Knowledge of Good and Evil

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards!

Just a quick bump to let others know I have not forgotten this thread. I looked into Kohlberg and find his stuff interesting but not quite fulfilling. Seems there is some parallel to Maslow's hierarchy. And while the general position of Kohlberg's stages is that once one reaches the next level there is no going back, the acknowledged research indicates otherwise. I also find it curious that political campaigns seem to focus on the lowest common denominators. I suppose bumper sticker slogans and ten second sound bites are not adequate for stage four and five morality and reasoning.

I did stumble on another researcher who has grabbed my attention; William James. Seems he is the founder of psychology, predating even Freud. And he had a great deal to say, positively, about religion. I find a kindred spirit in his work, and were I to believe in "rebirth" I would have cause to wonder. Seems he is the first in academia to divide religion into "personal" and "institutional," his terms, over a hundred years before I thought of the terms in trying to distinguish what I was attempting to say. I can't wait to get further into his material!

[Victor]

Very interesting, but misguided? I'll be back shortly. It doesn't take too much to peek my interest... overwhelmed with work at this moment.
HELLO BRIAN!
Victor G.

[I, Brian]

Hello Victor, nice to see you back.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Victor!

It is great to see you back after such a long absence! Please do join in!

[Victor]

In scanning here, the posts seem to go helter-skelter into many areas that could take up pages on their own. The title intrigued me as our study group has has just gone into this subject in depth, with surprising discoveries. But allow me to digress.

To this mind, ETHICS is a set of values agreed upon by a given society through which its members may act in an acceptable manner; within that community. The ETHICAL codex usually varies within areas of social strata. MORALITY is merely an ETHICAL code in action. I personally see no point in concerning self with a complex issue here.

Another statement I read concerned Jesus' healing power. If one scrutinizes the scriptures it becomes obvious, that in every case, the healing was dependant on the faith of the recipient, or their 'sponsor.' Where Jesus was unable to heal, as in his own 'country', it was due to a lack of faith upon those in residence who knew him personally. OH, and by the way, an act; a thought, even a whispered imagining in one's mind, can be evil of itself, of its very nature, without ever interacting with another.

Unfortunately, I have not been privy to the very old thread refered to but if one must begin an issue of, the Knowledge of Good and Evil, I would have been prone, as a believer, to start at the beginning. Would this community be willing to look at the creation of man and the ancient story of Adam in a new light? For if religious myth, cult legend, have anything substanial to offer, we might concern ourselves with what I have come to consider a very biased view in the religious mind. (Being a Christian, I include Christianity as well!)

Consider: God created Adam and set him in the Garden of Eden. The Creator gave man reign over that creation and all that was in it, save one tree, the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Obviously, all that Adam was given as food must be considered as metaphoric, since to 'eat' of the fruits of the garden was a gathering of knowledge for man, the gaining of wisdom. The tree of Life allows us to consider that this creation, Adam, in partaking of that 'food' was immortal. But the one fruit he was denied is the great clue to the truth behind this tale.

God may well have created Adam as a complete, physical creature, but Adam was an infant, a blank canvas! Consider, he had no life experience; had never made a logical decision; had not gained intellect save to complete the most basic tasks, and had NO KNOWLEDGE OF RIGHT AND WRONG, GOOD AND EVIL! How do we know this? Because he was forbidden to 'eat' of that fruit! He did not know that he was naked. Adam was a complete innocent, until after he had partaken of that knowledge.

Theophilus, the 6th Bishop of the church at Antioch in circa 177 A.D. asked an enormously inportanht question and I put it into our language because it has stirred my own imagination. "If God did not want Adam to eat of the fruit of that tree, why the hell did he put it there in the first place?"

Reason drives that great thinker, and this lesser soul, to consider that Adam was to have gained knowledge to reach perfection, and at some point in time, when he had become strong enough, he would have been permitted to eat of the forbidden fruit, but ONLY when he was wise enough to control it. Unfortunately, his curiosity caused him to seek knowledge that was so potent, it controlled him. God's admonition then becomes, not a threat, but a statment of fact! 'If you eat of that fruit you will surely die.' The power of the wisdom that Man sought controlled him, it was far before the appointed time for him to open the 'Pandoras' Box' that filled him with the total knowledge of, Good and Evil, In overcoming him, in controlling him, man learned of, and became subject to, 'death.'

Without going further into the lesson we struggled with I would ask:
(1) What does this do to the Christian doctrine of original sin? How could there be sin when in fact, Adam, original man, had no concept of sin or of right and wrong?
(2)Can we parallel this cult myth to original man and his introduction into the material world, regardless of the manner of his coming into being? Surely he came as an infant, a blank page that was to be written upon by 'life experience'? Even if he came into existence through the waters of great unfathomed seas, he would bring with him instincts developed by the lowest form of life known to man, and we must consider the very first, the absolute in 'new' life could have had no ethical code, no knowledge of moral behaviour.

Then, if there be no source of consciousness beyond man, all things are the creation of man; good and evil are concepts of a developing, human mind that are relevant to our species, and ours alone.

Thoughts?
Victor G.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Victor!

What an incredibly thoughtful response!

Originally Posted by Victor

In scanning here, the posts seem to go helter-skelter into many areas that could take up pages on their own. The title intrigued me as our study group has has just gone into this subject in depth, with surprising discoveries.

Originally the thread was begun in an effort to be as inclusive as possible, not only of other faiths but of science and atheism as well. This probably explains why the disparate sources and points of view.

To this mind, ETHICS is a set of values agreed upon by a given society through which its members may act in an acceptable manner; within that community. The ETHICAL codex usually varies within areas of social strata. MORALITY is merely an ETHICAL code in action. I personally see no point in concerning self with a complex issue here.

This is the reverse of how I understand the terms. Be that as it may, now that I understand how you use the terms, I will attempt to conform so we are speaking of the same thing.

Another statement I read concerned Jesus' healing power. If one scrutinizes the scriptures it becomes obvious, that in every case, the healing was dependant on the faith of the recipient, or their 'sponsor.' Where Jesus was unable to heal, as in his own 'country', it was due to a lack of faith upon those in residence who knew him personally. OH, and by the way, an act; a thought, even a whispered imagining in one's mind, can be evil of itself, of its very nature, without ever interacting with another.

I am not sure of the direct connection between healing and morality, although I agree with your assessment. As for evil being even just a thought, I suppose that conforms with a statement I made on the other thread, about viewing good and evil much like the old cartoon caricatures of an angel and a devil on either shoulder whispering in our ears. Evil must have a source and beginning, (I would think the same of "goodness"). Do we contrive evil thoughts purely of our own, without outside influence?

Unfortunately, I have not been privy to the very old thread refered to but if one must begin an issue of, the Knowledge of Good and Evil, I would have been prone, as a believer, to start at the beginning. Would this community be willing to look at the creation of man and the ancient story of Adam in a new light? For if religious myth, cult legend, have anything substanial to offer, we might concern ourselves with what I have come to consider a very biased view in the religious mind. (Being a Christian, I include Christianity as well!)

The old thread is easy enough to find (I thought I had included a link...). It is in the philosophy section, titled "Morality in Evolution." Actually, across a number of threads I have started there has been the unwritten allusion to the Genesis story. So it is well someone finally brought it to light.

Consider: God created Adam and set him in the Garden of Eden. The Creator gave man reign over that creation and all that was in it, save one tree, the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Obviously, all that Adam was given as food must be considered as metaphoric, since to 'eat' of the fruits of the garden was a gathering of knowledge for man, the gaining of wisdom. The tree of Life allows us to consider that this creation, Adam, in partaking of that 'food' was immortal. But the one fruit he was denied is the great clue to the truth behind this tale.

Of course, one argument presented the idea that Adam and Eden are metaphoric, symbology to represent an idea of the founding of consciousness and morality, not to mention agriculture. That there was a conscious awakening in the human mind and spirit there can be little doubt, but can we say with certainty that Adam was a real historical figure, and that he and Eve were the absolute first to have their minds awakened?

God may well have created Adam as a complete, physical creature, but Adam was an infant, a blank canvas! Consider, he had no life experience; had never made a logical decision; had not gained intellect save to complete the most basic tasks, and had NO KNOWLEDGE OF RIGHT AND WRONG, GOOD AND EVIL! How do we know this? Because he was forbidden to 'eat' of that fruit! He did not know that he was naked. Adam was a complete innocent, until after he had partaken of that knowledge.

What can we say of Neolithic humanity? Or before? Where in the scheme of things does the story of Adam reside? If Adam was created only 6 thousand years ago, how do we explain Neolithic humanity (to which, I might add, we have evidence to show we are genetically related)? If Adam was before, where do we place him? We have tools and artifacts dated to 100 thousand years and more. It is believed humans had fire much longer than that. What does this have to do with morality?, probably not much by itself. But then, how does one explain careful burials, with clothing and implements? How does one explain healing arts, and suffering a malformed one to exist within the group structure and treating them with respect and dignity, as evidenced by a few burials dating around 25-30 thousand years or so ago (+ or -, I am going by memory here). How does one explain the magnificent cave paintings around Europe and in China? Surely, for these things there must have been consciousness, and more importantly to this discussion morality, in humans at the least 25 thousand years ago.

Theophilus, the 6th Bishop of the church at Antioch in circa 177 A.D. asked an enormously inportanht question and I put it into our language because it has stirred my own imagination. "If God did not want Adam to eat of the fruit of that tree, why the hell did he put it there in the first place?"

LOL, I like this!

Reason drives that great thinker, and this lesser soul, to consider that Adam was to have gained knowledge to reach perfection, and at some point in time, when he had become strong enough, he would have been permitted to eat of the forbidden fruit, but ONLY when he was wise enough to control it. Unfortunately, his curiosity caused him to seek knowledge that was so potent, it controlled him. God's admonition then becomes, not a threat, but a statment of fact! 'If you eat of that fruit you will surely die.' The power of the wisdom that Man sought controlled him, it was far before the appointed time for him to open the 'Pandoras' Box' that filled him with the total knowledge of, Good and Evil, In overcoming him, in controlling him, man learned of, and became subject to, 'death.'

If Adam is metaphorical, and represents humanity in some total form, have we reached this threshold yet? I am guessing not. Would things have been different, had Adam not made the mistake of learning evil with good? I don't know...

Without going further into the lesson we struggled with I would ask:
(1) What does this do to the Christian doctrine of original sin? How could there be sin when in fact, Adam, original man, had no concept of sin or of right and wrong?

I suppose it comes back to your point about how even a thought can be evil. Of course, who planted the thought in Adam? And who planted the thought in her?

(2)Can we parallel this cult myth to original man and his introduction into the material world, regardless of the manner of his coming into being? Surely he came as an infant, a blank page that was to be written upon by 'life experience'? Even if he came into existence through the waters of great unfathomed seas, he would bring with him instincts developed by the lowest form of life known to man, and we must consider the very first, the absolute in 'new' life could have had no ethical code, no knowledge of moral behaviour.

Absolutely. Yet nature does exhibit a form of morality among herding and pack animals. Humans are not the only social animals, and not the only with morality.

Then, if there be no source of consciousness beyond man, all things are the creation of man; good and evil are concepts of a developing, human mind that are relevant to our species, and ours alone.

I agree with the basic principle, not necessarily the conclusion. Particularly if evil (and by extension good) can be interjected from outside. And from a different angle, not if some other segments of nature also understand, in their own way, good from evil.

Thoughts?

I most humbly submit mine. Do you have comments regarding my thoughts?

Juan

[Victor]

Juan:
Entertaining discussion and I will reply. I was just passing by but must read your comments without distraction. You certainly deserve a studied response as you raise good points along the way.

Warmest regards;
Victor G

[Victor]

Juan:
Concerning Ethics and Morality, you noted:
This is the reverse of how I understand the terms. Be that as it may, now that I understand how you use the terms, I will attempt to conform so we are speaking of the same thing.

Compromise is the beginning of understanding but hopes are that we will not need to digress on this issue.” On Jesus’ healing, I picked that thought up from Post #11 (please reference for content)

The wrikter noted:
Absolutely! But he knew their karma. Why could Jesus not heal some people, and why - even when he did heal others - did he insist that it was God working through him (or words to that effect)?

Concerning Evil thoughts you noted:
Evil must have a source and beginning, (I would think the same of "goodness"). Do we contrive evil thoughts purely of our own, without outside influence?

Well, we have something of an enigma! If, as I stated before, there is no consciousness beyond man, and man came from the very depths of the most ancient sea, and was the very FIRST of all life, he had no concept of good and evil, right and wrong, regardless of his pre-human form. That would have to come from life experience i.e., that which caused that life-form pain or injury as opposed to comfort or satisfaction. I would suggest (without any formal proof) that a continuation of life would become a primal ‘instinct’ and later the ‘survival of the species.’ (Of the fittest?) Later development of intellectual and instinctive abilities would come from interrelationships within a growing species, and then from within an organized community.

IF, we accept the existence of a conscious entity beyond ourselves (God, if you will) we are still faced with the question of how man adopted an awareness of right and wrong, good and evil. My concept of Genesis leaves the doctrine of Original Sin, in grave doubt. The Serpent fed on Eve’s innocence, not her sinfulness! Adam gave in to curiosity, not the knowledge that he was doing something wrong. When they lost their innocence, when niavete vanished and they realized their naked state, the first concept of ‘wrong’ entered the picture. The concept was not planted by God or by the Serpent, but by a bitter life experience. When they were banished from Paradise, Adam and Eve entered the world of mankind and the adaptation into a material life experience that created the Law, crime and punishment, etc.

And here, my friend, we come to face a truth whether one is a ‘believer’ or a non-believer, and everything in-between. The world corrupts; it corrupts us physically, spiritually, and eventually, intellectually.

We need no ‘angel’ or ‘demon’ on either shoulder because we respond to our environment, to the actions of mankind and of nature. We are conditioned by all that comes from our ancient ancestry to our modern frustrations and joys. We are conditioned by so many factors that it becomes incomprehensible and almost beyond understanding, but that which has become our innate knowledge of good and evil lies within us and, in the end, we are barely in control.

You noted:
That there was a conscious awakening in the human mind and spirit there can be little doubt, but can we say with certainty that Adam was a real historical figure, and that he and Eve were the absolute first to have their minds awakened?

I do not believe that we must ascertain the historical reality of first man. Who or what he might have been is inconsequential. The FACT that a first, an original, came into existence is proven by the fact that you and I exist! And I am not of a fundamentalist mind but a believer who has no problem in accepting the fact that our universe must be billions of eons old. On the other hand, I delight in the knowledge that Hubble allows us to SEE that the Creation is an ongoing event in the myriad of Star Nurseries that until now have been hidden from us.

Genesis is, at best, an anthropomorphic analogy of man coming into the world, and for the age in which it originated, is a unique and ambitious effort.

You noted:
If Adam is metaphorical, and represents humanity in some total form, have we reached this threshold yet? I am guessing not. Would things have been different, had Adam not made the mistake of learning evil with good? I don't know...

Now this statement causes emotion… If Adam existed as an immortal in Paradise (the Garden) then I would suppose that the ultimate purpose would have been as Genesis states, “Be fruitful and multiply!” Gaining knowledge, wisdom, Adam would eventually have reached a state of perfection (whatever grand scheme that would entail) and he would have become as a God, knowing all that God knows.

In Christianity, doctrine tells us that, having fallen from grace, Adam became a mortal being subject to all the consequences of that existence. There was no alternative but for the Christ (Messiah) to become human, take on all the frailties of human existence and reach a state of perfection here on this earth. The reward for believers is ‘salvation’, reaching the state of perfection originally intended for Adam and eternal life in the, Kingdom.

Whatever avenue one chooses, we must all deal with ‘real’ life within the many structures of human existence on this planet. My question would be: will man be able to attain that state universally, or merely individually.
Finally, as Ethics and Morality vary from social order to social order, they would certainly vary from species to species, and from life-form to life-form, including that which we would consider, Alien!

Religions give us basic codes for moral action, and they often vary as do Judaic, Christian, and Islamic Law though they come from the same base. The basic foundations of our legal systems stem from ‘Theos nomos’, God’s Law! Agios nomos, man’s law, usually generates from those principles and adapts by necessity. But no one yet has accomplished a ‘perfect’ Law in heart, mind or spirit.

Why? I believe it is because we have become so diverse in our nature as individuals.
Victor G.

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Knowledge of Good and Evil
Kindest Regards, all!
It seems to me that what we deem morality in modern society is a far cry from what may be deemed natural morality. Nature is a beautiful creation, balanced and in harmony. Yet, humans have long outgrown natural morality in most cultures, excepting it seems to me such indigenous cultures as the Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians and African Bushmen. Perhaps I would be remiss if I overlooked some Pagan traditions, so I am fishing for some insight in this direction.
I look forward to a meaningful and enlightening discussion. Kindest Regards to all! 

Knowledge of good and evil has been beneficial to man and that’s why man has made so much progress in science and technology and other fields. It is no more a forbidden tree or its fruit, man has tasted it and it is tasty.
Morals ,to me, are the natural faculties of man molded into actions, done with free will, suited to the time and occasion and of course according to the dictates of God as per the Revealed Scriptures.
I quote here for benefit of all the opening four verses of The Holy Quran: Chapter 25: named Al-Furqan, meaning the faculty of discerning Good from Evil, bestowed on man by God. Quote:
[25:1] “In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful
[25:2] Blessed is He who has sent down Al-Furqan to His servant, that he may be a Warner to all the worlds -
[25:3] He to Whom belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and the earth. And He has taken unto Himself no son, and has no partner in the Kingdom, and He has created everything, and has determined its proper measure. [25:4] Yet they have taken beside Him gods, who create nothing but are themselves created, and who have no power to harm or benefit themselves, nor have they any power over death or life or Resurrection”. Unquote
Thanks

[Victor]

Inhumility:
I would like to know where God has allowed man back into the Garden to taste of this fruit. You said:
"Knowledge of good and evil has been beneficial to man and that’s why man has made so much progress in science and technology and other fields. It is no more a forbidden tree or its fruit, man has tasted it and it is tasty."

"...He has created everything, and has determined its proper measure. [25:4] Yet they have taken beside Him gods, who create nothing but are themselves created, and who have no power to harm or benefit themselves, nor have they any power over death or life or Resurrection”.

Seems to me this is a condemnation of man's self-acclaimed 'wisdom'; who has; "taken beside Him gods, who create nothing but are themselves created, and who have no power to harm or benefit themselves, nor have they any power over death or life or Resurrection”.

Allah is saying that these man-made gods provide nothing for man or for themselves. That man is guilty of fashioning their own gods just as they did at the foot of the mountain. But the question here is if, indeed, we know good from evil, we still do not have the power to control either! That wisdom, the fruit of that tree, has yet to be digested.

If I am wrong then you need tell the million plus who have died from the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that they are not victims, they are the fruit of our great scientific knowledge. You need to tell those innocent victims at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, that they are not victims, they are the recipients of our marvelous technology. We need to tell those whose lives have been shattered by modern drug advances that they are not victims but shareholders in our modern technologically 'good' corporate society.

You see, when we learn to use things for 'good' without the 'evil' being a necessary by-product, THEN we will have inherited true wisdom. We will be able to not only determine 'good' from 'evil' but use the one without the other. And please, do not tell me that those lives butchered or lost are the price we MUST pay for scientific advancement.

Scioentific advancement does not entail wisdom, nor does it rarely consider the 'good' and 'evil' involved in its movement forward. It deals with money and with power and we all pay the price for that. I leave you with the 'wisdom of God's prophet (PBUH)

The Holy Qu'ran: Surah 17:14; "Every person's doings have We fastened firmly to his neck; and on the Day of Judgment We shall place before him a book which he will find wide open, and he will be told: Read thy record, thou art sufficient as a reckoner against thyself this day."

Victor G

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Victor!

Please forgive my inattention, I have been quite occupied with other concerns of late, and have not had the time to give this thread the proper attention.

If, as I stated before, there is no consciousness beyond man, and man came from the very depths of the most ancient sea, and was the very FIRST of all life, he had no concept of good and evil, right and wrong, regardless of his pre-human form. That would have to come from life experience i.e., that which caused that life-form pain or injury as opposed to comfort or satisfaction. I would suggest (without any formal proof) that a continuation of life would become a primal ‘instinct’ and later the ‘survival of the species.’ (Of the fittest?) Later development of intellectual and instinctive abilities would come from interrelationships within a growing species, and then from within an organized community.

I think I follow, and am inclined to agree. Morality among animals, or perhaps better said morality without conscious rational thought, is certainly of a different type and kind than seems appropriate in civil society. It would seem, (if it is truly distanced observation and not anthropomorphizing, always a concern when looking at this), that animal mothers among the mammals, and to some degree birds, seem to have some “emotional” relation to their babies. Herding and pack animals exhibit hierarchies, rallying around the strong male “protector.” There are other attributes that can sometimes be forwarded, but not exclusively. Murder, for instance, seems somewhat arbitrary. Same with theft. These considerations are always “within the group,” as animals rarely consider “moral” behavior outside of their group, often even within the same species.

IF, we accept the existence of a conscious entity beyond ourselves (God, if you will) we are still faced with the question of how man adopted an awareness of right and wrong, good and evil. My concept of Genesis leaves the doctrine of Original Sin, in grave doubt. The Serpent fed on Eve’s innocence, not her sinfulness! Adam gave in to curiosity, not the knowledge that he was doing something wrong. When they lost their innocence, when niavete vanished and they realized their naked state, the first concept of ‘wrong’ entered the picture. The concept was not planted by God or by the Serpent, but by a bitter life experience. When they were banished from Paradise, Adam and Eve entered the world of mankind and the adaptation into a material life experience that created the Law, crime and punishment, etc.

We still are faced with a daunting challenge, that of anthropomorphizing G-d. I realize the subject demands we speak in terms that are meaningful to us as humans, we obviously cannot converse in wolf or orangutan. Even though I may believe, in fact do believe, in a Creator, I am cautious to attribute human aspects to “Him.” IF G-d has a “consciousness,” I suspect that consciousness is so far beyond our understanding as to make the term almost meaningless. How can I begin to fathom a consciousness that created the universe “by speaking the word?” Even if I may be so presumptuous as to claim that I am made in the image of G-d, I am no more like G-d than my shadow is like me.

As to Original Sin, I am not versed enough to argue. If the concept applies to going against the direct mandate of G-d to Adam and Eve not to eat of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, then I am thinking that is a beginning point for human moral development, a significant marker if you will. Prior to that, if Adam and Eve are representative of early humanity, we have no way of knowing if they were able or capable of doing wrong towards other humans. Were there murder and war, theft and adultery prior to the advent of Eden? Archeology suggests at least some of these were so, and it is likely the others can be surmised. Perhaps, and this is only speculation, Eden represents an active interjection on the part of the Creator into the creation. The opening of the minds of Adam and Eve represent the advent of rational thought. Of course, this raises questions of its own, considering rational thought seems to have been with humans far longer than the Biblical 6 thousand years since Adam was created.

… we come to face a truth whether one is a ‘believer’ or a non-believer, and everything in-between. The world corrupts; it corrupts us physically, spiritually, and eventually, intellectually.

Perhaps. Belief carries its own burden, particularly if one desires with all of his or her being to “believe” the truth. What value is belief in a non-truth? Perhaps there may be some moral value, ethical lessons to be learned and applied toward the rest of humanity. But to the individual, what real value is there to belief in non-truth? If truth is eventually a corruption of the mind, then what value is there to any philosophy, religious or otherwise? Either something is truth, or it is not. I suppose there may be some degree of truth, some mythos are “more true” than others, but there must be one factual truth that exists. Whether or not the one factual truth can be proven is another story.

We need no ‘angel’ or ‘demon’ on either shoulder because we respond to our environment, to the actions of mankind and of nature. We are conditioned by all that comes from our ancient ancestry to our modern frustrations and joys. We are conditioned by so many factors that it becomes incomprehensible and almost beyond understanding, but that which has become our innate knowledge of good and evil lies within us and, in the end, we are barely in control.

To some degree I can agree. Even so, how does one account for actions we know are not correct, that are not “skillful?” I want to believe every mother tries her best to instill correct behavior in her children. Yet, in spite of this effort through the millennia, every mother’s child makes mistakes. On occasion we go against our learned behaviors, sometimes with our conscience screaming to us not to do so. If we are conditioned, then we are conditioned to do what is right. Yet, in spite of our conditioning, we do not always do what is right. Why?

I do not believe that we must ascertain the historical reality of first man. Who or what he might have been is inconsequential. The FACT that a first, an original, came into existence is proven by the fact that you and I exist! And I am not of a fundamentalist mind but a believer who has no problem in accepting the fact that our universe must be billions of eons old. On the other hand, I delight in the knowledge that Hubble allows us to SEE that the Creation is an ongoing event in the myriad of Star Nurseries that until now have been hidden from us.

Actually, I suspect we can never know the true ha-Adam. Even if we were of the great fortune to find him in his grave, I doubt we would fully appreciate the importance. But timing is essential to our understanding of truth. Was ha-Adam only “born” 6 thousand years ago? Or is he much, much older? When was the human mind awakened into consciousness? When was humanity gifted with rational thought? When did foresight become an intrinsic part of the human thought process? The Knowledge of Good and Evil points directly to all of these questions.

Now, if the story of Eden is “really” about the dawn of the age of agriculture, then we can more literally accept the 6 thousand year figure. In which case, perhaps the opening of the mind is more literally about the physical addiction to cereals.

Genesis is, at best, an anthropomorphic analogy of man coming into the world, and for the age in which it originated, is a unique and ambitious effort.

I absolutely agree that the Genesis story is a noble and ambitious effort to convey an understanding, and it is a superlative effort for the age in which it originated. My effort with my question is not to cast the Bible or any portion of it into doubt in the minds of those who believe in it. Certainly there is a great value, and great truths contained within. I tread very lightly considering this. I do not discount G-d lightly. There is far too much evidence of a personal nature for me to doubt the existence of a Creator. Yet, there remains a nagging doubt that calls me to question. I do not follow where the wind blows, I do not actively consider every “prophet” that comes my way. Even in what religious philosophies that dominate in the world, there is sufficient truth for most, and certainly evidences that satisfy the vast majority. I am a Christian. I believe in the tenets of Christianity. Certain values are self-evident, love G-d and do unto others… But there is something missing. That “something” is quite unimportant to salvation, to gaining access to heaven and the favor of G-d. But it nags at me just the same. We are moral animals, yet we are far, far more. Why?

Now this statement causes emotion… If Adam existed as an immortal in Paradise (the Garden) then I would suppose that the ultimate purpose would have been as Genesis states, “Be fruitful and multiply!” Gaining knowledge, wisdom, Adam would eventually have reached a state of perfection (whatever grand scheme that would entail) and he would have become as a God, knowing all that God knows.

So then, perfection lies in knowledge?

In Christianity, doctrine tells us that, having fallen from grace, Adam became a mortal being subject to all the consequences of that existence. There was no alternative but for the Christ (Messiah) to become human, take on all the frailties of human existence and reach a state of perfection here on this earth. The reward for believers is ‘salvation’, reaching the state of perfection originally intended for Adam and eternal life in the, Kingdom.

Yes, Christian doctrine tells us these things. What does the objective physical evidence tell us?

Whatever avenue one chooses, we must all deal with ‘real’ life within the many structures of human existence on this planet. My question would be: will man be able to attain that state universally, or merely individually.
Finally, as Ethics and Morality vary from social order to social order, they would certainly vary from species to species, and from life-form to life-form, including that which we would consider, Alien!

That ethics and morality differ from culture to culture and species to species is unquestionable to me, there are far too many examples. Yet, moral lessons are the great value we carry away from all religious philosophies. It remains, why are we moral? Because we are trained? Questioning minds can overcome training, indeed, questioning minds are often the first to be sacrificed in any revolution. Likewise, questioning minds in the right place at the right time with the right support can influence the masses. Both of these are historically evident. Yet, underlying every significant religious enterprise is a fundamental or foundational morality. So many of us take this morality for granted, presuming that morality is an objective reality that cannot be questioned. There may be some merit, and it is that merit I seek. But morality as a whole is far from objective, as evidenced by your statement above. Morality is subjective by its nature, it means different things and holds different expressions across different cultures.

Religions give us basic codes for moral action, and they often vary as do Judaic, Christian, and Islamic Law though they come from the same base. The basic foundations of our legal systems stem from ‘Theos nomos’, God’s Law! Agios nomos, man’s law, usually generates from those principles and adapts by necessity. But no one yet has accomplished a ‘perfect’ Law in heart, mind or spirit.

I cannot argue with this, I have made statements in the past that support this. Of course, one could argue (indeed, must!) that some other religions also stem from their own interpretation of “G-d’s” Law. If G-d created all as He wished all to be (speaking in relative terms), then expressions of what G-d is and what He represents, what His will and methods and motivations are must have some basis of commonality. I find a commonality in the Golden Rule.

I believe it is because we have become so diverse in our nature as individuals.

Certainly. While we are diverse, we also share a commonality. Yet, there can only be one truth. We can spend a lifetime searching for who among us holds that one truth (if indeed any can be said to hold it in its completeness!). Or we can go where the spirit leads us, and find the truth where it resides.

Perhaps, just maybe, what is true for you may not be true for me. And likewise in return. That is, if truth is in reality relative.

On the other hand, if there is in reality an objective truth, then there can only be just one truth. I suspect none of us holds it in completeness. We all hold hints and allegations, enough to lead us to suspect, but none among us is worthy to hold the real truth. And then, there is the possibility that none of us is capable of knowing the truth. Does not the Bible state that a mortal man cannot look upon the face of G-d and survive?

Thank you for your thoughtful reply!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Inhumility, and welcome to CR!

Thank you for your response, especially the verses from the Quran.

Knowledge of good and evil has been beneficial to man and that’s why man has made so much progress in science and technology and other fields. It is no more a forbidden tree or its fruit, man has tasted it and it is tasty.

Well, we have a bit of a quandary, as exposed in my answer to Victor. Is the threshold of Good and Evil the opening of consciousness and reasoning? If so, then you may be pointing in the right direction, but the timetable is way off. If, on the other hand, the story of Eden is the dawning of the age of agriculture and humanity's addiction to cereals, it raises other questions. Do we credit all of our technologies short of rudimentary tools and fire to the mind expansion brought about by the addiction to cereals? What is it about the natural chemicals in cereals that expanded our mental faculties to the point of creating such arts and sciences as astronomy, mathematics, architecture and war?

Morals ,to me, are the natural faculties of man molded into actions, done with free will, suited to the time and occasion and of course according to the dictates of God as per the Revealed Scriptures.

Well, I see an issue with "suited to the time and occasion." This suggests Utilitarian morality, that whatever means is justified if it points towards the end. (What is sometimes called "the end justifies the means") When we hold such a point of view, we inherently tell ourselves, and by extension others, that we do not have to abide by what we say we do. That is, I can tell you murder is wrong, and that I will not commit murder because it is wrong. Yet, if by committing murder I can further my personal agenda towards what I believe is a higher cause, I can justify to myself to commit murder. I can show others that I can murder, while I am telling those same people that murder is wrong. In such a case, am I right or wrong to commit murder? Murder is still murder. The difference being whether in one's view it is for personal motive, or for G-d. Murder for G-d is acceptable, but murder for personal reasons is not? It conveys a very mixed message to others. Not to mention, how does one really know they are murdering for G-d? Because another man, perhaps a respected Holy man but a man just the same, tells them to? If G-d Himself tells me to murder, then I would likely do so (although I would question my own sanity). If some man tells me G-d said so, I will not murder, because it is a man and not G-d.

I hope this makes some sense. I am rambling, apologies, I am tired.

[Victor]

juantoo3
Dear fellow traveler:

Even if I may be so presumptuous as to claim that I am made in the image of G-d, I am no more like G-d than my shadow is like me.

This statement should be canonized!

I am honestly impressed with your understanding and this simple metaphor speaks a thousand words. The image we are comprised of is a spiritual image, at least to my thinking. I flinch when others claim we are the ‘physical’ likeness of the Creator.

Anthropomorphizing God has been the motif since day one. We have no other way of expressing ourselves about the Creator, even to ourselves, other than when we are in deep meditation. How sad! Now, as to belief, I have a favorite scene from a theatrical event where an old man is speaking to a young boy who has been constantly lied to by his mother. I hope this does not bore you.

“If you want to believe in something, then believe in it! Just because something isn’t true that’s no reason you can’t believe in it. There’s a long speech I give to young men, seems to me you need to hear a piece of it… piece of it. Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things that a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage and virtue mean everything. That power and money, money and power mean nothing! That good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, love, true love never dies. You remember that boy, you remember that. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, you see, a man should believe in those things because those are the things worth believing in. Got that?”
Second Hand Lions

My friend, we are obsessed with the future. Not the future earth but the future life that lies beyond this earthly realm. I can only tell you that from life experience, meditation, and prayer, I know there is far more to experience in the ‘kingdom.’ I also believe this because I believe that the ‘Christ’ figure runs through history, repeating itself over and over again. I look to Abraham, Melchizedek, Jesus, Buddha, and Gandhi….. how many others have there been? And indeed, what is Salvation? Redemption? Enlightenment? Possibly it is no more than to know that we exist and will continue to exist through all time.

We are not accidents, but intentional creations of That Entity who rules all things, and being of that essence gives us enormous flights of imagination and the power to, believe!

SO… I am working on a fourth thesis and I see a good year’s work ahead. Do stay in touch here on this site.

I Am, as always;
Victor G

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Inhumility, and welcome to CR!
Thank you for your response, especially the verses from the Quran.
Well, I see an issue with "suited to the time and occasion." This suggests Utilitarian morality, that whatever means is justified if it points towards the end. (What is sometimes called "the end justifies the means")

Thanks for your kind remarks.
I did't mean "suited to the time and occasion." what you have understood,it is because I couldn't mention it clealy.What I mean by that is if for instance somebody does some wrog to you,then you have to judge from humanity's angle if your action of forgiving that person would improve that person ,if forgiveness will improve that person in your best judgement then you should forgive that person.On the otherhand if your best judgement decides that your forgiving that person will further spoil that person then you should not forgive and rather take action against him so that that person improves.This is a humanitarian approach as well as a moral approach.
Thanks

[Victor]

inhumility:
This is a humanitarian approach as well as a moral approach.

What about the religious approach? Christianity deals with a strict code of ‘ethics’ when it comes to dealing with ‘wrongs’ done to one within the body of believers; for simplicity sake, a congregation. Example:

The Congregational Council makes a report to the congregation and a person disagrees with the facts stated. That person goes ahead and makes his own investigation, which when delivered to the congregation and the Council, points out the errors in their report and in their general conduct. A member of the Council, who had planned to leave the Congregation anyway, takes offense at the individuals report and then goes to members of the Council and to the Pastor of the church and states that the individual is the sole cause for his family leaving the church. That the individual has defamed his character, impugned his word, and is the single individual reason for his leaving the church, thereby denying him and his family the right to Christ’s table. (The Eucharist)

This person never confronts the individual who made the report, never takes witnesses from the church to talk to him and never involves that individual before the Congregation but makes all his accusations behind the persons back!

Matthew 18:1-15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

This person happens to be an influential member of the church, and though he leaves, his continued presence in and around the church causes members of the Congregation and the Council to look upon the innocent individual with suspicion. The pointing fingers accuse and so the individual goes to the Council asking them to hear the case, look at the evidence, and declare his innocence. They Refuse!

Because of such intolerant neglect, this person is no longer permitted to take Communion, involve himself in management areas of the church and its committees, must resign from the Choir where he served as Cantor and Lector, and his tithe is considered unacceptable to the church.

Matthew 5:21-26
"You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.”

The accuser goes unscathed, still refuses to deal with the individual, and continues his assault from outside the boundaries of the church though still involved in working around the building during the week although no longer a member. Would you tell the accused to ignore the cowardice and infamy of this persons attack and forgive him? And how would you judge the Council?

I recall this, when Jesus was confronted with civil matters, he conceded to make compromise, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.” But when it came to his religious beliefs, he practiced, Jihad! Note his actions at the Temple with the money changers, and his response to Peter? “Get thee behind me Satan, for you are not for God but for men!”

Decision please?

I Am, as always;
Victor G