Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter what?

[Thomas]

I posted an answer at some length yesterday, as as is the way of things, it appears to have vanished into the ether. So as time is pressing, I hope you will allow a somewhat abreviated response. Under the general rule of 'tackle the worst first', and as the most alarming aspect of our discussion did not come out until later in your post, my response treats your post almost in reverse order:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas said: "I suggest that if the first principle was properly understood, you could answer all subsequent questions yourself."
--> The very purpose of Theosophy is to show that this statement is wrong.

Really? I did not know that, and quite honestly, I am staggered. But that does explain a lot — we have agreed elsewhere that the Theosophical Society focus is cosmological, which would suggest the manifestation of things rather than their causes, whereas Christianity focusses on the causes, or rather the First Cause of All, the Absolute — in and of Itself (as made known via the data of Revelation) — rather than the diversity of manifestation.

For us the pursuit of the true philosophy — the love of knowledge — demands a rigorous pursuit of the causes that manifest effects to the First Cause — and is absolutely fundamental. Christian thinking is founded on the proven practice and methodology of the Greek philosophical tradition upon which the Western Traditions are founded ... if you reject that, then I think 'theosophy' itself as a name for your organisation is a misnomer, and we certainly have no common philosophical, hermeneutic or epistemological basis on which to continue.

In light of this I can understand why, from my answers, you might draw a multiplicity of questions:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Why did God have that rule in the first place?
But why was what they did evil?
How can eating from the Tree of Knowledge be considered estrangement from God?
So the Bible is saying possession of the knowledge of good and evil specifically is inherently a bad thing?
How does eating an apple open one's eyes?
What type of information gets transferred during such an act?
How does eating an apple cause declusions of divinity?
How does an apple cause a sudden understanding of good and evil?
Whoa, Nick! You run on to ask question on question, without really considering my responses. The answer to all these questions is in my replies.
So eating an apple makes us want to ignore the Divine Plan?
Eating an apple is the improper appropriating of things?
Why does God see eating an apple as a toxic movement away from God?
How is an apple inherently toxic?
How does eating an apple cause a sudden understanding of good and evil?
Why does God see a sudden understanding of good and evil as a movement away from God?
What kind of fruit was it, since you say it was not an apple?
How does eating from the Tree of Knowledge separate us from the real, the good and the true?
How does eating from the Tree of Knowledge separate us from the Unity of All in the One...."?
but Theosophists wonder how eating an apple plunges one into free choice away from God?
How is eating from the Tree of Knowledge actualising a possibility that is not real? This seems to be an unwarranted deductive leap.

That last phrase is telling, the 'unwarranted deductive leap' is simply a case of cause and effect.

and classically:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

What innate characteristic of fruit causes a rejection of divine love?

Quite how you draw that conclusion escapes me, except of course the obvious, but elsewhere you have evidenced more intelligence that this question supposes.

I am inclined to believe your agenda is simply to ridicule my posts.

+++

However, to return to the primary issue: "...not an apple, by the way, nowhere is the fruit identified...."
to which you replied:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> I think it is safe to say trees bear apples.

Do you? Really? I'm afraid I do not ... consider oak trees, chestnuts, pears and oranges ... I would suggest this indicates you're not really following my point, but simply seeking to find difference. You're not really thinking it throught, otherwise you would not have made such an obvious nonsensical statement.

I think it's safe to say, and I repeat, that nowhere is the fruit of the tree identified.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Since you have declared it was not an apple, what kind of fruit was it?

Again and again you confound yourself, Nick. Where in the text does it say it was an apple?

It seems to me that once an error in your presentation has been demonstrated, you simply dig in deeper and keep asking questions.

Either that, or you have a fixation about apples

Another example:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas, you said,

"Allow a classic analogy — a surgeon removes a patient's leg in an operation. Is it a good thing, or a bad thing?"

--> Why would eating an apple require surgery?

I can see, having rejected philosophy, that you might not understand the technical application of an analogy. This only saddens me the more.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas said: "I'm saying your contradiction is a classic 'can't see the wood for the trees' scenario."
--> I disagree. This is a classic 'there is no connection between the two.' scenario.

Just because you can't see it does not mean it is not there. Actually the analogy is a commonly-used one in these cases, but again, if the analogy passes you by, I can understand your confusion.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas said: "For example, in this ongoing discussion, you see Adam and Eve's actions as basically evil, in the sense they needed to be punished. I do not see that. --> Once again, you appear to be making a statement about what I believe, when I have said nothing, and indicated nothing, of the sort."
--> Fortunately, later on in your post, you show how you believe their actions were something requiring punishment. Thanks for clearing that up.

And this is the problem ... I have done no such thing, it is you who chooses to read my answers (or not) to suit yourself.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Feel free to define terms. Feel free to show differences between philosophies. It can be done.

It can be done, but if you don't believe in First Principles, I don't see how, except by the most long-winded route.

I joined the discussion simply to assert that Theosophists do not read Scripture as Christians do. You have acknowledged that. I'm afraid I had never realised quite how profound and far-reaching the differences between us actually are. Sadly, I have not the time to engage in subsequent discussion, and certainly your stream-of-question method is far from an ideal approach. As it is, we would need to engage in serious and lengthy discussion that would cover an immense territory before we could even begin to consider Scripture.

As I have said, I have not the time, but I believe I am not the only Christian on this Board, and perhaps someone else has the time to answer your inquiries.

Thomas

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Really? I did not know that, and quite honestly, I am staggered. But that does explain a lot — we have agreed elsewhere that the Theosophical Society focus is cosmological, which would suggest the manifestation of things rather than their causes, whereas Christianity focusses on the causes, or rather the First Cause of All, the Absolute — in and of Itself (as made known via the data of Revelation) — rather than the diversity of manifestation.

For us the pursuit of the true philosophy — the love of knowledge — demands a rigorous pursuit of the causes that manifest effects to the First Cause — and is absolutely fundamental. Christian thinking is founded on the proven practice and methodology of the Greek philosophical tradition upon which the Western Traditions are founded ... if you reject that, then I think 'theosophy' itself as a name for your organisation is a misnomer, and we certainly have no common philosophical, hermeneutic or epistemological basis on which to continue.

Thomas, you are the most DISINGENUOUS person I know ... and I say this not by way of an ad hominem attack, but simply in response to the above two paragraphs - AND as a simple statement of fact. You are the most underhanded of all the people I have ever seen argue and debate here at C-R ... and all you are doing here is attempting to dismiss everything Theosophical with your weary old, holier-than-thou, `my-worldview's-better' attitude.

DO PLEASE COME OFF IT!!! It DISGUSTS me!


Thesosphy certainly focuses on FIRST CAUSES, and your CLAIM that you actually have a copy of The Secret Doctrine in your collection is apparently absolute BUNK ... since if you did you would AT LEAST have read the PROEM, in which HPB makes PLAIN what is the Core Teaching - by way of Three Fundamental Propositions - of the Ageless Wisdom, namely (in abbreviated form):

(a) An Omnipresent, Eternal, Boundless, and Immutable PRINCIPLE on which all speculation is impossible, since it transcends the power of human conception and could only be dwarfed by any human expression or similitude. It is beyond the range and reach of thought -- in the words of Mandukya, "unthinkable and unspeakable."

To render these ideas clearer to the general reader, let him set out with the postulate that there is one absolute Reality which antecedes all manifested, conditioned, being. This Infinite and Eternal Cause -- dimly formulated in the "Unconscious" and "Unknowable" of current European philosophy -- is the rootless root of "all that was, is, or ever shall be." It is of course devoid of all attributes and is essentially without any relation to manifested, finite Being. It is "Be-ness" rather than Being (in Sanskrit, Sat), and is beyond all thought or speculation.

(b.) The Eternity of the Universe in toto as a boundless plane; periodically "the playground of numberless Universes incessantly manifesting and disappearing," called "the manifesting stars," and the "sparks of Eternity."

This second assertion of the Secret Doctrine is the absolute universality of that law of periodicity, of flux and reflux, ebb and flow, which physical science has observed and recorded in all departments of nature. An alternation such as that of Day and Night, Life and Death, Sleeping and Waking, is a fact so common, so perfectly universal and without exception, that it is easy to comprehend that in it we see one of the absolutely fundamental laws of the universe.

(c)The fundamental identity of all Souls with the Universal Over-Soul, the latter being itself an aspect of the Unknown Root; and the obligatory pilgrimage for every Soul -- a spark of the former -- through the Cycle of Incarnation (or "Necessity") in accordance with Cyclic and Karmic law, during the whole term. In other words, no purely spiritual Buddhi (divine Soul) can have an independent (conscious) existence before the spark which issued from the pure Essence of the Universal Sixth principle, -- or the OVER-SOUL, -- has (a) passed through every elemental form of the phenomenal world of that Manvantara, and (b) acquired individuality, first by natural impulse, and then by self-induced and self-devised efforts (checked by its Karma), thus ascending through all the degrees of intelligence, from the lowest to the highest Manas, from mineral and plant, up to the holiest archangel (Dhyani-Buddha). The pivotal doctrine of the Esoteric philosophy admits no privileges or special gifts in man, save those won by his own Ego through personal effort and merit throughout a long series of metempsychoses and reincarnations.

Now, you can certainly dispute the above Three Fundamental Propositions, yet we, too, have our ABSOLUTE. But the difference is, we do not say that God is indefinable, UNKNOWABLE and utterly beyond all human comprehension ... then say that HE wears a hat, has a moustache and likes to take golf on Thursdays, followed by a quick trip to the pub on the way back home.

YOU may think that there is no contradiction in trying to give the absolute all the characteristics that suit your fancy ... but then, for all your learning about the Eastern traditions, it is again clear that you need a refresher on Nirguna Brahman vs. Saguna Brahman - and a reminder as to which of these is accepted as referring to `the Ultimate' (i.e., your `Absolute') ... qua Absolute.


NOR is the `true philosophy' simply the love of knowledge ... for though you may be able to stuff the entire Vatican library into your brain and ponder it with your human intellect, I will remind you that even the word philosophy means LOVE OF WISDOM, not love of knowledge. Thus, Theos Sophia is the WISDOM OF GOD, and this - not for the sake of accumulation - but for the BETTERMENT OF MANKIND.

Even a Donkey can carry a library on its back.

Theosophy, it will be noted, does NOT reject the Greek Philosophical traditions; however, we are willing to trace even these to their origins, and to continue to look in reverse in order to understand the present and the future.


You would have us believe that there were no Mystery Schools, or that in fact, we can simply gloss over all that they had to teach for - as you have said - none of these provides ANYTHING LIKE the `Christian Revelation' ... WHICH teachings you consider, in your narrow focus, to be the SUMMUM BONUM of the Esoteric Wisdom (pardon me - KNOWLEDGE).

Originally Posted by Thomas

I can see, having rejected philosophy, that you might not understand the technical application of an analogy. This only saddens me the more.

I'm glad Nick has more the patience than I do. You love to cry wolf, Thomas, and insist that your are innocent of anything but the purest of philosophical and theological aspirations ... yet you straw man Nick every bit the way you straw man me, tell him he has rejected philosophy (or the love of knowledge, at any rate - your own definition), and essentially bait him - I suppose just out of old habit? I am not surprised.

Originally Posted by Thomas

but again, if the analogy passes you by, I can understand your confusion.

Indeed, more sarcasm ... what ARROGANCE!!!

Originally Posted by Thomas

It can be done, but if you don't believe in First Principles

Yep, once again, something Nick never said or insinuated ...

Originally Posted by Thomas

I joined the discussion simply to assert that Theosophists do not read Scripture as Christians do.

No you didn't, Thomas, for if that were the case, you could have felt your satisifaction long ago. As it is, you are HARDLY engaging in a fair discussion, or proceeding reasonably. The best that Nick can get out of you - and I admire him for his kindness, patience and willingness to try - is a few, half-sincere responses, though mostly you just DODGE the real issues, as usual.

Always avoiding the sticky issues, and at best launching into a lengthy tractate on Roman Catholic history and authoritative Church dogma, I hope Francis will tear into you every bit the way she has us Theosophists (though I have made clear I have no official connection, or membership) ... since I think you best even me for cutting & pasting.

Indeed, if you read my post MINUS the quotations, you will still see the meat of my point - which is that your methods are underhanded, that you insist on straw-manning people rather than engaging them on issues directly, and that you wear your blinders far too tightly, for if you paid attention to WORD ONE of the Ageless Wisdom - Theosophy, in this case - you would be forced to admit, on SOUND philosophical footing, that our PHILOSOPHY is in fact, EVERY BIT AS DEVELOPED, metaphysically sound, concerned with FIRST PRINCPLES, etc. as yours - IF NOT A GOOD BIT MORESO ... penetrating far, far deeper into the true state of things than you shall ever do with your INTELLECT, no matter how much baggage you load it up with, and no matter how effectively & cleverly you manage to sharpen your wit against those bold enough to TAKE YOU & YOUR THEOLOGY on, directly.

You and I have seldom been able to carry on a pleasant, rational discussion ... and this may not be any kind of exception to the rule. This is not even my argument (!), yet I am so disgusted by what I see, that I will take the time to comment ... and this is (of course) at risk of irritating Nick, since he at least, was able to make a bit of headway with you.

I admire you for that, Nick, and I appreciate your patience - but I think it is apparent that what Thomas wishes is not in fact, "to assert that Theosophists do not read Scripture as Christians do" ... instead, he is up to the same-old, same-old CRUSADE, whose only real goal is an old-fashioned egotistical game of JOUST (perhaps 60%), and a chance to toe the party line by airing the views of all his favorite Church authorities and selected `experts' (40%).

If he will step outside of his ego, just long enough to try and think rationally, I believe he will discover that although each of us is really QUITE content with our own, chosen spiritual path (none of us here is going door-to-door begging for a religious or ideological bandwagon to hop onto) ... there is nevertheless a GREAT deal that he can learn, as well as share, by a willingness to enter into an honest-to-goodness, rational, sincere DISCUSSION.

But you see, when all you want to do is "point out that this is NOT how Roman Catholics `see it,'" what you're really just insisting is that your understanding is ill-founded. You can deny this, Thomas, and feign a purely innocent motive ... but I'm afraid we've BEEN DOWN this road before, QUITE a number of times, and we're quite used to hearing you tell us how shallow our philosphy is, how misguided we all are, and how SUPERIOR your theology is to anything poor ol' HPB could ever cook up from her `Mahatmas.'

As biting and acrid as your true attitude is, Thomas, how is you put it - `expressed by words sweetened as with honey' - I'm afraid it really just constitutes one more insignificant drop of the poison, whose cup we will gladly drain - as every student must - as we endeavor to follow in the steps of Herakles, even performing the same Labors, as did your Savior - and mine.

For all my egotism, I KNOW that I am no different than you, and in fact, I KNOW that we both tread the same path, however gyral and confused its perambulations may sometimes appear. What irks me, is that someone such as you ... should either fail to recognize that it is so, or would dare to deny it - knowing such.

For if I have misjudged, then I will but walk this way a little longer ... and live just one more day, to do the things I should have done.

~Andrew

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

I see our discussion as coming down to these three questions.

(1) How does eating fruit cause a sudden understanding of good and evil?

(2) Why does God see a sudden understanding of good and evil as a movement away from God?

(3) What kind of fruit was it, since you say it was not an apple?


Let's see your answers. You said,

"I posted an answer at some length yesterday, as as is the way of things, it appears to have vanished into the ether."

--> I have also had this happen. The best thing to do is, write a post, copy it into a word-processing file, save it, post the post, then delete the file. This has saved me a great deal of time and effort.

"...the Theosophical Society focus is cosmological, which would suggest [a focusing on] the manifestation of things rather than their causes, whereas Christianity focusses on the causes, or rather the First Cause of All, the Absolute...."

--> That is an interesting analogy. According to Theosophy, we know practially nothing about the Absolute. (The Absolute is intentionally difficult for us to understand, as it is hidden behind the Firmament in Genesis, which Theosophy calls the Wall of Fire. Theosophy agrees more with Buddhism and disagrees more with Christianity, in that we need to focus on what is happening right here, right now (instead of putting the main focus on what will happen in the future). In this sense, I can see why you see Theosophy (and Buddhism) as "manifestation-oriented". However, Thesosphy also strives to explain the true nature of the Absolute (a nearly impossible task). Theosophy calls the Absolute "the One True Reality". In this way, Theosophy emphasizes both the here and now, and the One Reality.

"...in and of Itself (as made known via the data of Revelation) — rather than the diversity of manifestation."

--> In one way, I agree with you on this statement. Christiantiy teaches we go the Heaven, and that is it for all of eternity. Theosophy disagrees, saying there are many, many levels we will manifest on, after we leave the human level of manifestation behind. (Stars are seen as Beings of High Manifestation. According to Theosophy, humans will become Beings within Stars one day.) Therefore, Theosophy celebrates a much larger "diversity of manifestation" than Christiantiy.


Theosophy also says we were the animals on a previous planet. This also gets into more levels of manifestation.

"For us the pursuit of the true philosophy — the love of knowledge — demands a rigorous pursuit of the causes that manifest effects to the First Cause — and is absolutely fundamental. Christian thinking is founded on the proven practice and methodology of the Greek philosophical tradition upon which the Western Traditions are founded ... if you reject that, then I think 'theosophy' itself as a name for your organisation is a misnomer, and we certainly have no common philosophical, hermeneutic or epistemological basis on which to continue."

--> Theosophy agrees with this definition of your "first principle". It was your deductive leap about the use of your "first principle" (in your previous post) that I disagree with.

"What innate characteristic of fruit causes a rejection of divine love? --> Quite how you draw that conclusion escapes me, except of course the obvious, but elsewhere you have evidenced more intelligence that this question supposes. --> I am inclined to believe your agenda is simply to ridicule my posts."

--> Ah, Thomas, you are ever the clever debater. Use any trick you can, instead of answering the question. Perhaps my wording was confusing. I think this question is worded better.


(1) How does eating fruit cause a sudden understanding of good and evil?

"I think it's safe to say, and I repeat, that nowhere is the fruit of the tree identified."

(3) What kind of fruit was it, since you say it was not an apple?

"Where in the text does it say it was an apple?"

--> Nowhere. And the type of fruit was...?

"...you simply dig in deeper and keep asking questions."

--> You have no idea how big of a compliment you have just paid me.

"Either that, or you have a fixation about apples..."

--> I have a fixation about how eating fruit causes a sudden understanding of good and evil.


(1) How does eating fruit cause a sudden understanding of good and evil?

"Why would eating an apple require surgery? --> I can see, having rejected philosophy, that you might not understand the technical application of an analogy. This only saddens me the more."

--> Free free to feel sad. Feel free to explain the analogy.

"I joined the discussion simply to assert that Theosophists do not read Scripture as Christians do."

--> I agree. Actually, I welcome your participation in this discussion. The more you can explain your interpretations of the Bible, the better we can understand Christianity.

"I'm afraid I had never realised quite how profound and far-reaching the differences between us actually are."

--> I realized that a long time ago.

"Sadly, I have not the time to engage in subsequent discussion..."

--> Happily, I do.

"...and certainly your stream-of-question method is far from an ideal approach."

--> I would describe it more as a question-and-answer approach. I think this system works quite well.

"As it is, we would need to engage in serious and lengthy discussion that would cover an immense territory before we could even begin to consider Scripture."

--> I think it is not necessary. If you actually sat down and answered my three questions, I think it would take a lot less time than you think.

"...perhaps someone else has the time to answer your inquiries."

--> This is not about who answers the questions. I just want the three questions answered.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas,
I see our discussion as coming down to these three questions...

As I have stated in my last posts, these have been answered. That you haven't read the answer is not my fault.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

This is not about who answers the questions. I just want the three questions answered.

Let's try a different tack. Where in Genesis does it say it was an apple?
Answer that one, and you might find something to your benefit.

And with regard to philosophy:
A:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

According to Theosophy, we know practially nothing about the Absolute.

and

B:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

... However, Thesosphy also strives to explain the true nature of the Absolute (a nearly impossible task) ...

If A is the case then B can only be logically impossible. How can you explain the true nature of anything you know practically nothing about?

Better to inquire of those who do know.

Thomas

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Better to inquire of those who do know.

Thomas

Thomas, I take back everything that I said. you are the true master of hilarity! And I do mean that!

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, you asked,

"Where in Genesis does it say it was an apple?"

--> You may have noticed that I already answered this question in my previous post: Nowhere does it say so. This creates an important precedent. I am willing to repeat answers. I am only too willing to review previously presented answers to Theosophical questions. You say you have already answered my questions. Fine. Could you do us the small favor of repeating your answers here? Here, again, are the questions.

(1) How does eating fruit cause a sudden understanding of good and evil?

(2) Why does God see a sudden understanding of good and evil as a movement away from God?


(3) What kind of fruit was it, since you say it was not an apple?

"...perhaps someone else has the time to answer your inquiries."

--> You wrote out a post, accidentally deleted it, re-wrote it, and then posted another post after that. Yet you do not have time to answer my short Three Questions. How odd.... I think you are stalling.

"Let's try a different tack. Where in Genesis does it say it was an apple?"

--> A different tack? I already answered your question, but I am more than willing to repeat it again, if you wish. Let's return to the original tack:


(3) What kind of fruit was it, since you say it was not an apple?

"If A is the case then B can only be logically impossible. How can you explain the true nature of anything you know practically nothing about?"

--> This brings up a new topic, one that I find fascinating: the nature of the Absolute as seen by Theosophy vs. Christiantiy. I would love to discuss this. However, I would like to see you "repeat" your answers to my Three Questions first.

~~~

You may question Andrew's and my motivations in asking these questions, but I think there are "real Christians" out there who are reading this thread, and I think they would really like to hear your answers to my Three Questions. You have a golden opportunity here, not for my sake, but for the sake of every inquisitive Christian listening in.

Thomas, I must say I am enjoying this discussion. This is fun! I hope you enjoy propogating your ideas as much as I do mine. Hang in there. Do not let a little inconvenience stop you.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas, you asked,

"Where in Genesis does it say it was an apple?"

--> You may have noticed that I already answered this question in my previous post: Nowhere does it say so.

Then we progress. Now, bearing in mind your prior insistence on the fruit being an apple, and now acknowledging that in fact nowhere in the text does it identify the fruit as an apple, you immediately rush on to ask, what kind of fruit was it? Which shows you continue to miss the point.

We have established that the type of fruit is not mentioned ...

so what is the lesson to be learned?

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas,

"Then we progress."

--> Yes, progress is being made. I appreciate your continued contributions to this thread.

"Now, bearing in mind your prior insistence on the fruit being an apple, and now acknowledging that in fact nowhere in the text does it identify the fruit as an apple...."

--> I (and millions of other people) have always assumed it was an apple. I thank you for pointing it out. (The fact that it was not an apple brings the whole story closer to the Theosophical version of what actually happened. If we ever get you to repeat your answer to Question 1, we will be able to really start making some progress in this discussion.)

"...you immediately rush on to ask, what kind of fruit was it?"

--> Indeed I do. Theosophy does not see rushing into questions about the Bible as a bad thing. Theosophy actually encourages such questions (rushed or not.) The more questions, the better.

"Which shows you continue to miss the point."

--> I miss the point? My point is, I want to know what kind of fruit it was. By the way, what kind of fruit was it?

"We have established that the type of fruit is not mentioned ..."

--> We have. We have also established that I am willing to repeat answers. Would you be so kind as to repeat your answers to the Three Questions?

"...so what is the lesson to be learned?"

--> That I ask a question because I would like to know the answer. That I would like to know what kind of fruit it was. What kind was it?

How does eating fruit cause a sudden understanding of good and evil?

Why does God see a sudden understanding of good and evil as a movement away from God?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

That I ask a question because I would like to know the answer. That I would like to know what kind of fruit it was. What kind was it?

How does eating fruit cause a sudden understanding of good and evil?

Why does God see a sudden understanding of good and evil as a movement away from God?

Namaste Nick,

Obviously not Thomas here and not Thomas answers but wil's

Why do you think there was a fruit?

1. The fruit of the tree of knowledge is material senses and knowledge.

2. The conception of duality on this plane of existence leads one to seeing good and evil.

3. G!d sees all as good...therefor seeing evil is separation.

Let the mind in Christ Jesus be in you!

Obviously this is only one of many interpretations..... the potential responses create infinite combinations of what you see as the fruit, G!d, the tree, the garden, the snake, adam, eve...etc. And one's understanding of each and everyone may impact ones next breath...

ps...while odds are Thomas' answer will be decidedly different than mine....I don't believe he thinks there was a 'fruit' either.

[AndrewX]

I would like to point out one thing ... one cannot do either Good, or evil, without knowing the DIFFERENCE.

A moment's thought, will thereby reveal the NECESSITY - for KNOWING this DIFFERENCE.

Hmmm ...

[wil]

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I would like to point out one thing ... one cannot do either Good, or evil, without knowing the DIFFERENCE.

A moment's thought, will thereby reveal the NECESSITY - for KNOWING this DIFFERENCE.

Hmmm ...

why? Couldn't good or evil be a perception of someone other than the doer? Isn't it often a different perception by different people?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Yes, progress is being made. I appreciate your continued contributions to this thread.

Thank you. Unfortunately, they will have to end here. As intimated before, my time is committed elsewhere ... I have tarried here longer than I should, and indeed longer than necessary.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> I (and millions of other people) have always assumed it was an apple. I thank you for pointing it out.

No problem. Now perhaps you might understand that you and others assume certain things about Christian doctrine which are in fact not the case.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

(The fact that it was not an apple brings the whole story closer to the Theosophical version of what actually happened.

Oh dear — then why ever did you insist it was an apple — especially when you seem to already know it wasn't?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

If we ever get you to repeat your answer to Question 1, we will be able to really start making some progress in this discussion.)

No, to my mind youre still running too fast to pay attention to the detail.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Indeed I do. Theosophy does not see rushing into questions about the Bible as a bad thing.

The Christian sees a contemplative approach is far more fruitful.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Theosophy actually encourages such questions (rushed or not.) The more questions, the better.

Christianity encourages people to think for themselves.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"Which shows you continue to miss the point."

--> I miss the point? My point is, I want to know what kind of fruit it was. By the way, what kind of fruit was it?

Yes, and that's missing the point.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"We have established that the type of fruit is not mentioned ..."

--> We have. We have also established that I am willing to repeat answers. Would you be so kind as to repeat your answers to the Three Questions?

Not if I'm wasting my breath, no.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

"...so what is the lesson to be learned?"

--> That I ask a question because I would like to know the answer.

That's a shame, for in so doing you rob yourself of the virtue of a learning experience at your own hand.

This is my last attempt, really, I have no more time:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

How does eating fruit cause a sudden understanding of good and evil?

Ask yourself: where does the act of eating arise? Every act has its product, its consequence ... its fruit ...

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Why does God see a sudden understanding of good and evil as a movement away from God?

Remembering that I offered a definition of 'evil' as other than or a privation of the Good, and that God wills only the Good, and in fact God is Good; then to 'understand' in act is to actualise in act — so by their actions, the Primordial Couple chose of their own volition to act in a way other than that directed by their Creator and indicated by the Kosmos ... thus an act of separation from God and nature.

(By the way Andrew:
Thank you for raising that point — one that neo-gnostics often raise, as you probably know. Logically Adam and Eve understood what good/evil right/wrong etc., is, else they would not have understood the prohibition against eating the fruit in the first place, would they? The argument that they were somehow blameless and innocent in the affair because they didn't understand the prohibition is a facile one, resting on the nonsensical idea that God could not make Himself understood. Likewise the other neognostic line I've come across, that God somehow had something to lose, or was frightened of the Primordial Couple eating the fruit and discovering some 'big secret', is equally naive.)

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> That I ask a question because I would like to know the answer. That I would like to know what kind of fruit it was. What kind was it?

What kind is immaterial and, as you have evidenced, and as I have been trying to intimate, a complete distraction from the point. If it mattered, it would have been said.

What kind doesn't matter Nick, what kind is not the point.

Stop looking at the tree ... Genesis is not about the tree, its about humanity.

"And on that bombshell, " as the TV pundits are wont to say (this side of the pond, anyway).

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Namaste Wil, and Yoroshiku! (a Japanese greeting)

I will continue to look at the Christian interpretation, and keep the Theosophical interpretaion on the back burner for now.

So, Adam and Eve were thus able to see evil for (I suppose) the first time? This leads us to the idea that God would have preferred us to have never left the Garden. (How does that sound to you?) This brings up a whole bunch of new questions. Would it have been better for Adam and Eve to remain there? Could they have (eventually?) gone straight to Heaven from there?

And now for my biggest criticism of the whole idea: We are here in the "real world". (By that I mean outside the Garden, I do not know what else to call it.) Does that mean being here is inherently bad and evil? I just cannot accept the idea that, just because I am sitting here on the American continent, I am being punished for something (that I did not even do). No, I cannot accept that my basic existence is inherently a bad thing. I see it as basically a good thing. This is what I get from the Garden Story. (Do you get something else?)

"I don't believe he thinks there was a 'fruit' either."

(I agree....)

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, you said,

"...I ask a question because I would like to know the answer. --> That's a shame, for in so doing you rob yourself of the virtue of a learning experience at your own hand."

--> What a typical Catholic-establishment answer. Shame on me for asking questions!

I asked,

Why does God see a sudden understanding of good and evil as a movement away from God?

"...the Primordial Couple chose of their own volition to act in a way other than that directed by their Creator and indicated by the Kosmos ... thus an act of separation from God and nature."

--> Yes, I understand that. But of all the things God could have chosen to separate them from Him, He chose the understanding of good and evil. Why, of all things, did He pick that?

Let me re-emphasize, then.


Why does God see a sudden understanding of good and evil as a movement away from God?

"The argument that they were somehow blameless and innocent in the affair because they didn't understand the prohibition is a facile one, resting on the nonsensical idea that God could not make Himself understood."

--> Yes, I agree, that does not make sense.

"What kind [of fruit] is immaterial...."

--> I disagree. It is a key part of the Theosophical interpretation of what happened. So, in an opposite way, the kind of fruit is important.

"...a complete distraction from the point."

--> No, it is the point.

"Stop looking at the tree...."

--> My, my, now you are giving orders? Hail the mighty Thomas! Legions, salute!

[Nick the Pilot]

Wil, you asked,

"Couldn't good or evil be a perception of someone other than the doer?"

--> As a matter of fact, this question comes up when considering how bad karma is assigned. Whether or not an act creates bad karma is very much determined by the intent of the prepetrator. The example that is sometines given is, a man who hunts to feed his family does not accrue bad karma, while one who hunts for pure sport does.

"Isn't it often a different perception by different people?"

--> Yes. The aura clearly shows if an act is good or evil, by showing the colors associated with the act. When Judgement Day occurs later, such judgements are said to be rather easy.

This raises (again) the question of the value of learning good from bad. (I think we agree learning such a thing is good, right?) The idea that God sees the learning of good from bad as an essentially bad thing (and He issues punishment for achieving such knowledge) shows why I cannot put such idea into my belief system. (Can you put such an idea into yours?)