a2657d No.601041
Why was god against the tree of knowledge? Many atheist argue that Satan was merely helping a pair of thought slaves. So was god against knowledge, or am I missing something?
e593e6 No.601043
Everyone involved acted like retards, God wanted it to happen, Satan wanted to see men fall, Adam wanted tail and Eve was the most stupid of them all, if that Tree made you Able to defeat God it would have been a reasonable gamble, but it was just useless garbage, I would have said "oh yea? then eat it you first!" I would also have at least questioned God why the hell did he put it in the middle of this place instead of a secure one, sometimes i think good just needs fuel to warm all the bath tubs in heaven and hell is just a furnace because space is cold.
cff3f1 No.601045
It wasn't the tree of knowledge, it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eating from it exposed the happy couple and corrupted their innocence.
a64de3 No.601046
I figure it was basically a test to see if they would obey god. God isn't against knowledge, if the fruit wasn't enticing then it wouldn't be much of a test.
dc544e No.601049
Hooktube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.
God was protecting Adam and Even, the snake was lying see video for more detail.
dc544e No.601054
It's also important to note that Eve acted in a masculine manner giving fruit to Adam who blamed Eve after having accepted the fruit in a feminine manner.
798227 No.601068
>People here really think that there was a magical tree with magical fruit and this isnt all metaphore.
e593e6 No.601075
>>601068
>Genesis is metaphor
>burning forever in hell for drawing pokemon and not repenting is not.
dc544e No.601076
>>601068
Anyone can take a "rational" look at the flood and laugh at the absurdity of a global flood when it's something that is documented in other religions as well. The same with hell. Don't the orthodox christians believe in hell as a state of mind? At least that's what an ortho priest told me.
c07f65 No.601089
>>601041
>Many gnostics
FTFY
c3a1d0 No.601092
>>601068
>people here don't believe in the Bible
f00fdf No.601144
>>601068
Didn't your councils anathematize this sort of incredulity about the Garden of Eden? I know from you guys that claiming Adam was created corruptible is a big no-no.
314293 No.601164
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>601068
You aren't wrong, but I wouldn't give the translators the benefit of the doubt and call it a "metaphor" but an intentional mistranslation. How can we say that over the past five or six centuries, when the Jews invaded the higher ranks of the Catholic and Orthodox church, that they didn't fumble with one of the most important passages in the Holy Bible? I subscribe to the Christian Identity movement's interpretation as it seems to make most sense: Tree of Knowledge = (Satanic) family tree/tribe of good and evil men; serpent = Satan himself (not as a serpent, but as a real human bean); fruit = seed of Satan; eating the fruit = receiving the seed. Now, what only baffles me is: Since Adam also ate of the fruit, does that mean he also received … seed (act of sodomy) or was that an intentional addition in case someone finds out the true meaning but it is in there to make it seem too ridiculous to believe in?
5a0079 No.601167
>>601068
This anon gets it.
>>601166
I was going to post the same picture, lol
8f4ca8 No.601168
>>601068
the original sin was a metaphor all these fucking bnrainlets here lmao
5a0079 No.601170
>>601168
You don't seem to understand what a metaphor is.
It's using a visual, palpable imagery, to illustrate something else. The original sin is real, and to illustrate it, the Bible uses the imagery of eating the fruit of knowledge.
Remember when Jesus had to precise his parable were metaphors? If he didn't do it, you guys might have believed humans are really wheat and tares
8f4ca8 No.601174
>>601170
nice mental gymnastics
what actually happened behind the "metaphor" then?
whats metaphor for you and whats not
5a0079 No.601175
>>601174
If you know Hebrew and understand that "Nahash" (the snake) also means "egoism/individuality", you understand the original sin means Man turning away from God.
Man (spirit) turns away from God by listening to his Eve (soul) driven by individuality.
By doing so, he loses his purity, he knows good and evil whereas before, he didn't because he was the closest possible to God, and God is beyond Good and Evil.
Anne Catherine Emmerich also saw this in her visions and many theologians said the same
And before you say "If God is beyond good and Evil that means God isn't good" I'll quote C.S Lewis describing Paradise/Heaven
" Every one there is filled full with what we should call goodness as a mirror is filled with light But they do not call it goodness. They do not call it anything. They are not thinking of it. They are too busy looking at the source from which it comes."
TL;DR : To know that good is called "Good" you must know evil as a comparison. If good is all you know, you don't call it anything, you don't even think of it, such as Adam and Eve before the fall.
I'm not saying I know all the answers, and I'm not saying I know what is metaphor and what isn't but Genesis and story of Eden is pretty obvious.
Of course you don't need to understand the deeper meaning of the bible to be a good christian. Feel free to disregard my words, I'm posting for those who can understand.
0bf0f4 No.601176
>>601068
You're right, it was the act of disobedience.
>>601166
This is the same Origen who thought the saints would be transformed into literal spheres, and roll their way into heaven, correct?
5a0079 No.601179
>>601176
>This is the same Origen who thought the saints would be transformed into literal spheres, and roll their way into heaven, correct?
You didn't understand what he means by spheres.
Here's a very short pdf (2pages) with quotes from him that makes it clearer
8f4ca8 No.601181
>>601175
just like Christ was a metaphor for higher consciousness and satan was a metahpor for mans lower nature and God is also a metaphor for unknowable forces of nature
#Harekrishna
0349c4 No.601187
>>601175
>posting that heretic origen
0349c4 No.601189
>>601068
>heresy
Get out
Literally the whole religion is based off Adam and Eve fucking up. If they never did then Jesus wouldn't have had to come die for everyone.
Exidus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Exidus 20:11 is literally part of the 10 commandments
0349c4 No.601192
>>601187
Also didn't mkst of the church fathers believe in YEC?
240184 No.601194
It's not a tree of knowledge, it is a tree that would give them the ability to be able to define what is good and what's evil.
This I heard from a philosopher and it's also on the footnote of my study Bible.
0bf0f4 No.601198
>>601164
>>601192
>>601068
>>601166
>>601175
>Look, I know what it says, but did He REALLY mean that?
0bf0f4 No.601199
>>601192
Wasn't directed to your comment. Typo. Polite sage.
798227 No.601203
Why can't pr*testants actually comprehend what is actually written in the post?
And then Orthodox and Catholics are force to clean the mess that pr*ts and their spiritual liege Ken Ham is making
85be5e No.601206
>>601203
It's sad but it's useless to fight a pointless battle.
There is no need to force knowledge on someone.
An ignorant child who loves God with all his soul is better than a scholar with a trembling faith.
Have a good day everyone
0bf0f4 No.601210
>>601203
>>601041
>>601206
To actually answer the question, we aren't told the serpent's logic. God wasn't against knowledge, he was against disobedience. They gained the knowledge of evil through the act of their disobedience. As for what atheists argue, well, they are willfully ignorant.
bba7f5 No.601253
>>601198
Goodness gracious, reading your post, I have come upon another article of heresy!
>Galatians 4:24 These things serve as illustrations, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children into slavery: This is Hagar.
Did the apostle that wrote this JUST advocate for not reading the bible literally? THIS IS HERSHEY CHOCOLATE, I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS.
314293 No.601254
>>601166
>>601198
I'm the CI poster, what do you mean with your comments? Aggree- or disagreement with the Adamic and Satanic seedline?
773b73 No.601257
>Why was god against the tree of knowledge? Many atheist argue that Satan was merely helping a pair of thought slaves. So was god against knowledge, or am I missing something?
For fuck sake.
Repeat after me OP and if you don't understand it, I recommend long session of mortification using hammer on your head.
IT WAS TREE OF KNOWLEDGE ==OF GOOD AND EVIL==
IT WAS ==NOT== TREE OF KNOWLEDGE
"The tree of knowledge. To which the deceitful serpent falsely attributed the power of imparting a superior kind of knowledge beyond that which God was pleased to give. (Challoner) — Of what species these two wonderful trees were, the learned are not agreed. The tree of knowledge, could not communicate any wisdom to man; but, by eating of its forbidden fruit, Adam dearly purchased the knowledge of evil, to which he was before a stranger. "
e2c04a No.601263
>>601253
It can be literal and have a symbolic meaning you dip
e2c04a No.601265
>>601263
Like how the flood and Sodom getting destroyed represent the 2nd coming
cf696f No.601275
>>601045
But it does lead me to wonder, who created evil? If God is not the author of evil, then who did? And where did it come from? And how and why did God allow it to be created?
798227 No.601278
>>601275
>But it does lead me to wonder, who created evil?
Literally no one. Evil does not exist, it is deficiency of Good, depending on isolating one from God due to individuals free will.
I thought that anti-dualism was a "dumdum" tier for all Christian denominations.
f00fdf No.601284
>>601175
>If you know Hebrew and understand that "Nahash" (the snake) also means "egoism/individuality"
I can find no source for this claim but a neognostic book from the 1920s
36e4e7 No.601285
>>601254
There is no Satanic seedline. Its a talmudic myth, not scripture.
a7b667 No.601290
Daily reminder that God didn't kick Adam and Eve out of Eden because they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but because he was spooked that they would eat from the tree of life and become immortal
This is from Genesis Chapter 3 KJV
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
>when your own holy text admits that your "benevolent all powerful deity" is paranoid that his creations could reach his level
ed5842 No.601291
>>601290
No. The problem was that a sinful nature AND immortality would mean absolutely zero chance of salvation.
a13b9c No.601292
>this much D&C in one thread
/pol/ and /islam/ pls go
f00fdf No.601293
>>601290
If you want to torture the text you might notice they were never banned from the tree of life before this point. The wages of sin is death.
a7b667 No.601303
>>601291
Salvation from? If the wages of Sin are Death, becoming immortal would save you.
That's the hole point of Christianity. Only Christ can make you immortal.
>>601293
Actually if you really tie the text down and start flogging it you'll notice that the wording implies that they had never eaten from the tree of life yet.
"Lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"
(Especially when you consider the fact that they, y'know. Die.)
a7b667 No.601308
>>601303
whole*
>>601292
But they're your ideological cousins, me lad!
cff3f1 No.601316
>>601068
>People here really think that there was a magical tree with magical fruit and this isnt all metaphore.
>People here really think that there was a magical bush with a magical voice and this isnt all metaphore.
>People here really think that there was a magical man with magical miracles and this isnt all metaphore.
>People here really think that there was a magical resurrection with magical ascension and this isnt all metaphore.
>People here really think that there will be a magical end of days with magical trumpets and this isnt all metaphore.
a7b667 No.601318
>>601316
>People here really think that there was a magical tree with magical fruit
>People here really think that there was a magical bush with a magical voice
>People here really think that there was a magical man with magical miracles
>People here really think that there was a magical resurrection with magical ascension
>People here really think that there will be a magical end of days with magical trumpets
Sad!
cff3f1 No.601322
>>601318
>People here really think
>People here really think
>People here really think
>People here really think
>People here really think
>People here really think
Madness!
78afb1 No.601345
FFS it was a metaphor and it really happened, just like everything in the Old Testament. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
bba7f5 No.601346
>>601345
It was a metaphor that didn't happen. What are you going to say against that theory?
a216ac No.601349
>>601346
If the Fall was just a metaphor then the Gnostics were right all along (they're not).
83e562 No.601361
>>601345
I don't think God trying to kill Moses at a roadside hotel because his dick was uncut is a metaphor for anything
ed5842 No.601390
>>601303
Salvation from eternal separation from God, also called hell. Go read your Bible please.
798227 No.601399
>if you dont believe in the magical tree with magical fruit being literal you are automatically denying fall and original sin
Behold ladies and gentlemen, the amerclap reading comprehension skills
that's it, I'll [-] the thread and read something nice.
f651ee No.601405
>>601399
Before you go, what's the proper interpretation for it? The fall (or rather, genesis being interpreted as completely literal) is a major hangup on the faith of mine, and where I live, it's very much considered the only way to take it. If the fall isn't literal, why was Christ sacrificed? And if it is, that creates another can of worms because things definitely died before humans were around.
798227 No.601407
>>601405
>Before you go, what's the proper interpretation for it?
The fall is about rebelion and rejection of God, not eating some magical apple
Tree of life also wasn't some kind of special plant, but is associated (in Orthodoxy) at least with Love of God.
>And if it is, that creates another can of worms because things definitely died before humans were around.
Which is completely irrelevant. Death is relevant for humans only, not about animals. They are not immortal unlike us, they are purely material beings and nothing special happens when they die. Human death and corruptibility, however, is a tragedy, for we are liminal beings, unlike rest of the creation. Angels are purely immaterial, animals are purely material, we are both immaterial and material, and being without body for humans is a horrid deficiency for God made us both with soul and body.
this is my last reply in this trash thread. I only replied because you asked. Cheers.
367151 No.601408
>>601390
How is eternal separation from God qualitatively (not quantitatively) different from temporary separation from God?
bbf483 No.601409
>>601076
The flood isn't just documented in other religions. It's documented in other myths too. It seems to have been an actual historical event.
367151 No.601413
>>601409
Wow and Aryans, the Greeks, the Romans, the Scythians and the Babylonians all had a storm god heading the pantheon I guess this means we should start worshiping Marduk
532482 No.601458
>>601041
The common interpretation is that the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil was not forbidden in itself, but rather it was a commandment not to eat it. Eventually Adam and Eve would have been allowed to eat it, but not at that time.
>>601041
> Many atheist argue that Satan was merely helping a pair of thought slaves
Keep in mind that the full name is not "Tree of Knowledge", but "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". The former implies that one needs to Fruit before having any knowledge at all, but that is not true. Rather, you cannot know Good and Evil if you never had any choice in the matter. The way you can learn the difference is by either doing of refusing evil.
0690cf No.601461
>>601175
What is this heresy posting. Dualism is a heresy. God is not beyond good and evil, he literally is Good. He is perfection and anything that does not hit his mark is corrupt.
53d3c7 No.601491
>>601458
>>601458
>Keep in mind that the full name is not "Tree of Knowledge", but "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil". The former implies that one needs to Fruit before having any knowledge at all, but that is not true. Rather, you cannot know Good and Evil if you never had any choice in the matter. The way you can learn the difference is by either doing of refusing evil.
Best refutation of Gnostic Christianity right there.
47b711 No.601504
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>601413
If themes from the bible are documented in other beliefs/myths/religions it can lend credibility to the bible instead of it simply being a ripoff.
The anon you replied wasn't even trying to imply your implication.
808126 No.601505
>posting Origen, Ken Ham, C.S. Lewis, Christian Identity
Do we have to rely on this? Can't we get any real explanations in here and stop meming?
OP, God was never "against" the tree that He created. Rather, He had reasons not to let them gain eternal life. Now, cynics will instantly surmise from this that God was "paranoid" but it says that nowhere. We know that God did this for our own good. His actions throughout the whole Bible don't make sense otherwise.
>>601316
Also this. If you can't see how this pattern unravels the reliability of the entire New and Old Testament together, then you're being very naive.
bbf483 No.601645
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>601413
It's true that I'm arguing that because our beliefs are found in the beliefs of others, that there's probably truth to it but there's no need to follow this line of reasoning to that degree.
I too, would like to make a contribution regarding the "flood myth" (or rather, the flood "myth").
013646 No.601711
Riddle me this: why did God put the tree there in the first place?
013646 No.601713
Also I'm surprised how many of you believe God to be a liar.
>make it glaringly clear that something is amiss with a literal Genesis narrative
>"lol jk He's just deceiving us to test our faith"
e5ec78 No.601719
>>601713
>>601711
What matters isn't the fact that he placed the tree, it's the fact that humans still disobeyed God despite being given the best conditions that humanity ever had in history.
That's why I roll my eyes whenever atheists say that they would believe in God if he did X for them. It wouldn't make a difference because they always attribute their good outcome to an entity other than God. The theme behind the Garden of Eden still remains relevant today. God isn't entitled to submit to you, you should submit to him.
50f131 No.601739
>>601713
>if you don't believe the Bible is 100% literal you think God is a liar! REPENT RIGHT NOW!
Laugh of Laughs
c2031c No.601845
>>601458
>you cannot know Good and Evil if you never had any choice in the matter. The way you can learn the difference is by either doing of refusing evil.
>is by refusing evil.
So does this mean that had Eve, when presented with the suggestion from the snake, declined to taste the fruit, she would have gained knowledge of good and evil, and this refusal would have had the same effect as eating of the fruit?
If that's the case doesn't this also mean that during the unspecified amount of time between God giving the command to not eat of the fruit and Adam and Eve adhering to this command, they gained knowledge of good and evil, by virtue of not choosing to disobey the command?
If that's the case doesn't this then mean that they actually had knowledge of good and evil as soon as they had received and understood the command from God, by virtue of them not instantaneously disobeying it?
All of which negate the point of the fruit in the first place? :S
c2031c No.601847
Also
>>601175
>God is beyond Good and Evil
This >>601491
c2031c No.601848
Dangnammit meant for:
This >>601461
c2031c No.601850
lastly to the anon who posted this >>601645
>3hrs long vid
skipped to 11/12 mins to see what it's about, always been keen to learn more about the finno-korean hyperwar - is it really worth putting in the time for it here or could I just get same info in much less time from else where?
c2031c No.601868
>>601850
>>601645
should have looked at comments before posting - looks to be an interesting show I'll check it out thanks for posting!
6eb049 No.601906
>>601739
Actually, I'm saying the literalists are the ones who think God's a liar.
b6c1fe No.602585
They receicved a dna upgrade that differed them from the animals, made them want to wear clothes, etc…that was the Fruit of K of G,B.
God was not the Father but an asshole alien who happened to call the shots at that time.
(USER WAS WARNED FOR RULE 3) 0b9ff0 No.602588
>>601413
Christians worship Zues, that is also who the OT elohim is, a psychopathic murdering alien called God
(USER WAS WARNED RULE 3) 88ee0a No.602603
>>602585
>>602588
>>602600
>>602602
What did he mean by this?
013bc2 No.602952
>>601278
If evil doesnt exist, why word "evil" exist then?
013bc2 No.602954
>>601719
But how could Adam and Eve possibly know that they had the best condition of humanity when they didnt know evil? What was the motivation not to eat the apple? It pretty much had to happen eventually no matter what since there is no indication that this illogical "test" had any end.
19231c No.602966
>>601068
>God couldn't possibly have made the earth in six literal days
>Him being a piece of bread is totes literal tho, guys
afd763 No.602978
>>601175
>>601166
>creation isn't literal
May someone fact-check this logic and see where I go wrong?
>Creation is metaphorical but not literal
>There wasn't a literal 7 days of creation
>There weren't individual days set aside for the creation of each creature, instead it took millions of years
>There wasn't a literal Garden of Eden
>There wasn't a literal Snake that talked
>There wasn't a literal Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil
>There wasn't a literal rest "day" i.e. Sabbath
>There WAS an actual curse upon man and woman for eating a metaphorical fruit by a metaphorical serpent in a metaphorical garden
>There either was or wasn't a flood on the earth, and if there was, it was either global or "local"
I don't understand this, in fact it bothers me immensely as it would seem, to me, to be the logic of someone self-conscious of what they believe and instead wish to conform to the world around them. Origen seems to be applying the laws of the universe to He who is outside of the realms of the Universe, in fact, I dare say that believing that God can and did create the Universe in 7 days gives Ken Ham a stronger faith than Origen, especially in the modern era with the paradigm of Methodological Naturalism in society.
Getting back to the first part, For those who believe God didn't make the world in seven days, why do you believe so? Is it because the text truly implies that God didn't make it in seven days and that it was, in fact, a metaphor? I highly HIGHLY doubt it to be this reason Or is it rather, the fact that you take what naturalist scientists say to heart and find yourselves convinced of an Old Earth and feel the need to apply MD(Methodological Naturalism) to scripture, instead of scripture to MD.
You have no need to justify what God saith, He says what He says. All of you are infuriated when a Pastor or Priest doubles down on homosexuality or feminism, so why follow examples of the world? More specifically the modern lens of evolution from cosmic to macro-evolution. Micro is factual.
cff3f1 No.602979
>>602978
Nice post. Sad to see so many swayed by false prophet DarLose
90b984 No.603013
>>602978
Sure. You pick and choose what is, or what isn't literal.
We understand that attributing human reasoning to God is silly, but we also understand that the God-given Holy Scriptures are written in ways for humanity of ALL times and ALL ages are to understand.
Is it because the text truly implies that God didn't make it in seven days and that it was, in fact, a metaphor?
"And I have spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and I have used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets."
Similitudes are in fact, a metaphor my friend.
>ou have no need to justify what God saith, He says what He says.
And He says he speaks in similitudes, and Christ speaks in parables. You're the one who refuses this.
88ee0a No.603028
>>602978
>There WAS an actual curse upon man and woman for eating a metaphorical fruit by a metaphorical serpent in a metaphorical garden
There WASN'T an actual curse upon man and woman. God was just warning them of what would happen because of what they have done, just like he did earlier when he said that if they ate the fruit.
Or are you claiming Adam and Eve died right there after eating the fruit?
808126 No.603154
>>603013
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
afd763 No.603203
>>603028
They didn’t die right there, no. However because they didn’t die right there, the death they received was to come in the future with Humanity’s introduction of sin.
afd763 No.603210
>>603203
>>603028
I phrased that weird (was on a phone)
They didn't die right there, simply because God didn't mean that they would die immediately but rather it's shown that because of their defiance of Him, they will die of natural death.
e588ff No.603212
>>601041
>no flag
>obvious bait thread
Ah, the old "Satan is Prometheus in Jewish clothes"-trick, is it, OP?
>S-s-satan was just trying to enlighten us, guys. He's a good guy.
Don't you have some bookstore Bibles to put in the fiction aisle?
The "knowledge" God was keeping Adam and Eve from was specifically the knowledge of good and evil. Until then, both were ignorant of evil, they were still on factory-settings, having no interest in or desire for a life(style) other than the one God gave them. And God wanted nothing more for humanity than to enjoy the goodness that He Himself was. So, He wanted to spare humanity the trials and tribulations and death we have suffered since then.
Satan, for (((his))) part, it would seem, recently btfo of heaven, simply wanted to spoil what God had made.
Refer Lewis's speculative Perelandra and Tolkein's opening chapters of creation in Silmarillion. And Paradise Lost.
>>601068
Yeeeaaah, I wouldn't be so sure of that. Also, this: >>601144
Ahhh, I see from the rest of your posts that trolling is second-nature.
90b984 No.603227
>>603154
"And I have spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and I have used similitudes by the ministry of the prophets."
What is seven days to the Lord? What is time to the Lord? And, what precludes a 7-day creation from a creation event that is billions old?
808126 No.603266
>>603227
>What is seven days to the Lord?
Seven evenings and seven mornings.
>What is time to the Lord? And, what precludes a 7-day creation from a creation event that is billions old?
I would refer you to 2 Peter chapter 3. I wouldn't scoff at the word of God as it describes there. And I would not encourage you to continue to multiply words against God and what God told us, that the sabbath day is the same kind of day we're talking about. Just read Exodus 20:11 instead of continuing down this course. It's not an accident what it says. And it's not some kind of gnostic deception either. God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.