The tree of knowledge and misunderstanding of evil among Catholic!

[808Catholic]

Perhaps there is no truth behind all these questions since the whole story is illogical.

Perhaps you are correct: there was no such thing as a Tree of Knowledge. If it were true, it would not change my belief in God nor that we must follow Him. How would not having a Tree of Knowledge affect your belief?

 

[Bahman]

Perhaps you are correct: there was no such thing as a Tree of Knowledge. If it were true, it would not change my belief in God nor that we must follow Him. How would not having a Tree of Knowledge affect your belief?

Perhaps we should follow our intellects while God is not present to us. Moreover, what is claimed to be words of God must be 100% correct hence finding one inconsistency questions the whole story.

 

[davidv]

Perhaps we should follow our intellects while God is not present to us.

Perhaps not. Following erroneous intellects sounds like a really bad idea. How do you know He is not present?

Moreover, what is claimed to be words of God must be 100% correct hence finding one inconsistency questions the whole story.

How do you know what God’s words are and whether you have interpreted them correctly?

 

[adrift]

Bible claim that there is a tree with a fruit which grand the knowledge of good and evil. Catholics claim that evil is the absence of good which make the existence of fruit impossible. The fruit cannot be good and evil (absence of good) at the same time.

The fruit itself wasn’t evil it gave knowledge of what was good and bad. It gave knowledge to understand between the two.

You really should read the catechism to understand how to read the bible. Here is just part

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

This is what I tried, and did it poorly, to convey to you.
Now what was the intent of the author?
The creation of the world
The creation of man
The fall of man
What wasn’t intended was a history lesson.

 

[Elizium23]

You really should read the catechism to understand how to read the bible. Here is just part

Bahman doesn’t want to read the Catechism because “it could be wrong” so he wants to interpret Sacred Scripture for himself.

 

[Hunho]

I am afraid that I couldn’t go through the link. It would be kind of you if you define evil in the thread: 1) absence of good, 2) opposite of good. Which one do you pick up?

Bahman,

There are links imbedded in my post to the Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself; the underlined words in this post also have the links.

I indicated in my post (#95) which part of the Glossary definition I considered to be the central character of evil: “The deeper meaning of the concept of evil is this, the opposite of good. The “absence of good” is more of a symptom of evil than a cause of evil. It is certainly not the real meaning of evil.”

 

[Bahman]

The fruit itself wasn’t evil it gave knowledge of what was good and bad. It gave knowledge to understand between the two.

I already discuss this. Eating fruit has a functioning, granting the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve were good so good and evil should be the intrinsic properties of the fruit.

You really should read the catechism to understand how to read the bible. Here is just part

Why words of God should be subjected to time, culture,…?

 

[Bahman]

Perhaps not. Following erroneous intellects sounds like a really bad idea. How do you know He is not present?

In fact it make very good idea. You of course would know God’s presence if he is otherwise you are following other people similar to you who are looking to interpret things for you.

How do you know what God’s words are and whether you have interpreted them correctly?

God’s words should be simple and plain. Why we should need any interpretation?

 

[Bahman]

Bahman doesn’t want to read the Catechism because “it could be wrong” so he wants to interpret Sacred Scripture for himself.

You read it so defend it. What is your argument. Why we should interpret the words of God. The world of God should be plain and simple so it doesn’t leave any room for human error.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman,

There are links imbedded in my post to the Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself; the underlined words in this post also have the links.

I indicated in my post (#95) which part of the Glossary definition I considered to be the central character of evil: “The deeper meaning of the concept of evil is this, the opposite of good. The “absence of good” is more of a symptom of evil than a cause of evil. It is certainly not the real meaning of evil.”

Thanks for the links. You apparently missed my argument so I repeat it again: My argument is very plain and simple: God can only will good. So neither of your definition couldn’t help! A fruit cannot be good and evil (absence of good) and God cannot create a fruit which is good and evil (opposite of good) since Good can only will good.

 

[Elizium23]

Thanks for the links. You apparently missed my argument so I repeat it again:

:banghead:

 

[Bahman]

The Church is not wrong. If the Church could be wrong, then Jesus was a liar, and the gates of Hell prevailed. Thankfully, He tells us the Truth, and uses His Church to do it.

So you are wrong. Dead wrong.

Why there should be any extra link between individuals and God so called Church? Because you are conceived that Bible needs interpretation. Why the words of God should need any interpretation?

 

[Bahman]

:banghead:

 

[Elizium23]

Why there should be any extra link between individuals and God so called Church? Because you are conceived that Bible needs interpretation. Why the words of God should need any interpretation?

Exhibit A: a fruitless, nine-page “discussion” in which you twist Sacred Scripture in bizarre ways and tell us we’re all wrong in the interpretation that has been held for thousands of years.

 

[Bahman]

Exhibit A: a fruitless, nine-page “discussion” in which you twist Sacred Scripture in bizarre ways and tell us we’re all wrong in the interpretation that has been held for thousands of years.

Well, you could be always wrong if you never doubt! The words of God should be solid and simple so it doesn’t leave any room for human error, so called interpretation. What does interpretation even means when it comes to words of God?

 

[adrift]

I already discuss this. Eating fruit has a functioning, granting the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve were good so good and evil should be the intrinsic properties of the fruit.

No one does not follow the other.

Why words of God should be subjected to time, culture,…?

Because what are situation is now is not then for instance marriage. We have in the bible that Mary was engaged or some translations say betrothed. If you are discussing it in modern terms it is different than at that time. Engagement and betrothal has a different practice than what is meant in Scripture. Jesus’ parable of the handmaidens waiting for the groom would make not sense unless you place it at that time and that culture which is that an engagement is not what it is today just a promise to marry but in that culture it was the first part of marriage the completion of the marriage was when the groom came to get his bride. A time that was unknown hence the handmaidens needed to be ready to greet him.

 

[adrift]

Thanks for the links. You apparently missed my argument so I repeat it again: My argument is very plain and simple: God can only will good. So neither of your definition couldn’t help! A fruit cannot be good and evil (absence of good) and God cannot create a fruit which is good and evil (opposite of good) since Good can only will good.

This is your misunderstanding of what the fruit was. God didn’t create a fruit that was good and evil that is not what is stated in scripture. You have created a straw man argument. I state again the fruit itself was not good and evil but imparted knowledge of good and evil. If you state again that the fruit was good and evil I will know you are not paying attention and merely determined to interpret a wrong understanding.

 

[adrift]

Why there should be any extra link between individuals and God so called Church? Because you are conceived that Bible needs interpretation. Why the words of God should need any interpretation?

Matthew 13:10-11

The disciples approached him and said, “Why do you speak to them in parables?”

He said to them in reply, "Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.

 

[adrift]

Well, you could be always wrong if you never doubt! The words of God should be solid and simple so it doesn’t leave any room for human error, so called interpretation. What does interpretation even means when it comes to words of God?

This is your opinion which I do not share. I would never tell God what He should do.

 

[Bahman]

Matthew 13:10-11

The disciples approached him and said, “Why do you speak to them in parables?”

He said to them in reply, "Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted.

And what is the point? The mysteries finally should become open by normal people so what is the point of delivering them mysteriously at the first place?