she persuaded
Adam. "

correct now since even the church says this is about the false prophet reread it as Adam in Hebrew means man.
Eve the second bride of man partook of the false promise of everlasting life in hades by the false prophet thus convinced man to believe and partake in this serpent (radiant viper not literal snake).

Think about how much bad influence the concept of afterlife paradise has had in getting people to fight for their kings and kingdoms for sake of going to a higher place? How it made life less special as they whored aftwr death promises thus venerayed death over life.
The thousands of wars, even jihaadist all tsinted by this vipers false promises.

 

[GreatestIam]

Further, Jews have a high respect for the serpent as shown with Moses' serpent headed staff.

Do I have that about right?

Regards
DL

No, first of all how do you deduce Jews having respect for the serpent of Genesis through a staff that turned into a snake that was never a prophet and that swallowed the Egyptian snake?
Note: the staff (Hashevet) swallowed the Egyptian Nesasch (serpent) and we all surely know that Yeshu and the Jesus image both are reflective of Egyptian mythology including underworld teachings (to never die life in death=promise of the serpent in Genesis 3.)
and including the fact we know the Hanotzrim cult taught their god to be the rays of light between the sun and earth and Jesus was depicted as this luciferous light as Nesasch refers to a radiating snake light which is what the staff appeared like when swallowing up the serpent. They'd be describing a lazer beam like affect or lightening bolt, which is possible in that era with egyptian battery technology attached to a rod like staff especially knowing the description of the ark of the covenant which carried the Hashevet. So like how we confuse the word use of "clouds" as literal, so to does the serpent get confused as a literal snake when it's a radiant type snake.

Easy Buddy. I want to walk though this and not run.

Lets stick to Eden and stay out of Egypt for the moment. No point in overloading and going all over the place. As I understand the Jewish take of Eden, the serpent was helpful, not hurtful, in helping elevate A & E.

The Original Meaning Of Original Sin The Dish

‘Instead of the Fall of man (in the sense of humanity as a whole), Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants’.

You had seemed to associate the serpent of Eden with Jesus and a good force.

Did I miss-understand you?

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Is it a sin to seek knowledge?


Is it a sin to want to open one’s eyes instead of being blind?


Is it a sin to do as scriptures urge us to do?


Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.


Gen 3:2 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:


Adam and Eve were doing exactly what we are all told by scriptures to do, yet God seemed quite upset.


Why is seeking knowledge and ignoring a vile command to remain in ignorant bliss wrong or a sin?


Are you sinning when you seek knowledge and becoming more like God?


Regards

DL

The problem with any scripture is the difference between reading it as it means in our 21st century language and understanding or reading it through the eyes of those who wrote it.

Reading through the eyes of those who wrote it, the second Creation story in Genesis is the allegorical teaching of the Garden of Eden and the original sin, or the first occasion in which humankind, given free will, spoiled God's perfect Creation. The sin was not in seeking knowledge, but in the effort to become as wise and powerful as God instead of loving and obeying God.

From Genesis 3:
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The message as demonstrated throughout scripture is we will always suffer negative consequences when we decide we are smarter, wiser, stronger, or more clever than God and bypass His counsel in favor of our own desires.

Yes but scriptures urge us to be Godlike and God admits in Eden that A & E did just that.

Would you punish your child for wanting to and taking the steps to be just like you?

Regards
DL

And where do you read in the Genesis stories that God wants us to be godlike or referred to Adam and Eve in that way? God obviously intended that mankind be obedient and walk in the way ordained by God which was to enjoy God's perfect creation.

The Genesis stories are symbolic of the sin entering the world, first in the individual Eve, spread to the man Adam, and later on we see how it pervaded the entire family and Cain and Abel, then to the community in the story of Noah, and then throughout the world in the story of Babel. And all along the way we see the consequences and results of that sin as a righteous God will not go against His own Law. We see the old-fashioned Jewish explanations for why things are the way they are, and that there are consequences for sin. And there is a repetitive theme of Creation - Sin - Judgment - Consequence - Redemption that runs through it all.

I recognize that there are many recurring themes. Some good and some evil.

But to your question. You are correct that Genesis does not speak of us striving to be God like but it does clearly elsewhere.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The rest is just good basic parenting that any parent would recognize.

Are you a parent and don't you want your children to reach or exceed whatever you are and can put into them?

As a parent, that is not only my goal but also my duty.

Would God have less of a duty to his children knowing that they can become as Gods in the knowing of good and evil?

Is God less responsible of a parent than humans?

Regards
DL

P. S.
Scriptures say that Eve was deceived so sin came through the man.
This leads to a stranger situation where Adam is more culpable yet God reward him with dominion over Eve. I would have thought that it would have been the other way around but then Christianity would not be the immoral misogynistic creed it is if it acted out of character.

Scriptures do not say that Eve was deceived by Adam or that sin came through the man. Eve was deceived by the serpent and then she persuaded Adam. Adam had already been given dominion over Eve by virtue of him being created first and by virtue of him, not God, saying what the woman would be called. The rest of the story unfolded from there. In ancient Jewish teachings, what God named belonged to God. And a person that named something was given dominion over whatever he named.

Jesus' teaching many millenia later was an admonition to not sin. And he further taught that to accomplish that it was necessary for God/Jesus to 'wash away' the sin that is inherent in all humankind. Two different teachings for very different purposes.

"Scriptures say that Eve was deceived so sin came through the man."

As you can see, I did not say that Adam deceived anyone. I said Eve was but assumed you would know that the serpent is said to have done the deceiving.

Scriptures are clear that sin came to man through Adam.

Eve did not persuade Adam. Scriptures say she gave to him and he ate. No persuasion there.

If Adam had already been given dominion over Eve, then he would not have repeated it when banishing the pair.

If you are going to go off script then start quoting please.

If sin is inherent in all of mankind then it seems that God is not a decent creator and should not blame man for his lack of competence.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Jesus said, "Seek the truth and you will find it." That's knowledge.

Is Jesus and the God in Eden the same to you? The Triune God?

Regards
DL

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem with any scripture is the difference between reading it as it means in our 21st century language and understanding or reading it through the eyes of those who wrote it.

Reading through the eyes of those who wrote it, the second Creation story in Genesis is the allegorical teaching of the Garden of Eden and the original sin, or the first occasion in which humankind, given free will, spoiled God's perfect Creation. The sin was not in seeking knowledge, but in the effort to become as wise and powerful as God instead of loving and obeying God.

From Genesis 3:
“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The message as demonstrated throughout scripture is we will always suffer negative consequences when we decide we are smarter, wiser, stronger, or more clever than God and bypass His counsel in favor of our own desires.

Yes but scriptures urge us to be Godlike and God admits in Eden that A & E did just that.

Would you punish your child for wanting to and taking the steps to be just like you?

Regards
DL

And where do you read in the Genesis stories that God wants us to be godlike or referred to Adam and Eve in that way? God obviously intended that mankind be obedient and walk in the way ordained by God which was to enjoy God's perfect creation.

The Genesis stories are symbolic of the sin entering the world, first in the individual Eve, spread to the man Adam, and later on we see how it pervaded the entire family and Cain and Abel, then to the community in the story of Noah, and then throughout the world in the story of Babel. And all along the way we see the consequences and results of that sin as a righteous God will not go against His own Law. We see the old-fashioned Jewish explanations for why things are the way they are, and that there are consequences for sin. And there is a repetitive theme of Creation - Sin - Judgment - Consequence - Redemption that runs through it all.

I recognize that there are many recurring themes. Some good and some evil.

But to your question. You are correct that Genesis does not speak of us striving to be God like but it does clearly elsewhere.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The rest is just good basic parenting that any parent would recognize.

Are you a parent and don't you want your children to reach or exceed whatever you are and can put into them?

As a parent, that is not only my goal but also my duty.

Would God have less of a duty to his children knowing that they can become as Gods in the knowing of good and evil?

Is God less responsible of a parent than humans?

Regards
DL

P. S.
Scriptures say that Eve was deceived so sin came through the man.
This leads to a stranger situation where Adam is more culpable yet God reward him with dominion over Eve. I would have thought that it would have been the other way around but then Christianity would not be the immoral misogynistic creed it is if it acted out of character.

Scriptures do not say that Eve was deceived by Adam or that sin came through the man. Eve was deceived by the serpent and then she persuaded Adam. Adam had already been given dominion over Eve by virtue of him being created first and by virtue of him, not God, saying what the woman would be called. The rest of the story unfolded from there. In ancient Jewish teachings, what God named belonged to God. And a person that named something was given dominion over whatever he named.

Jesus' teaching many millenia later was an admonition to not sin. And he further taught that to accomplish that it was necessary for God/Jesus to 'wash away' the sin that is inherent in all humankind. Two different teachings for very different purposes.

"Scriptures say that Eve was deceived so sin came through the man."

As you can see, I did not say that Adam deceived anyone. I said Eve was but assumed you would know that the serpent is said to have done the deceiving.

Scriptures are clear that sin came to man through Adam.

Eve did not persuade Adam. Scriptures say she gave to him and he ate. No persuasion there.

If Adam had already been given dominion over Eve, then he would not have repeated it when banishing the pair.

If you are going to go off script then start quoting please.

If sin is inherent in all of mankind then it seems that God is not a decent creator and should not blame man for his lack of competence.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Regards
DL

I have been quoting the scriptures to support my interpretation, and I'll stand by my interpretation. But we can amicably agree to disagree since I do not think it important how anybody interprets the Genesis stories in the grand scheme of things.

 

[GreatestIam]

Yes but scriptures urge us to be Godlike and God admits in Eden that A & E did just that.

Would you punish your child for wanting to and taking the steps to be just like you?

Regards
DL

And where do you read in the Genesis stories that God wants us to be godlike or referred to Adam and Eve in that way? God obviously intended that mankind be obedient and walk in the way ordained by God which was to enjoy God's perfect creation.

The Genesis stories are symbolic of the sin entering the world, first in the individual Eve, spread to the man Adam, and later on we see how it pervaded the entire family and Cain and Abel, then to the community in the story of Noah, and then throughout the world in the story of Babel. And all along the way we see the consequences and results of that sin as a righteous God will not go against His own Law. We see the old-fashioned Jewish explanations for why things are the way they are, and that there are consequences for sin. And there is a repetitive theme of Creation - Sin - Judgment - Consequence - Redemption that runs through it all.

I recognize that there are many recurring themes. Some good and some evil.

But to your question. You are correct that Genesis does not speak of us striving to be God like but it does clearly elsewhere.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The rest is just good basic parenting that any parent would recognize.

Are you a parent and don't you want your children to reach or exceed whatever you are and can put into them?

As a parent, that is not only my goal but also my duty.

Would God have less of a duty to his children knowing that they can become as Gods in the knowing of good and evil?

Is God less responsible of a parent than humans?

Regards
DL

P. S.
Scriptures say that Eve was deceived so sin came through the man.
This leads to a stranger situation where Adam is more culpable yet God reward him with dominion over Eve. I would have thought that it would have been the other way around but then Christianity would not be the immoral misogynistic creed it is if it acted out of character.

Scriptures do not say that Eve was deceived by Adam or that sin came through the man. Eve was deceived by the serpent and then she persuaded Adam. Adam had already been given dominion over Eve by virtue of him being created first and by virtue of him, not God, saying what the woman would be called. The rest of the story unfolded from there. In ancient Jewish teachings, what God named belonged to God. And a person that named something was given dominion over whatever he named.

Jesus' teaching many millenia later was an admonition to not sin. And he further taught that to accomplish that it was necessary for God/Jesus to 'wash away' the sin that is inherent in all humankind. Two different teachings for very different purposes.

"Scriptures say that Eve was deceived so sin came through the man."

As you can see, I did not say that Adam deceived anyone. I said Eve was but assumed you would know that the serpent is said to have done the deceiving.

Scriptures are clear that sin came to man through Adam.

Eve did not persuade Adam. Scriptures say she gave to him and he ate. No persuasion there.

If Adam had already been given dominion over Eve, then he would not have repeated it when banishing the pair.

If you are going to go off script then start quoting please.

If sin is inherent in all of mankind then it seems that God is not a decent creator and should not blame man for his lack of competence.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Regards
DL

I have been quoting the scriptures to support my interpretation, and I'll stand by my interpretation. But we can amicably agree to disagree since I do not think it important how anybody interprets the Genesis stories in the grand scheme of things.

I do not see Eden as un-important at all.

I see how people look at it as of the highest importance as that myth has been used by Christianity to institutionalize it's misogynous policies.

It has and continues to make second class citizens out of women.

Do you have women in your family?

Note how they probably are paid less than a man for the same work thanks in large part to Christianity and their refusal to give women equality.

Regards
DL

 

[Foxfyre]

And where do you read in the Genesis stories that God wants us to be godlike or referred to Adam and Eve in that way? God obviously intended that mankind be obedient and walk in the way ordained by God which was to enjoy God's perfect creation.

The Genesis stories are symbolic of the sin entering the world, first in the individual Eve, spread to the man Adam, and later on we see how it pervaded the entire family and Cain and Abel, then to the community in the story of Noah, and then throughout the world in the story of Babel. And all along the way we see the consequences and results of that sin as a righteous God will not go against His own Law. We see the old-fashioned Jewish explanations for why things are the way they are, and that there are consequences for sin. And there is a repetitive theme of Creation - Sin - Judgment - Consequence - Redemption that runs through it all.

I recognize that there are many recurring themes. Some good and some evil.

But to your question. You are correct that Genesis does not speak of us striving to be God like but it does clearly elsewhere.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The rest is just good basic parenting that any parent would recognize.

Are you a parent and don't you want your children to reach or exceed whatever you are and can put into them?

As a parent, that is not only my goal but also my duty.

Would God have less of a duty to his children knowing that they can become as Gods in the knowing of good and evil?

Is God less responsible of a parent than humans?

Regards
DL

P. S.
Scriptures say that Eve was deceived so sin came through the man.
This leads to a stranger situation where Adam is more culpable yet God reward him with dominion over Eve. I would have thought that it would have been the other way around but then Christianity would not be the immoral misogynistic creed it is if it acted out of character.

Scriptures do not say that Eve was deceived by Adam or that sin came through the man. Eve was deceived by the serpent and then she persuaded Adam. Adam had already been given dominion over Eve by virtue of him being created first and by virtue of him, not God, saying what the woman would be called. The rest of the story unfolded from there. In ancient Jewish teachings, what God named belonged to God. And a person that named something was given dominion over whatever he named.

Jesus' teaching many millenia later was an admonition to not sin. And he further taught that to accomplish that it was necessary for God/Jesus to 'wash away' the sin that is inherent in all humankind. Two different teachings for very different purposes.

"Scriptures say that Eve was deceived so sin came through the man."

As you can see, I did not say that Adam deceived anyone. I said Eve was but assumed you would know that the serpent is said to have done the deceiving.

Scriptures are clear that sin came to man through Adam.

Eve did not persuade Adam. Scriptures say she gave to him and he ate. No persuasion there.

If Adam had already been given dominion over Eve, then he would not have repeated it when banishing the pair.

If you are going to go off script then start quoting please.

If sin is inherent in all of mankind then it seems that God is not a decent creator and should not blame man for his lack of competence.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Regards
DL

I have been quoting the scriptures to support my interpretation, and I'll stand by my interpretation. But we can amicably agree to disagree since I do not think it important how anybody interprets the Genesis stories in the grand scheme of things.

I do not see Eden as un-important at all.

I see how people look at it as of the highest importance as that myth has been used by Christianity to institutionalize it's misogynous policies.

It has and continues to make second class citizens out of women.

Do you have women in your family?

Note how they probably are paid less than a man for the same work thanks in large part to Christianity and their refusal to give women equality.

Regards
DL

I certainly do have women in my family. I AM a woman in my family. And I do not interpret the Garden of Eden story as misogynistic or in any way to blame for how people get paid today. It is purely an ancient Jewish story to illustrate their understanding of God in anthropogenic context and an allegorical explanation of why things are the way they are or, in a more theological context, an illustration of the consequences of sin and how sin affects not just the sinner but affects everybody.

Again I do not require anybody else to interpret the stories as I do.

 

[irosie91]

Hezekiah destroyed the brass serpent which moses had made-
He was king of Judea several centuries later. It is a threshold
moment in the sublime epic which is the OT (sorry penny---way over your head) The name Hezekiah means ---roughly---
"strength of G-d" Hezekiah called the object--a "piece of brass"

 

[GreatestIam]

I recognize that there are many recurring themes. Some good and some evil.

But to your question. You are correct that Genesis does not speak of us striving to be God like but it does clearly elsewhere.

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The rest is just good basic parenting that any parent would recognize.

Are you a parent and don't you want your children to reach or exceed whatever you are and can put into them?

As a parent, that is not only my goal but also my duty.

Would God have less of a duty to his children knowing that they can become as Gods in the knowing of good and evil?

Is God less responsible of a parent than humans?

Regards
DL

P. S.
Scriptures say that Eve was deceived so sin came through the man.
This leads to a stranger situation where Adam is more culpable yet God reward him with dominion over Eve. I would have thought that it would have been the other way around but then Christianity would not be the immoral misogynistic creed it is if it acted out of character.

Scriptures do not say that Eve was deceived by Adam or that sin came through the man. Eve was deceived by the serpent and then she persuaded Adam. Adam had already been given dominion over Eve by virtue of him being created first and by virtue of him, not God, saying what the woman would be called. The rest of the story unfolded from there. In ancient Jewish teachings, what God named belonged to God. And a person that named something was given dominion over whatever he named.

Jesus' teaching many millenia later was an admonition to not sin. And he further taught that to accomplish that it was necessary for God/Jesus to 'wash away' the sin that is inherent in all humankind. Two different teachings for very different purposes.

"Scriptures say that Eve was deceived so sin came through the man."

As you can see, I did not say that Adam deceived anyone. I said Eve was but assumed you would know that the serpent is said to have done the deceiving.

Scriptures are clear that sin came to man through Adam.

Eve did not persuade Adam. Scriptures say she gave to him and he ate. No persuasion there.

If Adam had already been given dominion over Eve, then he would not have repeated it when banishing the pair.

If you are going to go off script then start quoting please.

If sin is inherent in all of mankind then it seems that God is not a decent creator and should not blame man for his lack of competence.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Regards
DL

I have been quoting the scriptures to support my interpretation, and I'll stand by my interpretation. But we can amicably agree to disagree since I do not think it important how anybody interprets the Genesis stories in the grand scheme of things.

I do not see Eden as un-important at all.

I see how people look at it as of the highest importance as that myth has been used by Christianity to institutionalize it's misogynous policies.

It has and continues to make second class citizens out of women.

Do you have women in your family?

Note how they probably are paid less than a man for the same work thanks in large part to Christianity and their refusal to give women equality.

Regards
DL

I certainly do have women in my family. I AM a woman in my family. And I do not interpret the Garden of Eden story as misogynistic or in any way to blame for how people get paid today. It is purely an ancient Jewish story to illustrate their understanding of God in anthropogenic context and an allegorical explanation of why things are the way they are or, in a more theological context, an illustration of the consequences of sin and how sin affects not just the sinner but affects everybody.

Again I do not require anybody else to interpret the stories as I do.

Yet Christianity has used this myth to bludgeon women into second class citizens forever.

That institutionalized misogyny is why I try to discredit this myth when I can.

Literal reading and a misogynous church are the culprits more than the myth itself.

Regards
DL

 

[irosie91]

Scriptures do not say that Eve was deceived by Adam or that sin came through the man. Eve was deceived by the serpent and then she persuaded Adam. Adam had already been given dominion over Eve by virtue of him being created first and by virtue of him, not God, saying what the woman would be called. The rest of the story unfolded from there. In ancient Jewish teachings, what God named belonged to God. And a person that named something was given dominion over whatever he named.

Jesus' teaching many millenia later was an admonition to not sin. And he further taught that to accomplish that it was necessary for God/Jesus to 'wash away' the sin that is inherent in all humankind. Two different teachings for very different purposes.

"Scriptures say that Eve was deceived so sin came through the man."

As you can see, I did not say that Adam deceived anyone. I said Eve was but assumed you would know that the serpent is said to have done the deceiving.

Scriptures are clear that sin came to man through Adam.

Eve did not persuade Adam. Scriptures say she gave to him and he ate. No persuasion there.

If Adam had already been given dominion over Eve, then he would not have repeated it when banishing the pair.

If you are going to go off script then start quoting please.

If sin is inherent in all of mankind then it seems that God is not a decent creator and should not blame man for his lack of competence.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Regards
DL

I have been quoting the scriptures to support my interpretation, and I'll stand by my interpretation. But we can amicably agree to disagree since I do not think it important how anybody interprets the Genesis stories in the grand scheme of things.

I do not see Eden as un-important at all.

I see how people look at it as of the highest importance as that myth has been used by Christianity to institutionalize it's misogynous policies.

It has and continues to make second class citizens out of women.

Do you have women in your family?

Note how they probably are paid less than a man for the same work thanks in large part to Christianity and their refusal to give women equality.

Regards
DL

I certainly do have women in my family. I AM a woman in my family. And I do not interpret the Garden of Eden story as misogynistic or in any way to blame for how people get paid today. It is purely an ancient Jewish story to illustrate their understanding of God in anthropogenic context and an allegorical explanation of why things are the way they are or, in a more theological context, an illustration of the consequences of sin and how sin affects not just the sinner but affects everybody.

Again I do not require anybody else to interpret the stories as I do.

Yet Christianity has used this myth to bludgeon women into second class citizens forever.

That institutionalized misogyny is why I try to discredit this myth when I can.

Literal reading and a misogynous church are the culprits more than the myth itself.

Regards
DL

there is nothing inherently MYSOGYNIST in the myth ---in fact, it is more like a story which sorta explains the roots of
the contemporaneous situation.------ie----it is a fairly typical
myth. The nice part is that it puts the BLAME ON ---not mame---BUT ADAM ----that hairy brute. It is sorta sympathetic to eve----recognizing her child-birth pains-----and
yet sentencing poor idiot ADAM to eternal HARD LABOR

 

[Foxfyre]

Scriptures do not say that Eve was deceived by Adam or that sin came through the man. Eve was deceived by the serpent and then she persuaded Adam. Adam had already been given dominion over Eve by virtue of him being created first and by virtue of him, not God, saying what the woman would be called. The rest of the story unfolded from there. In ancient Jewish teachings, what God named belonged to God. And a person that named something was given dominion over whatever he named.

Jesus' teaching many millenia later was an admonition to not sin. And he further taught that to accomplish that it was necessary for God/Jesus to 'wash away' the sin that is inherent in all humankind. Two different teachings for very different purposes.

"Scriptures say that Eve was deceived so sin came through the man."

As you can see, I did not say that Adam deceived anyone. I said Eve was but assumed you would know that the serpent is said to have done the deceiving.

Scriptures are clear that sin came to man through Adam.

Eve did not persuade Adam. Scriptures say she gave to him and he ate. No persuasion there.

If Adam had already been given dominion over Eve, then he would not have repeated it when banishing the pair.

If you are going to go off script then start quoting please.

If sin is inherent in all of mankind then it seems that God is not a decent creator and should not blame man for his lack of competence.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Regards
DL

I have been quoting the scriptures to support my interpretation, and I'll stand by my interpretation. But we can amicably agree to disagree since I do not think it important how anybody interprets the Genesis stories in the grand scheme of things.

I do not see Eden as un-important at all.

I see how people look at it as of the highest importance as that myth has been used by Christianity to institutionalize it's misogynous policies.

It has and continues to make second class citizens out of women.

Do you have women in your family?

Note how they probably are paid less than a man for the same work thanks in large part to Christianity and their refusal to give women equality.

Regards
DL

I certainly do have women in my family. I AM a woman in my family. And I do not interpret the Garden of Eden story as misogynistic or in any way to blame for how people get paid today. It is purely an ancient Jewish story to illustrate their understanding of God in anthropogenic context and an allegorical explanation of why things are the way they are or, in a more theological context, an illustration of the consequences of sin and how sin affects not just the sinner but affects everybody.

Again I do not require anybody else to interpret the stories as I do.

Yet Christianity has used this myth to bludgeon women into second class citizens forever.

That institutionalized misogyny is why I try to discredit this myth when I can.

Literal reading and a misogynous church are the culprits more than the myth itself.

Regards
DL

I'm sorry. I misinterpreted your OP to be an invitation to discuss scripture. I didn't expect it to be a lead in for a sociopolitical agenda but I now see the purpose was just that. I hope you get what you're looking for. Do have a pleasant evening.

 

[irosie91]

for the record----THE STAIN OF ORIGINAL SIN-----
is a Christian concept----not that there is something
inherently wrong with it----but it simply does not actually
show up in jewish imagery-----HOWEVER --the concept
of people being penalized GENERATION AFTER GENERATION by "heaven" does exist in Jewish imagery---
a BIG THREAT

 

[GreatestIam]

"Scriptures say that Eve was deceived so sin came through the man."

As you can see, I did not say that Adam deceived anyone. I said Eve was but assumed you would know that the serpent is said to have done the deceiving.

Scriptures are clear that sin came to man through Adam.

Eve did not persuade Adam. Scriptures say she gave to him and he ate. No persuasion there.

If Adam had already been given dominion over Eve, then he would not have repeated it when banishing the pair.

If you are going to go off script then start quoting please.

If sin is inherent in all of mankind then it seems that God is not a decent creator and should not blame man for his lack of competence.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Regards
DL

I have been quoting the scriptures to support my interpretation, and I'll stand by my interpretation. But we can amicably agree to disagree since I do not think it important how anybody interprets the Genesis stories in the grand scheme of things.

I do not see Eden as un-important at all.

I see how people look at it as of the highest importance as that myth has been used by Christianity to institutionalize it's misogynous policies.

It has and continues to make second class citizens out of women.

Do you have women in your family?

Note how they probably are paid less than a man for the same work thanks in large part to Christianity and their refusal to give women equality.

Regards
DL

I certainly do have women in my family. I AM a woman in my family. And I do not interpret the Garden of Eden story as misogynistic or in any way to blame for how people get paid today. It is purely an ancient Jewish story to illustrate their understanding of God in anthropogenic context and an allegorical explanation of why things are the way they are or, in a more theological context, an illustration of the consequences of sin and how sin affects not just the sinner but affects everybody.

Again I do not require anybody else to interpret the stories as I do.

Yet Christianity has used this myth to bludgeon women into second class citizens forever.

That institutionalized misogyny is why I try to discredit this myth when I can.

Literal reading and a misogynous church are the culprits more than the myth itself.

Regards
DL

there is nothing inherently MYSOGYNIST in the myth ---in fact, it is more like a story which sorta explains the roots of
the contemporaneous situation.------ie----it is a fairly typical
myth. The nice part is that it puts the BLAME ON ---not mame---BUT ADAM ----that hairy brute. It is sorta sympathetic to eve----recognizing her child-birth pains-----and
yet sentencing poor idiot ADAM to eternal HARD LABOR

So, --- he shall rule over you, does not indicate misogyny to you.

Or the fact that due to the fall, women will not be allowed to teach men and must shut up in church.

You forget that Eves pain was increased and with Adam as her master, Eve, who was less culpable ends with the short end of the stick.

If that isn't misogyny to you I suggest a bite of the tree of knowledge to open your eyes. Here. Have a bite.



Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

"Scriptures say that Eve was deceived so sin came through the man."

As you can see, I did not say that Adam deceived anyone. I said Eve was but assumed you would know that the serpent is said to have done the deceiving.

Scriptures are clear that sin came to man through Adam.

Eve did not persuade Adam. Scriptures say she gave to him and he ate. No persuasion there.

If Adam had already been given dominion over Eve, then he would not have repeated it when banishing the pair.

If you are going to go off script then start quoting please.

If sin is inherent in all of mankind then it seems that God is not a decent creator and should not blame man for his lack of competence.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Regards
DL

I have been quoting the scriptures to support my interpretation, and I'll stand by my interpretation. But we can amicably agree to disagree since I do not think it important how anybody interprets the Genesis stories in the grand scheme of things.

I do not see Eden as un-important at all.

I see how people look at it as of the highest importance as that myth has been used by Christianity to institutionalize it's misogynous policies.

It has and continues to make second class citizens out of women.

Do you have women in your family?

Note how they probably are paid less than a man for the same work thanks in large part to Christianity and their refusal to give women equality.

Regards
DL

I certainly do have women in my family. I AM a woman in my family. And I do not interpret the Garden of Eden story as misogynistic or in any way to blame for how people get paid today. It is purely an ancient Jewish story to illustrate their understanding of God in anthropogenic context and an allegorical explanation of why things are the way they are or, in a more theological context, an illustration of the consequences of sin and how sin affects not just the sinner but affects everybody.

Again I do not require anybody else to interpret the stories as I do.

Yet Christianity has used this myth to bludgeon women into second class citizens forever.

That institutionalized misogyny is why I try to discredit this myth when I can.

Literal reading and a misogynous church are the culprits more than the myth itself.

Regards
DL

I'm sorry. I misinterpreted your OP to be an invitation to discuss scripture. I didn't expect it to be a lead in for a sociopolitical agenda but I now see the purpose was just that. I hope you get what you're looking for. Do have a pleasant evening.

I admit to thinking that equality is tied to righteousness and wish to bring Christians to that concept.

Sorry you do not think that quest worthy. It goes further than that though. World piece. Shallow thinkers may not see it.

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

Christian and Muslim inequality OUT. World piece IN.

Oversimplification? Perhaps.

All worthy theologies and legal philosophies tie righteousness to equality.

Christianity and Islam are retarding humanities spiritual growth with their homophobic and misogynous policies that are guaranteed to produce inequality and thus unrighteousness.

If Christians and Muslims cannot give their own people equality, it obviously means that Christians and Muslims are already denigrating and discriminating against better than half the members of all the other religions and non-believers. This prevents mutual respect and rapprochement of the world’s religions and makes world peace impossible?

War begins with inequality and that is what Christianity and Islam are all about at present. Those two major religions cannot co-exist without a policy of equality. Equality is the corner stone of justice and both Christianity and Islam do not grant this most fundamental of all legal tenets.

I believe that if we could change Christian and Muslim attitudes on equality, world piece would soon follow.

Christians and Muslims. What are you waiting for to become righteous people?

Regards
DLL

 

[GreatestIam]

for the record----THE STAIN OF ORIGINAL SIN-----
is a Christian concept----not that there is something
inherently wrong with it----but it simply does not actually
show up in jewish imagery-----HOWEVER --the concept
of people being penalized GENERATION AFTER GENERATION by "heaven" does exist in Jewish imagery---
a BIG THREAT

But the concept of the son not bearing the burden of a fathers sin appears in more places and not surprising as that is the just way to think. Right?

Regards
DL

 

[HaShev]

Grt,
Note the significance in the Garden of Eden, it's location is describing the rivers crossing in Ancient Persia where the Mythology of Mithra was born and existed and duality of good evil existed in Zoroastrianism.
In Ezekiel 28 the son of perdition (false fallen prophet) is said to be the "image of a man" who walked the garden, Jesus image was first made in the ancient Persian region thus did exist in the Garden, through Romes converging of mythologies especially Mithra which was big in Tarsus through soldiers bringing it there.

 

[Bonzi]

Is it a sin to seek knowledge?


Is it a sin to want to open one’s eyes instead of being blind?


Is it a sin to do as scriptures urge us to do?


Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.


Gen 3:2 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:


Adam and Eve were doing exactly what we are all told by scriptures to do, yet God seemed quite upset.


Why is seeking knowledge and ignoring a vile command to remain in ignorant bliss wrong or a sin?


Are you sinning when you seek knowledge and becoming more like God?


Regards

DL

Someone else said it but the disobedience was the sin.

If God says it's a sin, it's a sin. The entire Bible needs to be approached with the belief that God is incapable of error. If you don't buy that, it all falls apart.