naman   Your Quote     my Sunday schoool teacher taught me to view God as the old man in the sky who planted the Garden of Eden and created man. Then Satan came along and told Eve that man might as well enjoy the fruit from the tree of life.

I think your Sunday School Teacher was a little mixed up ---God told Adam and Eve they could eat of all the trees in the garden which included the tree of life but that were not to eat of the tree in the mist of the garden which was the tree of knowledge of good and evil . God said if you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you will die --(Spiritual Death ) Satan then got Eve to question what God had said by putting doubt that she would really die .Eve made her choice to act on the doubt and she duped Adam who also acted on and betrayed God's command  given to him and they were banished from the garden .

Getting the story straight will help you understand better the role Satan plays in our lives today . Satan job is to keep you away from God and His word  so he can rule your thoughts with suggestions--doubt --fear and questings that go against God's will  for you . Scripture says Satan comes to kill --steal --and destroy you .

Don't know if this is what your looking for in your question --hope it helps

Peace

Yeah I was thinking this too.  Not really important to the point of naman's question, though.

I'm curious as to which verse states this.  Could you give chapter and verse for it?

Of course, not knowing what good and evil were, they could hardly be faulted for their actions.  They were, according to the story, amoral automatons - without any moral knowledge at all.  They didn't gain such understanding until after they ate from the tree.

Further, the story is very clear on the point that it was never God's intention for humans to have morality.  We were only intended to obey.  Morality is, thus, a sin.  According to that story.

I was hoping that bolding text would indicate that the bolded text was what I was talking about.  Care to answer the question?

Hi Naman:

I think the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" is symbolic of dualistic or analytical knowledge: the knowledge that there are diametrically opposed opposites, and the difference between the two.

But analytical knowledge, despite its logical clarity, or rather because of its logical clarity, has its downfalls, because it necessarily has to be perused or pursued from a particular viewpoint, known as the viewpoint of the observer. In science, the viewpoint of the observer is strictly regulated and limited, but human experience can have a virtually limitless number of viewpoints and truths, every one of them arbitrarily chosen by the observer.

And that's were we ensnare ourselves, or get ensnared by those who want to entrap us. An arbitrarily chosen viewpoint gets chosen by us, or presented to us, and a crystal clear tower of logic is built upon this arbitrary assumption. The tower appears to be unassailably flawless, but when you pull the arbitrary assumption out from under it, the crystal tower collapses into a pile of shards. The trouble is that the underlying viewpoint, which constitutes the foundation of the tower, is not logical but an arbitrary assumption.

There is, however, another tree in Genesis: The Tree of Life. If we eat from IT, then we become as gods. The Tree of Life, in my opinion, symbolizes the knowledge of the unity between opposites: the unitive state of the universe as the ultimate knowledge and the absolute, capital T Truth.

This ultimate knowledge and absolute Truth, however, has to be experienced and felt to be real. IT is the experience of the universe as an inseparable whole, whereas analytical knowledge constitutes a fragmentation of the whole.

I think our aim in life should be to experience ultimate Truth. And the highest goal of any spiritual organization should be to facilitate such experience.

Our knowledge is fragmentary, and our prophecies are fragmentation.

But when that which is perfect has come, then the fragmentation will end.

1Cor13: 9,10 (Martin Luther Version)

So much for my Sunday morning sermon.

Azdgan

The bolded text is what kind of death they would experience-- seperation from God  ---Period ----

Peace

Yes, I get what you meant.  Care to answer the original question?

To be clear, I am asking which verse states that they were threatened with spiritual death.

I've heard it explained this way. 

As human beings were evolving to become satient beings, they found themselves in a beautiful garden - a paradise where, with a little effort, they could obtain food and water and everything they needed.  They lived freely and happily among the animals, not worrying about the future, not thinking beyond the moment.  Eat when hungry; rest when weary; let the natural rythm of day and night, the seasonal availability of food, etc, control their lives.

Then Eve got restless.  She started asking questions - of Adam, of herself.  She observed the animals (perhaps even the serpent).  She learned from them.  She ate of the tree of knowledge - she learned to think ahead, to make plans, to adjust and prepare for the future.  She began to think of some things as good and others as evil.  (ie  good things, good activities produced good results; bad things or activities caused pain or discomfort or hardship.  She shared everything she learned with her companion, Adam.

Somewhere along the way she began to understand the differences between the sexes and the process of procreation.  And she and Adam, who until that time shared a casual but fulfilling sexual relationship, began to think of their bodies with their natural functions as something to be ashamed of.  Something to hide or cover with fig leaves.  And they considered sex as dirty and evil - something that animals engaged in.  Unable to completely surpress their natural urges they made up all sorts of rules and taboos around it.

At about the same time as they gained the knowledge of good and evil (and decided sex was evil), they also became aware that death was all around them, and just as animals died, they too would someday die.  They were no different than the animals.  They were denied the fruit of the tree of life.  They would die - as would their children - and their children's children. 

They had the knowledge of good and evil.   But they would surely die, because they didn't have the tree of life.

Interesting discussion so far, but not really quite what is on my mind. Let us look at from the point of view of a seven year old boy who just came home from a United Church Sunday School class where they discussed the Garden of Eden. How is it being presented to him?

Hi naman,

Try modeling him on Heath Ledger's Joker from The Dark Knight.  Particularly the logic the Joker employs in certain contexts.  Very tempting.

As a plot device I think it has gone as far as it needed to.  If you are wondering about the actual tree or if there was an actual tree then the fact that it is, according to the narrative, shut up in the Garden of Eden and under the watch of  cherubim (at least two cherubs and they are not at all as commonly depicted) and a flaming sword nobody is getting their mitts on them anytime soon.

Theologically speaking there is quite a difference of opinion regarding the tree and whether it represents a fall from grace or a fall forward in grace (you'd think that since both acknowledge a fall that both would be considered negatively--but that isn't so).

With respect to social justice and economics it would depend on which vision for either you adhere to.  Not all models start with a tree of knowledge and so they don't have useful reference points to guage in their development.  They can be compared against other models that do acknowlede the tree and evaluated based on that comparison.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Once mankind decides for itself what is good and evil and justifies our own selfish actions using both good and evil, we go from a common definition as promoted by God, to at present, 7 billion definitions decided by mankind. Satan  was known as the Tempter, the one who would cast doubt in the minds of any who would dare see beyond the traditional ways of mankind, promoting instead the power of ones own self to become a god created in our own image.

Back when I was a tot in the United Church, they pretty much just told us the Adam & Eve story of Creation as found in the Bible. I was three in 1967 though. As to what's being presented to kids in the UCCanada these days, I have no idea. In my Fellowship Baptist denomination, kids are still taught the A&E story.

These are my views ......

The old man in the sky - has been replaced by a universal consciousness that surrounds every molecule, atom and Higgs Boson in the universe. This consciousness loves us.

The Garden of Eden - the physical world that existed before we decided to leave it. God didn't kick us out. We walked out. In the N.T. the garden is refered to as "The Kingdom". In A Course In Miraclkes it is refered to as "The Real World".

updated version of Satan - never existed. But we had to blame someone.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - the real knowledge of how our reality works. We were never forbidden from eating of that tree. But again, it makes a good story.

About a year ago I heard a sermon (Presby.) about Adam, Eve and the Garden that sounded like ones I had heard 50 years ago (Baptist) - straight copy of Genesis. I questioned the minister about the need to move this into the present, but "not interested".

The present being a world intent on itself?

"Our knowledge is fragmentary, and our prophecies are fragmentation.

But when that which is perfect has come, then the fragmentation will end.

1Cor13: 9,10 (Martin Luther Version)

So much for my Sunday morning sermon. "

Is this integral with the sense that if we have knowledge it'll cool the emotions, an emotional death in the river of knowledge ... sapience?

Then, there is that story of Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil ... queer story? Some think it true others believe it a myth that has subliminal meaning (understanding?) . Something will come to light over it aD IT, or aD Ur, the bite of L'uv makes you process toxins --- Cleopatra!

In a Roman Cadeuces .. thought is toxic ...

That's the way it still stands as we are told not to think---autocracy, or auton-o'mus'?

Hi Arminius,

For an interesting take on immortality see my post "The Garden".

Your Buddy on the Path - Poguru

The old man in the sky - I'm pretty much in agreement with JamesK here, Universal Consciousness. But I would add that we still need to keep things in perspective and realize that there are many mansions or "levels of awareness" of Universal Consciousness.

The Garden of Eden - a place describing paradise. In our case, a paradise from which the Human Soul "fell" into the incarnation of physical form.

updated version of Satan - always existed since the beginning of time, the forces of the material world, i.e. the fires deep within the Earth that helps keeps the world in place.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil - a crossroad where the pairs of opposites result in the separation (in awareness only) between the form and the soul. This separation results in the treading of a long journey home again where, once the physical ego becomes aware of the soul again, it will finally know the place for the first time.

Yes, Poguru, we are forever in The Garden. If only we knew, eh, we could save ourselves a lot of grief.

How does a UCC Sunday School class present the story of the Tree of Knowledge to a seven year old?

Not as literal truth, I hope. I hope Genesis gets presented to him as a story, with several possible meanings, and it is left up to him to create the meaning that is most meaningful to him.

In Aboriginal mythology, no aboriginal would suggest that a raven literally created the island continent of America on the back of a giant turtle, and that's why it is called "Turtle Island." I think it is clear to every aboriginal that the various creation mythologies involving animals allude to the unity of all beings.

Then along came the White Man with his superior cvilization and his superior, literalized mytholgy.

Hi WB:

I haven't read Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, but I know that, at midnight,  twenty-four hour becomes zero hour, and end becomes beginning. I other words, midnight is the moment of non-duality, where and when opposites such as good and evil meet, and one passes seamlessly into the other.

Yes, analytical knowledge will cool the emotions: emotional death in the river of knowledge.

But when that which is perfect has come, and we experience the unitive state of the universe, then this results in a river of emotion, with unitive love first and foremost, and we feel compelled to voluntarily act on that emotion, without feeling coerced to do so by a Christian commandment. Moreover, we feel this unitive love not just for our fellow beings of our own species, as the Christian commandment dictates, but toward all beings and God, simply because we feel united with all beings, including the creative power of the universe.

To foster and facilitate the unitive experience is the greatest thing we can do for ourselves and each other.

Arm, you mean like: "get ID together m'n"?

Reminds me of Unicycles and clowns ... we have a lot of the latter that have come on the scene ... if you get the inversion of wisdom and chuckles ... well-fogged souls? Like cold-hearted people living in glass houses ... vision is inhibited ... metaphorically speaking of course! They could be something distinctly else ... but don't know it ... like people that don't recognize myths as foundation of the imaginary ... our abstract sides?

Then the bible also states that we shouldn't know anything (repeated by the fathers of Rome) and thus fixations get pas'd without thought about eM! Is this Utilitarian Philosophy or just for smaller groups (the rich and powerful)? Alas, except for the po'phoqah in the 80%+ group ... we have pointed out the 1 in 10 with allowance for 100% error ... 80:20 rule? Penne graphics ... the 6th being buried ... subliminal humour is like that ... celestially ... out there ... dark plasma ... or black satyrs! Basis of life keeps the larger soul bubbling ... like a stinking caldron ... white-phesh stew?

Then,

If we didn't know any beta ... we could continue right off the edge ...

So beit is all I can say ... fight or flight ... a hard battle when everybody likes rushing the edge ... fringe thinkers are thus crucified! The nature of inversion or reciprocation in the darker mire ... sort of like a pinhole camera or the eye of a needle'n ... Ka Mules are dispicable creatures ... look one in the eye and they'll spit ...

Ever see a Camel eye? Sort of like a cat's they tell me, a mire slit like that on overlaping Circes ... UCC Icon! What could it mean on sacred grounds of heiros gammos ... some just don't believe as they think they know all ... the Cerebral Error! Sometime Celestial ... out-there ...

I appreciate the contributions to this thread from fellow WonderCafeers. The upshot is that I have more understanding as to why fewer and fewer parents are taking their kids to Sunday School.

Now I am starting to wonder whether it would be wise to attempt to transplant the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil into some sort of WonderGarden of Eden on the internet.

There is a very common perception that the 'Lucifer' in Isaiah 14:12ff refers to Satan, the supernatural personification of evil. I think that this misconception comes from two sources. The first is wishful thinking in the sense that it is nice to think that 'the Enemy' will get his come-uppance eventually. The second has to do with the old caution that scripture is to be read only 'in context'. This requires going back and reading all of Isaiah 13 and the earlier verses in Isaiah 14. When this is done we suddenly realize that scripture is not speaking of a supernatural Satan at all but of a Babylonian king with an immense ego. Read Isaiah 14: " 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:" What follows is a long rant against this oppressive king filled with numerous reference to his human nature like Isaiah 14: "16 Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, 17 the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?" This passage is in no way a reference to Satan or the devil. That anyone would draw that conclusion is, to me, somewhat naive.

God didn't create Satan, man did. Satan (ha'shaitan) occurs by name in the Old Testament in the Book of Job, and here it's clear that Satan IS NOT the Devil! The Devil is supposedly banished from the presence of God, yet in Job, Satan is allowed to come and go from God's presence and on a mission for God yet! What's going on? Satan here is not "the Devil" but sort of God's prosecuting attorney. The Jews did not originally believe in devils but they picked up these concepts (and more!) during the Babylonian Exile from the Persians who followed Zoroastrianism. Up to that time, their concept of God was of a being responsible for everything, both good and evil. Isaiah 45:7 is just one quote that demonstrates this. The Exilic Jews found the concept of a near-Supreme Being of Evil interesting. They borrowed it because it got God off the hook for the suffering and evil in the world, providing him with a scapegoat. God was now all-good! Satan was made into the Devil as a result of this alien dualism, since his function as a prosecutor was so unwelcome to the Jews. And retroactively what was only actually a talking snake in the Garden of Eden was identified as the Devil as well.

To most modern Christians, the concept of the Devil is a conflation of the snake of Genesis, the Lucifer of Isaiah and the Satan of Job. This conflation is further supplemented by lurid medieval fiction like Dante's "Inferno".

Might it not be better to set these images aside and simply take responsiblity for our own evil thoughts and deeds?

Do people like scary myths? Look at the movie industry! he outcome:

I do not read the Genesis story as a fall from an original state of perfection. The first couple were completely innocent and naive creatures. Without knowing good from evil they lacked even the ability to sin. That awareness came only with them eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated.

It's interesting that God commands Moses to make a bronze serpent for the people that were bitten by snakes to gaze upon and be healed. (numbers 21:8-9) In the gospel Jesus compares himself to this bronze serpent. (John 3:14)

Why would Jesus compare himself to a snake if the snake is supposed to be the devil?

Dearest Waterfall,

The snake has been used as the symbol of wisdom in cultures all across the world.  In the Christian religion there is a close connection between the snake and the knowledge of good and evil.  Christians are also admonished in the Bible to be as wise as serpents.  Jesus utilizes the reference to a snake in the same fashion.  He is saying that he has wisdom.

In eastern religions, the upwelling of spiritual energy from the saccral chakra is referred as the raising of the Kundalini serpent which lays coiled in three and one half turns at the base of the spine.  Jesus may have been alluding to the fact that he had successfully raised the spiritual energy of the Kundalini serpent and was an enlightened master, a bodhisattva.

I also find it interesting that the physicians caduceus is two serpents intertwined around a staff.  This ancient symbol of the Greek God Hermes looks surprisingly like the twin strands of genetic material composing DNA. 

Plainly, the serpent is closely associated with knowldge and wisdom.

Your Buddy on the Path - Poguru

It would somewhat explain why God permitted the snake to exist in paradise.

I do not read the Genesis story as a fall from an original state of perfection. The first couple were completely innocent and naive creatures. Without knowing good from evil they lacked even the ability to sin. That awareness came only with them eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated.

How would you explain the banishment from eden as a blessing? Just curious.

The Jews and the Bible called him the Tempter whose sole purpose was to tempt those breaking free of the original sin of self determination to fall back to their old ways and deny the will of God. Jesus met the Tempter in the desert.

Not animal staus for they were already above animals status having the ability to reason and make choices of things given to them. Once they upon eating the fruit  "became as gods" they started to determine for themselves what choices thay had and so the fun started.

Today we have 7 billion people, each determining for themselves what is right and wrong and justifying their deeds based on those convenient determinations. That is not sanity but bedlam and is made moreso by the fact we prefer to use good to justify evil.

The biblical alternative according to hat view, not4prophet, is total amorality.  No moral knowledge at all.  Automation of the self, by instinct or otherwise.

Morality of any kind is a sin, under the "fall from grace" interpretations of A&E.

Love thy neighbour as thyself.

As a command from a master.  Not because it's right.  That would be morality.  No, only because it is commanded.  And one must follow orders.

That is biblical morality - at least, according to Genesis.  The bible is not consistent on that theme, fortunately.

Who have you created from scratch?

Let me hit and run here with something that might be of interest to you.

Some of it is off topic and I will not expect you to answer and usually draw too many useless posts when I hang around hence the hit and run. The Eden theory is what is muy main offering for you and the rest is just for info.

I will add these clips to the mix for your consideration. They show who put what in Jesus' mouth and how Christianity has been manipulated. The first which is part of the second speaks to my Gnostic Christian label and the second shows my view of religions overall and the Noble Lie that I think we and our governments should rescind. The third clip speaks to the reason that religions were invented in the first place as it shows why social control was required for city states that had to deal with the reality of finite resources. I see these city states as led by a timocratic king who through the religion that he would have created, also realized that there had to be a tyrannical part to his benevolent duty  and  created a religion to be just that.

I see the King/God as having to have the morals shown in the Haigt clip.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

He would have to create his religion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by the first commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of his King/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman system would later assume the same system through the Noble Lie.  First through Flavian and later through Constantine.

http://www.simchajtv.com/movie-secrets-of-christianity-selling-christianity/

Regards

DL

I've sometimes mused to myself that the story of Adam and Eve is an analogy for the process of human maturation. Little babies don't know good from evil. It is as we grow and receive moral education that we begin thinking of such things.

Of course, as a devout Baptist I take the story literally.

I'd be interested to know who actually knows the difference between "good" and "evil".

Should Bob Ford, for example, be re-admitted to the Garden? How about those folk who booked the robo-calls at the last election, how about the Montreal City councillors? 

I reckon we could fill a garden or two fairly quickly. Or — failing that — at least  lay in few container loads of fruit from the Fobidden Tree. Some folks seem to have missed out.

Is that not the point. We make it up as we go along, revising what stands as needed, in order to suit our desire of the day.

I have no children so far, if that's what you mean.  But even if I had a child, or had somehow created one from nothing, that would not make it my rightful slave.  It would be another conscious being, worthy of consideration as such.

Then again, maybe that kind of thinking is a perversion to you.

Just as you do when you decide that 'God' is right.  That's still you talking.  That's still you deciding what's right and what's wrong.  Much as you might like to, you can't escape responsibility for your own morality.

I'd be interested to know who actually knows the difference between "good" and "evil".

Hi Mike,

I have been over this with you before in other posts.  Good and evil are defined in relation to religion.  So to know the difference between good and evil you must first know what religion is.

Religion is made up of two latin words - re, meaning to over again and ligio, meaning to unite or bind.  Re-ligion literally means to reunite.  Reunite with what you may well ask.  The answer is reunite with God.

Once you understand that religion is a means to assist you in reuniting with God then you can begin to define good and evil and understand the difference between the two.

Good can be defined as that which assists you in reuniting with God.  Evil is that which hinders you from reuniting with God.

Virtue is that which assists you to be good and vice is that which hinders you from being good.

From this basic and simple understanding you too can come to grips with the difference between good and evil.

Your Buddy on the Path - Poguru

Making a child is far from making something from scratch. btw,  Are you in the habit of doing the same you accuse others of, lumping others into a whole?.

Is not the Judaical definition from the OT  merely questioning God's definition in the first place? Should we not let go of our notions, just as those who wish to become the all must let go of the all?

Which is why I also commented on the idea of making a conscious being from scratch.  Either way it is caused to come into being, when otherwise it would not.  That's the important part.  Naturally, you ignored my comment.  It's inconvenient, after all.

Maybe sometimes.  Maybe not.  If you think I'm currently doing so, then come out and say it.  Otherwise, stop trying to shift focus.