Following rules problematic? (Edited Title)

[carn]

Did it ever occur to you that “not eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil” might mean that God, not man, decides what the rules are?

---

“Never tear down a fence until you know why it was put up.” ~ Old African proverb

With “not eating the fruit from the tree of power to define good and evil” it would be obvious, with the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” its not obvious.
By buying and reading a law book, one gains knowledge about “right” and “wrong” in respect to that law, one does gain any ability or sanction to modify it.

"knowledge"´seems to be neutral, so forbidding it, is not the way i would choose to make a point, from my point of view its confusing to make a point about not having the right/power to something by forbidding the knowledge of something. (But of course its not me deciding that, but that doesnt change from my point of view it doesnt realy add up.)
If “knowledge” has a different meaning, well, that solves the issue somewhat.

Problem for me probably is, that the thought of man instead of God deciding what good and evil is, its just crazy. Could be only an issue, if God would not exist. Otherwise its a no-brainer.

@SwizzleStick
Sorry, did not plaster enough “from my point of view” all other the posts. And to make others understand the issue, the word cannot be avoided, because some things are stupid from my point of view. Denying it would be lying, using a more rosy word would lead others to misjudge the problem i am discussing (Maybe ridiculous would be an alternative, but i am not certain its much better - i mean i attempt to arrange family life, so i can once a week kneel before something, which all empiric evidence would show to be a piece of bread, some part of my mind has simply to be shut down, otherwise it would go in no particular order.).

 

[SwizzleStick]

…@SwizzleStick
Sorry, did not plaster enough “from my point of view” all other the posts. And to make others understand the issue, the word cannot be avoided, because some things are stupid from my point of view. Denying it would be lying, using a more rosy word would lead others to misjudge the problem i am discussing (Maybe ridiculous would be an alternative, but i am not certain its much better - i mean i attempt to arrange family life, so i can once a week kneel before something, which all empiric evidence would show to be a piece of bread, some part of my mind has simply to be shut down, otherwise it would go in no particular order.).

Wow. You identify as a Catholic and type that? So now the teachings of the Church are “ridiculous” along with “stupid” and “senseless?” How sad. I think you need to seek guidance from a good spiritual director instead of having anonymous discussions on the internet about your faith.

If you are not Catholic, what is your purpose here?

I will pray for you.

 

[Bill_Martin]

A prohibition of some sort in the garden was required in order for there to be free will.

There cannot be freedom to follow God without some possibility of not following him. Without any rules, Adam and Eve would not be free to obey God because there would be no ability to disobey.

If we are going to have free will in order to choose good, we must have the capability of choosing against evil. It is important to note that the intent of free will is not so that we choose evil but rather so that our choices to do good are freely made.

 

[carn]

Wow. You identify as a Catholic and type that?

You noticed i did not say that it is bread and that evidence shows it to be so, but just that empirical evidence would show it to be bread?
What empirical evidence shows, is not always true.

And besides, yes, speaking the Creed during Mass i sometimes muse, whether i sin against the 8th commandment in speaking the Creed. Which is of course a bit tricky, as it should only bother me, if i care about violating the commandments, in which case speaking the Creed is probably not an outright lie.

So now the teachings of the Church are “ridiculous” along with “stupid” and “senseless?” How sad.

Not “the”, at most “some” and not “are …” but “are from my point of view …”.

The teaching of the Church contains at least some Truth and surpasses in that respect any other “source” of Truth suggested by humans that i know of.

I think you need to seek guidance from a good spiritual director instead of having anonymous discussions on the internet about your faith.

Probably, but currently i’d like to understand, whether following rules perceived as senseless is a problematic act, e.g. kneeling down although the heart is currently not that convinced about Real Presence, going to confession although the mind fails to comprehend, why it should be done, etc.

I will pray for you.

Thanks, but my mind cannot help noticing that between our posts probably more innocent humans were murdered than letters contained in our post and whether therefore its not a bit senseless for you to pray for me, it seems others are more in need.

 

[Gorgias]

With “not eating the fruit from the tree of power to define good and evil” it would be obvious, with the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” its not obvious.
By buying and reading a law book, one gains knowledge about “right” and “wrong” in respect to that law, one does gain any ability or sanction to modify it.

Aah… but hold on a second! Adam & Eve would not have gained “the power to define good and evil”, would they have? After all, after eating the fruit, did they gain the power to define that eating the fruit was ok after all? Of course not! But, what they did, on the other hand, was attempt to co-opt for themselves the right to take knowledge as they saw fit. And, we see, that this attempt failed.

After all, “by buying and reading a law book”, one does gain knowledge, but one doesn’t thereby “gain any ability or sanction to modify it” – that is, you don’t get the “power to define” the law, you just (legally) learn of it from the source of knowledge.

I think our point still holds, and yours still needs a bit of work.

from my point of view its confusing to make a point about not having the right/power to something by forbidding the knowledge of something.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, God wasn’t forbidding them to have knowledge (after all, He provided them with that knowledge – the only thing that was evil was taking from the tree); instead, He was forbidding them to take knowledge of good and evil aside from the way that God presented it to them!

Problem for me probably is, that the thought of man instead of God deciding what good and evil is, its just crazy.

And yet, society tries it every day. Abortion? Not sinful, but necessary for women’s ‘rights’. Same-sex marriage? Not sinful and counter to God’s plan, but necessary to ensure equal civil rights. You don’t think that humanity is still trying to steal from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? :sad_yes:

 

[carn]

But, what they did, on the other hand, was attempt to co-opt for themselves the right to take knowledge as they saw fit. And, we see, that this attempt failed.

You mean the knowledge they gained was incorrect?

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, God wasn’t forbidding them to have knowledge (after all, He provided them with that knowledge – the only thing that was evil was taking from the tree); instead, He was forbidding them to take knowledge of good and evil aside from the way that God presented it to them!

And that doesnt make much sense. What should it matter if they gain correct knowledge of good and evil by listening to God or by eating some fruit. As long as they have correct knowledge afterwards.

If i want to teach someone something and alternatively he could gain the knowledge by reading a book, i see no reason why i should forbid him to learn the knowledge from the book and insist on teaching him.

You don’t think that humanity is still trying to steal from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? :sad_yes:

No.

They do not try to gain knowledge of good and evil, neither in sanctioned nor in unsanctioned ways. They decides themselve what they consider good and what evil.

 

[Gorgias]

You mean the knowledge they gained was incorrect?

No… I mean that the attempt to grab for themselves the ability to define good and evil as they saw fit, failed.

And that doesnt make much sense. What should it matter if they gain correct knowledge of good and evil by listening to God or by eating some fruit.

That would hold out the highest and best thing in the universe as ‘knowledge’, not ‘God’. It matters, because the end doesn’t justify the means. It matters, because a proper relationship with our Creator is more important than what knowledge we gain in this life.

As long as they have correct knowledge afterwards.

So, it doesn’t matter what one does, as long as they get what they want in the end? Hmm…

If i want to teach someone something and alternatively he could gain the knowledge by reading a book, i see no reason why i should forbid him to learn the knowledge from the book and insist on teaching him.

Well, again, I think you’re misinterpreting what the story is trying to teach us. The goal isn’t the fruit – that is, the point isn’t the particular method or the knowledge gained. The point is that our knowledge of good and evil should come from God; sin is the result of disobeying God, and in this case, sin comes from trying to take that role from God.

They decides themselve what they consider good and what evil.

See! And here I thought you weren’t ‘getting’ the point of the story! That’s it! What the ‘fall of Adam’ story tells us is that we, as humans, don’t get to decide what’s good and what’s evil!

 

[carn]

So, it doesn’t matter what one does, as long as they get what they want in the end? Hmm…

Well, again, I think you’re misinterpreting what the story is trying to teach us. The goal isn’t the fruit – that is, the point isn’t the particular method or the knowledge gained. The point is that our knowledge of good and evil should come from God; sin is the result of disobeying God, and in this case, sin comes from trying to take that role from God.

Maybe i did not state it clearly enough, fropm my point of view is senseless, if i cannot name a reason, why the rule was established.

God creates eden, places lots of things there, among them trees, among them tree of knowledge of good and evil. Why should He forbid eating from that tree?

The argument, that some rule had to exist for freedom to exist, only explains why there was any rule at all. It does not give reason, why the rule wasn’t “Do not eat from apple tree.” instead of “Do not eat…”.

A reason would be discernible, if eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil had some negative effect.
E.g. eating apples from trees->no negative effect-> no reason to forbid eating from apple trees. Eating from tree of knowledge → negative effect-> forbidding eating from tree sensible.

But there is no negative effect discernible, it seems that if God had not forbidden eating from the tree of knowledge, then eating would have been fine.

Of course there is indication that some negative effect was foreseeable, other wise not the warning “you would surely die.”. But as far as i currently understand the story, the dying does not come from the fruit itself but from breaking the rule - if God had forbidden eating from apple trees, dying would also be a consequence of eating apples.

So i cannot see any reason why its tree of knowledge of good and evil and not tree of X or something completely different.

See! And here I thought you weren’t ‘getting’ the point of the story! That’s it! What the ‘fall of Adam’ story tells us is that we, as humans, don’t get to decide what’s good and what’s evil!

But i do not understand, why a tree of knowledge and good and evil was used and not something else, e.g. an apple tree. By eating from a forbidden apple tree, man would also decide for himself what is good and evil, just as in eating from a forbidden tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

[Gorgias]

E.g. eating apples from trees->no negative effect-> no reason to forbid eating from apple trees. Eating from tree of knowledge → negative effect-> forbidding eating from tree sensible.

But as far as i currently understand the story, the dying does not come from the fruit itself but from breaking the rule - if God had forbidden eating from apple trees, dying would also be a consequence of eating apples.

Umm… who ever said it was an apple tree? Sure, the popular conception is that it was an apple (or, some would say, a quince), but that’s not what the story says! If you want to go by the text of the story – which is what you’re doing – then God is doing exactly what you say you’d see as reasonable! God says, “eat anything – oh, but that tree over there? Yeah, don’t eat that. If you eat it, you will surely die.” Note that God didn’t even say “if you eat that, it will poison you and you’ll be dead in five minutes.” Nope – just, “eat that, and you will surely die.” And they did eat it, and they did die!

If you want to take it even further, after God sees that they can’t listen, they’re thrown out of the garden, and an angel guards it, so now… no one has access to the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” – so at the very literal level, where you’re operating at the moment, we’re all good and sensible: no more tree that kills. (When you look at the story from the spiritual level, of course, you get the moral implication of “choosing for yourself a morality, instead of learning it from God”, so don’t go attempting to conflate the two, now!)

So i cannot see any reason why its tree of knowledge of good and evil and not tree of X or something completely different.

At the (horribly) literal level, you can use your own logic: it’s not that God said, “don’t eat apples” or “don’t eat quinces”, but, “don’t eat of this particular tree”. Is there some other problem that you’re having, still?

But i do not understand, why a tree of knowledge and good and evil was used and not something else, e.g. an apple tree. By eating from a forbidden apple tree, man would also decide for himself what is good and evil, just as in eating from a forbidden tree of knowledge of good and evil.

OK – so, we’ve established that it’s not an apple tree, but rather, a singular tree – a “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. Does this resolve your difficulties?

 

[carn]

Does this resolve your difficulties?

No, but fortunately its not the actual thread question.

If you want to go by the text of the story – which is what you’re doing – then God is doing exactly what you say you’d see as reasonable! God says, “eat anything – oh, but that tree over there? Yeah, don’t eat that. If you eat it, you will surely die.” Note that God didn’t even say “if you eat that, it will poison you and you’ll be dead in five minutes.” Nope – just, “eat that, and you will surely die.” And they did eat it, and they did die!

Note that you did not need to name the tree and yet the important part of the story remain unchanged.

If i had been there my immidieate question upon “Do not eat from that tree.” would have been (assuming i felt it would not hvae been wrong to ask) “Whats wrong with that tree? Why does eating from that tree make me die and eating from all the other tree does not make me die? Whats special about it?”

The thread question by the way would be more along the way, if i didnt understand the answer it would have been ok to think “Well, it doesnt make sense, but who cares, i just do not eat from that tree, even if i cannot discern any reason beside Him saying its bad and cannot even tell what is bad about it.”