Originally posted by divegeesterIt is entirely possible that both are true.
OK I see; and theological metaphors are one expression of this human condition. It would be interesting to here sonhouse POV on is as he seems to me to believe that the human condition is derived from the theological metaphor and not, as you are proposing, the metaphor from the condition.
It is certainly true that controlling knowledge has been common practice in many societies and that religions have played a big part in exercising that control. There have been a number of cases of countries/individuals going against that trend and actively trying to disseminate knowledge through publishing and education so not everyone agrees with the idea of hoarding knowledge.
The modern world has relaxed the restrictions considerably largely because a good education is considered necessary in order to work, so a country will see the need to educate its populace in order to stay ahead of other countries. But countries still do try to keep knowledge to themselves and companies do too.
Possibly the greatest fear the US has today is that China is not only gaining economically, they are gaining in terms of information. They are not only getting knowledge from the US but are producing their own knowledge. Focus on the Chinese space program is really a focus on secret knowledge.
The current deal with Iran is all about keeping the secret knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons away from Iran. In this case the knowledge has clear significant consequences. However, the spread of knowledge of various types of weaponry, how to manufacture and effectively use them has had a huge impact on the world throughout history.
Success in the World Wars was all about the development of various types of knowledge and the timing of those developments. This week marks the 70th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan an event that not only ended the Second World War but also had a major impact on the cold war that was to follow.
08 Aug 15
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFIt's not the "Tree of Knowledge" as it's often quoted, but the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". So it doesn't seem to be a very good fit.
"I am a snake, not an apple. What does that mean? Well, our civilization - the Judeo-Christian - in its founding myth portrayed the deliverer of knowledge as the source of evil - the devil - and the loss of innocence as a catastrophe. This probably had less to do with religion than with the standard desire of those in authority to control those who are not." ~ J ...[text shortened]... t power was perceived with deadly seriousness and - most importantly - conformity and obedience?
What's interesting is that the words translated as "good" and "evil" can also be translated as "pleasant" and "unpleasant" which coincides more or less with the fundamental control mechanisms for "instinctual" or "animal" behavior. If you've seen the film "Mon Oncle d'Amérique", you should be able to piece together the ramifications of this translation. It's also interesting to consider Jesus' teaching of being "born of the flesh" vs. "born of the spirit [of truth]" within the context of all of the above.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by FMF"I am a snake, not an apple. What does that mean? Well, our civilization - the Judeo-Christian - in its founding myth portrayed the deliverer of knowledge as the source of evil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was not "the tree of evil" or "the tree of the knowledge of evil". It was " the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Both the knowledge of good AND of evil were identified with the forbidden fruit.
Think about this a little bit.
This fact alone makes me consider that the Author of such an account is too wise to be a human being with our typical dichotomy of good verses evil. I cannot speak for others. But the title "the knowledge of Good and Evil" I think is more profound than we humans would invent.
My opinion is that we would invent a mythology more like "Pandora's Box". That is something like the source of all bad and evil things. That, I think, is more typical of human based mythology. IE. All the "bad" and "evil" things came from such a source.
Rather what the Word of God portrays is more profound - the source of man's troubles are an independence from the Ultimate Governor and Moral God of the universe. Taking into our own hands "the knowledge of good and evil". IE. a thrust for independence from God the Source of life.
My opinion is that the dichotomy of "the tree of life" verses a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" reveals a supernatural wisdom. Good AND evil are on the same tree. "We will do what is right in our own eyes. We will not do according to the divine and eternal life of God our Creator."
My opinion is that the Genesis account is more profound then what human beings would invent, if a mythology of origins were humanly created.
08 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipSo you believe that it's not a human based mythology because you think if it was a human based mythology then it would be different, is that at you're saying?
My opinion is that we would invent a mythology more like "Pandora's Box". That is something like the source of all bad and evil things. That, I think, is more typical of human based mythology.
09 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipBut isn't that the point: that the metaphor is part of "our typical dichotomy of good verses evil"?
This fact alone makes me consider that the Author of such an account is too wise to be a human being with our typical dichotomy of good verses evil.
09 Aug 15
Originally posted by FMFI live in a society ~ like many others around the world, maybe even all societies, to a degree ~ where the controlling and withholding of knowledge creates power for some, and the gaining of 'proscribed' knowledge can create danger for others.
"I am a snake, not an apple. What does that mean? Well, our civilization - the Judeo-Christian - in its founding myth portrayed the deliverer of knowledge as the source of evil - the devil - and the loss of innocence as a catastrophe. This probably had less to do with religion than with the standard desire of those in authority to control those who are not." ~ J ...[text shortened]... t power was perceived with deadly seriousness and - most importantly - conformity and obedience?
I would venture to guess that you live in a society of one.
It has been my experience that the more I give, the more I get.
And I am in a position within my organization which is considered in the top 1-5% of the structure.
...ensuring that the exercise of that power was perceived with deadly seriousness and - most importantly - conformity and obedience?
I think you need to rethink what the Ark of the Covenant really represents.
09 Aug 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow so? It is surely entirely uncontroversial to observe that access to - and manipulation of - knowledge underpins power and authority to a degree in all societies and has done so throughout human history.
I would venture to guess that you live in a society of one.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, not sharing the personal beliefs and superstitions that you just so happen to have, where you see some sort of supernatural "Covenant", I just see elements of authoritarian ideology built into political arrangements that its authors had a vested interest in creating and perpetuating.
I think you need to rethink what the Ark of the Covenant really represents.
09 Aug 15
Originally posted by FMFSure, why not? 😕
"I am a snake, not an apple. What does that mean? Well, our civilization - the Judeo-Christian - in its founding myth portrayed the deliverer of knowledge as the source of evil - the devil - and the loss of innocence as a catastrophe. This probably had less to do with religion than with the standard desire of those in authority to control those who are not." ~ J ...[text shortened]... t power was perceived with deadly seriousness and - most importantly - conformity and obedience?
The Mystery of the Bronze Serpent
Numbers 21: The Brazen Serpent
Nehushtan - The Brazen Serpent
Hunting the 'fiery serpent': The quest to wipe out Guinea worm
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/health/hunting-fiery-serpent-guinea-worm/
http://blog.cartercenter.org/2012/03/26/foul-water-fiery-serpent-guinea-worm-documentary-to-air-on-american-public-television-stations-nationwide/
09 Aug 15
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt has been my experience that the more I give, the more I get.
[b]I live in a society ~ like many others around the world, maybe even all societies, to a degree ~ where the controlling and withholding of knowledge creates power for some, and the gaining of 'proscribed' knowledge can create danger for others.
I would venture to guess that you live in a society of one.
It has been my experience that the more I g ...[text shortened]... and obedience?[/b]
I think you need to rethink what the Ark of the Covenant really represents.[/b]
And I am in a position within my organization which is considered in the top 1-5% of the structure.
What organisation is it you are referring to?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 Aug 15
Originally posted by FMFThe dichotomy is the knowledge of good and evil on one side and life which is God Himself on the other. Or I could say that this is the deeper dichotomy.
But isn't that the point: that the metaphor is part of "our typical dichotomy of good verses evil"?
Genesis first says that there were many trees in the garden. Then it specifically highlights two:
And out of the ground Jehovah God caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, as well as the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen. 2:9)
The deeper dichotomy is being established there. It is made more poignant when we learn that these two trees a mutually exclusive. To eat of one will terminate possibility to partake of the other.
1.) Man is warned that eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil will cause him to die (verses 16,17)
Interestingly, in the beginning it does not say that eating of the tree of evil will cause him to be evil. That is more what I would expect if this were not a divinely inspired account.
2.) Once Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil the way to tree of life was cut off from them. The two trees are mutually exclusive, amplifying the dichotomy.
And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil, and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and live forever -
... So He drove the man out, and at the east of the garden of Eden He placed the cherubim and a flaming sword which turned in every direction to guard the way to the tree of life. (3:22,24)
Because these two trees as sources of food, were mutually exclusive the deeper dichotomy is between Divine life which is the uncreated and eternal Person and the knowledge of good and evil, which admittedly is something that God has.
Man was instigated to reach for something God possesses but be independent about it, rejecting God
s Person as embodied in "the tree of life".
In the last analysis, this rebellion was to follow Satan, God's enemy and the source of death.
Originally posted by sonshipYou still haven't shown how the metaphor is somehow not part of "our typical dichotomy of good verses evil" other than to simply assert that you consider it to be "too wise". It seems rather far fetched that the credibility of your God figure's metaphor in the eyes of others might hinge upon whether or not you personally happen to think it is "too wise" to be of human origin?
The dichotomy is [b]the knowledge of good and evil on one side and life which is God Himself on the other. Or I could say that this is the deeper dichotomy.
Genesis first says that there were many trees in the garden. Then it specifically highlights two:
[quote] And out of the ground Jehovah God caused to grow every tree that ...[text shortened]...
In the last analysis, this rebellion was to follow Satan, God's enemy and the source of death.