30 Nov 05
Originally posted by WulebgrWhen man was in the Garden of Eden, he was outside the understanding of what the knowledge of Good and Evil. That was until he ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. At that point then good and evil became a reality for all of mankind.
Neutrality is not balance, and there is nothing in the biblical account that suggests the Garden had a balance between good and evil. For ideas of balance, you might look towards Taoism, the Iroquois False Face Society, or a number of other places outside the Judeo-Christian-Muslim traditions.
Leslie Silko's first novel, Ceremony (1977), offers so ...[text shortened]... on of Western Anglo-American and Pueblo traditions. It also is one of the best books I've read.
It is interresting that in the point that you are expressing. That as you study the perpectives of other understandings. They all lead you back to the beginning to where GOD said to man "do not touch" and man did not listen.
30 Nov 05
Originally posted by blindfaith101You are confusing knowledge with existence, unless you are a dogmatic social constructivist (an odd position for a Christian).
When man was in the Garden of Eden, he was outside the understanding of what the knowledge of Good and Evil. That was until he ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. At that point then good and evil became a reality for all of mankind.
It is interresting that in the point that you are expressing. That as you study the perpectives of othe ...[text shortened]... lead you back to the beginning to where GOD said to man "do not touch" and man did not listen.
My study of other traditions does not lead me back to the forbidden fruit, but it does contextualize this biblical story in a frame of much older stories. Moses was a plagiarist.
30 Nov 05
Originally posted by blindfaith101You almost made it without the ALLCAPS in a relevant post... almost....
When man was in the Garden of Eden, he was outside the understanding of what the knowledge of Good and Evil. That was until he ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. At that point then good and evil became a reality for all of mankind.
It is interresting that in the point that you are expressing. That as you study the perpectives of othe ...[text shortened]... lead you back to the beginning to where GOD said to man "do not touch" and man did not listen.
30 Nov 05
Originally posted by WulebgrHow can there be exsistance without knowledge. Whether or not mankind touched the forbidden fruit. He would have still exsisted, but with the knowledge of being obedient to what GOD has said.
You are confusing knowledge with existence, unless you are a dogmatic social constructivist (an odd position for a Christian).
My study of other traditions does not lead me back to the forbidden fruit, but it does contextualize this biblical story in a frame of much older stories. Moses was a plagiarist.
Regardless how you may feel about the WORD, you are mathing up what other understandings of other "stories" which only repeat what the WORD says.
30 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by blindfaith101Read carefully your own assertion. You suggest that good and evil did not exist apart from human knowledge of good and evil. By the same notion, it might be argued that God does not exist until humans create him or her through our knowledge.
How can there be exsistance without knowledge.
I'm fine with that, but I doubt that you are. 😕
Originally posted by blindfaith101
other "stories" which only repeat what the WORD says.
They cannot repeat what they precede. The Bible does the repeating. Simple chronology. The Hebrews learned their myths from their neighbors.
30 Nov 05
Originally posted by WulebgrExcellent post!! - Give ya a rec if I could.
Read carefully your own assertion. You suggest that good and evil did not exist apart from human knowledge of good and evil. By the same notion, it might be argued that God does not exist until humans create him or her through our knowledge.
I'm fine with that, but I doubt that you are. 😕
Originally posted by blindfaith101
[b] other "stories ...[text shortened]... ble does the repeating. Simple chronology. The Hebrews learned their myths from their neighbors.
Well stated.
30 Nov 05
Originally posted by KnightWulfeGood and evil are one. They do not exist independently. There is no good without evil and there is no evil without good.
What if the point is not good vs evil. What if the point is a balance of the two? Is it not that all things are in moderation? If it is all things, that does include good and evil. It does include faith and science.
What if the end is nothing more than the begining? A true and perfect neutrality and a balance of all things....
30 Nov 05
Originally posted by KnightWulfeThe answer is yes and no.
What if the point is not good vs evil. What if the point is a balance of the two? Is it not that all things are in moderation? If it is all things, that does include good and evil. It does include faith and science.
What if the end is nothing more than the begining? A true and perfect neutrality and a balance of all things....
😛
01 Dec 05
Originally posted by KnightWulfeIt’s quality exchanges like this that give a thread meaning and substance…LOL
Lead whatever delusions you wish. I am, in fact, not a liar. If you feel better calling me names and trying to insult, feel free, as your opinion means about as much as a pile of mosquito excrement to me.
01 Dec 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardThat is my point. If there is nothing evil there there is nothing by which to measure good and vice versa. They are two sides of a coin, just as "order" and "chaos."
Good and evil are one. They do not exist independently. There is no good without evil and there is no evil without good.
The end point here is that what if, as these things cannot exist independently, our ultimate goal is to achieve a perfect balance of good, evil, order and chaos?
01 Dec 05
Originally posted by KnightWulfeIf evil cannot be eliminated then it should be minimized to extent possible. You seem to be implying that 5 parts of evil are necessary to maintain 5 parts of good. Why couldn't 1 part evil be sufficient for 9 parts good? Or .1 parts evil for 9.9 parts good?
That is my point. If there is nothing evil there there is nothing by which to measure good and vice versa. They are two sides of a coin, just as "order" and "chaos."
The end point here is that what if, as these things cannot exist independently, our ultimate goal is to achieve a perfect balance of good, evil, order and chaos?
If some evil is necessary to measure good, there's no reason they have to be "balanced." As long as you experience some portion of evil it could be weighted very heavily in favor of good.
01 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettWhat I am suggesting is that throughout time the balance of good, evil, order and chaos shifts. Sometimes there is a balance of order and chaos, while good and evil tip the scale (more of one or the other) and somtimes there is a balance of good and evil, but an imbalance of order and chaos (more of one than the other), sometimes they are all out of balance and sometimes there is a perfect balance. What I am suggesting is that WHAT IF - as all things started at a state of perfect balance, as the universe goes through its cycle of life, death and rebirth, down to the smallest indication of life, all things fluctuate, but in the end, all of that flux ends in a perfect balance again. Throughout the entire frame of time that the universe has to exist, in the end, there are an equal amount of good, evil, order and chaos. Ultimately beginning and ending in a perfect balance.
If evil cannot be eliminated then it should be minimized to extent possible. You seem to be implying that 5 parts of evil are necessary to maintain 5 parts of good. Why couldn't 1 part evil be sufficient for 9 parts good? Or .1 parts evil for 9.9 parts good?
If some evil is necessary to measure good, there's no reason they have to be "balanced." As long as you experience some portion of evil it could be weighted very heavily in favor of good.