Robots

by Aeiouy 13 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Aeiouy
    Aeiouy

    Hi everyone,

    I was reading the incredibly fascinating posts on the "Something I heard from our Lord" topic, and noticed something that piqued my curiousity. The JWs always say that Eve wasn't really guilty of wrongdoing, but rather Adam. And Adam was guilty because he had been told by God, and he knew eating from the tree was wrong. It makes sense (if you believe in the Bible, that is), because Adam should have known better. God warned him of what was wrong, and yet Adam still chose to do it.

    But wait...

    Genesis 3:

    22 Then the L ORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”

    After eating from the tree, Adam became like God, knowing good and evil. So, he didn't know good and evil before he ate from the tree??? How could God expect Adam to make the right choice, when Adam didn't even know good from evil? God said bad things, evil things would happen if he ate. But Adam didn't understand bad, evil.

    Adding to that, the JWs preach that in the New System tm we will be returned to a state like that of Adam. So we won't know evil? How can we make a choice, when we don't know what the choices are?? Isn't that a little like a robot?

    On another note....Isn't iRobot a great movie?

    Aeiouy

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    Aeiouy:

    Just a couple points. I know you'll get more.

    The word "know," in both Hebrew and Greek was used with a certain amount of flexibility. For example in Genesis 4:1 the NWT says that Adam "had intercourse" with his wife. But "had intercourse" is the same Hebrew word as "knowing" in Genesis3:22. Thus, he "knew" her in a way he hadn't before this. But he already was acquainted with her as a person in other ways.

    Adam had already been told not to eat from the tree. So he "knew" it was wrong. His "knowing good and bad" like "one of us" after eating from the tree was something more than mere acquaintance with what was good and bad. The phrase "like one of us" would be the key to understanding in what aspect the "knowing" was.

    And yes, I enjoyed iRobot.

    Take Care

  • transhuman68
    transhuman68

    Well, I don't think we can go back to Eden... 'Adam' is a play on the word 'adamah' meaning the ground, so Adam was really a clay doll, gradually coming to life and discovering things, learning things and failing tests. And this was a time when humans and the spirit world were in close proximity- with “God walking in the garden in the cool of the day”. It is an interesting and puzzling myth… but as they say, “you can’t go back home.”

  • kurtbethel
    kurtbethel

    Accepting the story as a metaphor, you can see Adam as knowing instructions and rules, like "this is okay to eat" and "don't eat that", without understanding the principles behind the rules. Eating the fruit and having his eyes opened meant that he not only knew what the rules were, but he could think through consequences of his actions and weigh costs and benefits to make decisions on his own without instruction from the gods. And that displeased them in no small measure. Without church guidance in "undestanding" this story, the serpent becomes a hero.

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    I was reading the incredibly fascinating posts on the "Something I heard from our Lord" topic, and noticed something that piqued my curiousity. The JWs always say that Eve wasn't really guilty of wrongdoing, but rather Adam. And Adam was guilty because he had been told by God, and he knew eating from the tree was wrong. It makes sense (if you believe in the Bible, that is), because Adam should have known better. God warned him of what was wrong, and yet Adam still chose to do it.

    It's an interesting story which, if nothing else, demonstrates that while the ancient men who repeated it may not have enjoyed the benefit of the technological and science knowledge we have, they certainly DID understand human dynamics, including the desire of men to control one another (by hook or crook). It's part of our evolutionary history: much like chickens who instinctively establish a pecking order, or primates who vie for alpha-male status to show their dominance, it's an intrinsic property of men. Religions are just playing a different version of the same old game....

    Eating of the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad endows humanity with a moral conscience, an inner sense of morality: the story only makes sense if the fruit is thought of in that manner, since God was basically saying, "Follow MY rules: you're not capable or permitted to make up your own rules".

    Remember that it's only AFTER they ate of the fruit that they'd realized they had done something wrong by disobeying God, and tried to hide from God, to cover their "nakedness" (meaning they realized they'd bitten off more than they could chew, having to now do God's work of establishing moral law upon one another. Hmmmm, sounds a bit like males who try to establish dominance over each other, doesn't it? It's often a bloody matter, even leading to wars, etc).

    Anyway, the problem with letting Eve off the hook is that she repeated the "thou shalt not eat" rule to the serpent, which acknowledges her comprehension of the rule (and it's irrelevant whether she heard it from YHWH, or if it was relayed via Adam). She obviously had a logical understanding of it.

    Although as you pointed out, the question is whether they had the moralcapabilities to process that knowledge, and make a moral decision based on that knowledge, IS an unanswered question. I call that the "Paradox of A&E", since the Bible DOES depict them as children-like before eating, unable to make good decisions (by eating the fruit: exhibit #1), as if sociopaths acting before considered the effects on others of their impulsive actions (sociopaths seemingly don't have a conscience or inner sense of morality; certainty they have no respect for rules). The Bible offers some tantalizing hints that demonstrates their sociopathic traits, including those behaviors exhibited in their offspring (need I mention Cain, the World's 1st murderer?).

    I've always thought the logical "fly in the ointment" of the story is that if they didn't have a moral capacity to determine the wrongness of disobeying God, then it would be cruel of YHWH to hand them the death penalty (not to mention, the rest of us!) since they were operating on what today we'd refer to as "Diminished Capacity". Blame God: he shouldn't have made man without whatever the Magic Tree imparted to them. (Perhaps He intended to do some beta-testing on them, and hence why He put the Tree in the middle of the Garden). The story also raises the question of the careless stewardship God displays by putting something with such devastating consequences for mankind within their reach... Not smart, esp when it is known that it wouldn't take an omniscient and omnipotent being to order a bored Cherubim to guard it 24/7!

    God perhaps should have given them His permission to eat a bit of the fruit BEFORE deciding to eat the fruit: that's the paradox of the story, though, and makes it so interesting even to this day.

    (I know: the story was written AFTERWARDS, as a way to explain where we ended to that point in time. A happy ending wouldn't provide an answer to "why do men die?", etc.)

    I've not heard of the attempt of JWs to let her off the hook, but that would be in keeping with the JW Bible-based male chauvanistic view to think, "Those stupid women, they just cannot UNDERSTAND this really complicated stuff, like us MALES can, with our knowledge-endowing penises", LOL! Interesting, esp. in light of the idea of a group of males trying to establish their dominance and control over all females? :)

    Of course, Eve cannot win for losing: her original Sin has been used as the basis for men to suppress the weaker sex, based on old misogynistic Hebrew beliefs.

    Adding to that, the JWs preach that in the New System tm we will be returned to a state like that of Adam. So we won't know evil? How can we make a choice, when we don't know what the choices are?? Isn't that a little like a robot?

    Yup, that's the implication to me, as I'm reading it.

    In other words, we'd be NO different from A&E BEFORE they ate the fruit: YHWH would demand total obedience to HIS laws, and hence no need for man to exercise his OWN morality. COMPLIANCE and BLIND UNQUESTIONED OBEDIENCE is required, NOT thinking you know better. Heck, that's the WHOLE point of the torah, and the WHOLE POINT of being a JW: OBEY, OBEY, OBEY! No thinking is required on your part, no independent research, no questioning of OUR doctrines.

    So if you LIKE being told what to do by the GB, you'll LOVE the New System of Things: when it comes to control of every detail of your life, you ain't seen nothing yet! :)

    Not to worry, though: The Adam and Eve tale shares MANY similarities to the old tale of Adam, eh I mean Prometheus, stealing fire (which is analogous to knowledge, not just moral knowledge) from YHWH, eh, I mean Zeus; Eve, eh, I mean Pandora is responsible for bringing misery to the World, just like Eve brought childbirth pains to women for her sin, and Prometheus is punished to eternity to have his liver eaten out by a bird, a Sisypean task to which Adam was sentenced (toiling the Earth until his Death, when he returns to the soil from which he was made).

    Just another ancient myth (which was stolen at that), folks....

  • tec
    tec

    The word "know," in both Hebrew and Greek was used with a certain amount of flexibility. For example in Genesis 4:1 the NWT says that Adam "had intercourse" with his wife. But "had intercourse" is the same Hebrew word as "knowing" in Genesis3:22. Thus, he "knew" her in a way he hadn't before this. But he already was acquainted with her as a person in other ways.

    Adam had already been told not to eat from the tree. So he "knew" it was wrong. His "knowing good and bad" like "one of us" after eating from the tree was something more than mere acquaintance with what was good and bad. The phrase "like one of us" would be the key to understanding in what aspect the "knowing" was.

    Yes. Well stated.

    It was more than knowing the difference between good and bad.

    It was knowing good and evil. As in a 'union with' good... and ... bad.

    Death is part of bad... so they 'ate of' death. But God granted them garments of skin (our flesh/vessel covering our spirits), so that the death that came as a result was death of the flesh. So that we (spirits trapped within the vessel that has death in it) might not die.

    It was done out of love, and mercy, and it was done for US... and He sent Christ to us, to eat of Him (who is the Life - like the Tree of Life).

    God protects, teaches, draws us to Him, loves and shows mercy, he does not want anyone to die... He is not the punishing, vengeful, exacting God that religions and men have made Him out to be. What He does, He does for us.

    Nor will we be robots in the Kingdom. Some things just wont be IN us to do, and men act upon what is within them. Life and light (Christ...)will be within us instead.

    (As solomon stated above, Eve knew better than to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and bad too. Her conversation with the serpent confirms that she knew God had told them NOT to eat from the tree, and that if they did, they would die.)

    Peace,

    tammy

  • cofty
    cofty

    spirits trapped within the vessel that has death in it

    Why do you believe in Platonic dualism? Have you any evidence for this Greek idea of a ghost in the machine?

    Tammy - King Solomon demolished your theory on the other thread and yet here you are repeating the same things. Why?

  • tec
    tec

    I believe in what my Lord teaches me, Cofty. I think you'd know that by now.

    I am well aware of what you think King Solomon did on the other thread. That does not make it so, and I do not have to be silent in the things I have been taught to be true.

    But this thread is not about me. It belongs to AEIOUY. I am not going to back and forth with you here on the same old same old. I am confident is AEIOUY's ability to decide for him/herself what to accept or not.

    Peace,

    tammy

  • OldGenerationDude
    OldGenerationDude

    Another possible way to look at the Genesis story is the way non-JW and non-Fundamentalists interpret it.

    First, according to this school of thought, the story is not explaining how sin came about. It is not about the historical origin of humanity. The story is a theological lesson explaining the human tendency to throw God out of the picture and what ends up happening as a result.

    To mainstream scholars (including ancient early Church fathers and some schools of Jewish thought) the narrative is telling us that Jews believed that humans have exchanged God's knowledge on matters for deciding for ourselves what is good and what is bad. In other words, the story paints humans with a significant trait: we claim to have the ability to decide for ourselves what is objectively good and what is objectively bad as if we were God himself.

    According to this theology, Adam and Eve-or all of humanity-can know what is truly good and what isn't if they accept guidance from the Creator. The narrative isn't saying that Adam didn't know the difference between the two, because the story relies on both humans knowing God's ordinance regarding the tree in question and its fruit. Eve even quotes the law of God for the serpent when asked, demonstrating that she knows the difference between what should be done and what shouldn't (what is good and what is evil). So obviously the idea that the story is saying that Adam didn't know good from bad is an incorrect conclusion since it doesn't explain why the serpent would question the humans about what was right and wrong. (Why would the Devil ask Adam and Eve a question about what was right regarding the trees and their fruit if they didn't know?)

    Also the story has Adam and Eve claiming to be "naked." This is a decision made by the humans, not by God. God does not claim they are naked. In fact, God asks Adam where he got the idea that he was naked. "Who told you that you were naked?" The question is not: "Who shared this secret about being naked that I was keeping from you." The question is: "Where on earth would you get the idea that you were naked?"

    This, mainstream theologians teach, is a theological reference to shame. Recall that the story of creation has God making man and woman in God's image, but later Adam is ashamed of this image, calling its complete presentation ‘nudity,' meaning that he is ashamed of himself, believing his form is lacking something or that he should be ashamed of one part or another or all of it. There was nothing incomplete about humanity in that we are created in the image of God and thus have no reason to be ashamed. The shame comes from the fact that Adam and Eve came to realize they didn't measure up. That their "eyes came to be opened" is not meaning they are coming to the realization of the truth. As the Israelites made Moses cover his face when it began to reflect God's glory, Adam and Eve cannot look up this "reflection" either because of their shame for doing what they knew was wrong. In fact God kindly makes clothes of skins for them in the same way as Moses obliged the Isrealites who feared the glorfy that came from his face. (Note, this "skin" or flesh clothing due to sin is allegory and gets removed in spiritual circumcision by the Spirit as referred to in Romans 2:22-29.)

    According to this interpretation there is no knowledge in any fruit on a tree or lack of knowledge about evil on the part of Adam or Eve. It is a religious tale explaining what humans are, not how we literally got this way.

    As for the word "know" in Hebrew. It has various meanings. It can mean sexual intercourse or it can mean to learn about a person. It doesn't have one meaning all across the board. Context decides whether a sexual act is meant or mere communication and interchange is being discussed.

    If the mainstream exegesis is correct, this would mean that Adam did understand the differences between what is right and wrong. "Knowing good and evil" is Hebrew idiom for "communicating or teaching what is right and wrong." According to non-JW Judeo-Christian theology, only God can truly teach what is right and wrong because only God owns this knowledge, as humans don't seem to do this very well when left to their own devices, as history shows (and which is the point of the theological narrative in question).

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    The verse had perplexed me for years when I was still in the church.

    Read without bias it says the gods (plural "Elohim", "Us") were disappointed that the new humans had become "like them" in doing both good and bad. Apparently they had higher hopes for us but now they had to be denied immortality lest the endless struggles in the heavens spread to the earth. The roots and elements of the story are very ancient and, not surprisingly, from polytheistic cultures. The Yahwist author has adapted the material for his own polemical purpose but has retained what might be called a henotheistic color.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit