Athesits: Do you understand the difference between "knowledge" and "knowledge of good and evil"?

Question

The consequence of eating the fruit in the garden of Eden was "knowledge of good and evil" not all knowledge. It is not saying that knowledge of science (for example) is inherently evil, or that all knowledge is evil or a result of sin. It is not saying God wanted to keep them stupid. What it is saying is that MORAL knowledge, trying to discern for one's self between what is right and what is wrong was not a task meant for humans. God alone was to be the arbiter of right and wrong and we were to listen to him.

We were to obey God in terms of how what we should do instead of trying to go our own way. Does that make sense to you?

I hear this misconception a lot which is why I ask.

Answer 1

Knowledge of good and evil is a subset of knowledge. Got it, thanks.



Why wasn't it called the tree of knowledge of good and evil then?

You would think that such an important distinction wouldn't be left so ambiguous.

Answer 2

> "It is not saying that knowledge of science (for example) is inherently evil, or that all knowledge is evil or a result of sin. It is not saying God wanted to keep them stupid."



Fair enough.



> "What it is saying is that MORAL knowledge, trying to discern for one's self between what is right and what is wrong was not a task meant for humans. God alone was to be the arbiter of right and wrong and we were to listen to him."



Did the tree provide knowledge of good and evil or didn't it? If it did, then humans wouldn't have been in any danger of "trying to discern for one's self between what is right and what is wrong." They would know right from wrong, and they'd be correct in that knowledge. Why in the world would God want to keep a thing like that a secret from us?



And if we didn't know right from wrong prior to eating from the tree, then neither Adam nor Eve would have known that it was wrong to disobey God. So assuming you ascribe to the doctrine of original sin, and to the idea that Christ's sacrifice was necessary to save us from torment in Hell because of original sin, this story leaves us with a God who would torture billions of people for eternity because two of their ancestors ate a piece of fruit that they didn't even realize was wrong to eat.



Just take a moment and think about that.

Answer 3

That's your interpretation.



So what? It's a story. And many Christians would happen to disagree with you. I live within 500 miles of a place that calls itself a museum and has a dinosaur with a saddle that you can get on. Those Christians are screaming that knowledge is evil? And they'll cite Genesis, chapter and verse.



Aren't morals just self evident? Isn't "don't shoot me in the face and I won't shoot you in the face" just instinctual? All sorts of animals found in nature have figured out that living in groups is a good way to thrive. Humans figured out that despite our differences of opinion on the invisible sky man, that we thrive by living in a group. Easier to get food, find shelter and brew beer ( or make wine/ "the blood of whomever" for you religious folks).



Morals are one of the only things we really don't need a book to tell us. And frankly, that brain "god"/evolution gave me is telling me to be wary of folks who want me to obey, because an invisible sky man says so.





Athesits? Are those like smurfs or something? LOL. Knowledge. Come on. Okay next time spell atheists correctly and don't push so hard on the "obey" and maybe you'll get me. Oh yeah, and get rid of the dinosaurs with the saddles. That's just sad.

Answer 4

I agree with you, but i dont think that's what the "Knowledge of Good and Evil" did.



When Adam and Eve ate off of that fruit, it meant that they began learning things that were only meant "for the gods." The Bible describes how when Adam and Eve ate off of the fruits, they became "as the gods" knowing both good and evil. Basically, it means that they became beings that understood what good and evil was. God knows the difference between good and evil, and that means we are like God know too. A baby, however, can't do this.

Answer 5

Without the knowledge of "good" and "evil," "moral knowledge," as you wrote, how could the main characters of that story have known that being disobedient was "wrong?"



By the way, you've just proved my point that religion is about being obedient. Not moral. Not loving. Obedient.

.

Answer 6

Should have God been the arbiter when religious violence has taken over 100 million lives, or during the decades while priests were molesting children? The religions have to get God to show up if they want religious belief to survive.

Answer 7

Seems like two possiblities as to the meaning



Knowledge of the unknowable; Morality was not something we were meant to or able to define on our own.



Or The test of good and evil man was meant to "Know" that what god said was good and deviation from it was evil. and the tree was the test.

Answer 8

You are very discerning M. Not one in a thousand understands this.



Heads up to Dharma: It was!



Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Answer 9

The "Knowledge of good and evil" is Egyptian nomenclature and pertains to the difference between Humans and Animals. A human could tell good from evil and was responsible for his/her action. An animal could not and criminals judged to be incapable of telling good from evil were denegrated to the status of animals.



(Throwing pearls in front of swine!)

Answer 10

but i was given common sense and i can determine what is right and wrong without the idea of a higher power. I mean really before the ten commandments did people think it was ok to steal and kill? Sure they did it, they still do but do people really need to read a book or follow something to learn that killing and stealing are bad?

Answer 11

"What it is saying is that MORAL knowledge, trying to discern for one's self between what is right and what is wrong was not a task meant for humans."

Surely you jest...



You can't expect morality or sense from Yahwists.

This is the god who babbled about gays but somehow forgot to tell us, specifically, that slavery, rape and child molestation were wrong.

~

Answer 12

I don't obey or even listen to a bunch of men who wrote a book to keep women down.

Answer 13

Seriously...who f*cking cares. None of that religious crap is real, and its really sad that you believe in it. The truth will be a huge slap in the face when you die and don't go to heaven.



<3

Answer 14

So why wouldn't god want them to have knowledge of morals?

Answer 15

Yes I know that. Magical conscience fruit. I know the general story.

Answer 16

If God were suddenly condemned to live the life which He has inflicted upon men, He would kill Himself. – Alexandre Dumas

Answer 17

Adam knew Eve.

Answer 18

Ever heard of Rationality?

Do you know what the difference between what's Real and what is fake?

Answer 19

You obviously have no knowledge of spelling.



To answer your question yes I do

Answer 20

You mean, adam and eve were like toddlers, unable to understand what's right and wrong?

Answer 21

Apparently god didn't 'cause he punished adam and eve for doing something they didn't and couldn't know was wrong.

Answer 22

Yes

It is not saying that knowledge is evil at all

Answer 23

Admittedly, it is irrelevant because god doesn't exist and neither did adam or eve

Answer 24

I'm familiar with the myth, yes.

Answer 25

I understand it. But the implication is still intellectually insulting.

Answer 26

That's just silly.

Your god doesn't stop crimes from happening. We decide what's right and wrong. We pass our laws. We enforce them.



Your god doesn't do anything.

Sorry.

Answer 27

The better question would be, do you know the difference between fact and fiction?

Answer 28

really, then why is it that with that knowledge came the understanding that they were naked?

Answer 29

The atheists who make those kinds of statements obviously don't have problems with lying though omission. They leave out information to try to make a point because if they left that info in, it would show that they're wrong.