The_Sage wrote:
>
> Then Adam cannot be held responsible or guilty for something he did not
know.
>
This is about consequences which bring about responsibility and guilt.
We are responsible and guilty, unlike animals, because we have our
reflective consciousness. We are capable of saying "I", we are able to
look at ourselves and see our very ****dness before God. Animals
aren't.
>
> >But as I said, he was able to gain that knowledge (with the help of
Eve).
>
> But as I said, it was too late by then.
>
It was inevitable.
>
> My point is that God allowed Adam to have access to both trees. Adam
could have
> eaten of the Tree of Life (which he was not forbidden to eat) and lived
forever,
> so clearly God did not consider immorality being equal to God.
>
Immorality, of course not.
>
> Adam ate of the
> Tree of Knowledge of Evil and God still did not consider that being
equal to
> God. What God considered as equal to God was having BOTH knowledge of
good and
> evil AND being immortal.
>
Indeed. And we are moral beings, since we know the difference between
the Good and the Evil, and we are mortal. If we were immortal, we
would also be immoral (or rather amoral), I think. Angels are not
moral beings, they are terrible as Rilke wrote.
>
> >We know that we must die. That is something which no animal knows
> >beforehand ( I guess).
>
> But sine you don't know, why make things up?
>
Of course I know that I must die.
>
> >That knowledge is a very heavy burden.
>
> No it isn't. Death is a blessing, not a curse.
>
In fact I think it is both.
>
> >> >I cannot imagine a world without suffering.
>
> >I think suffering is inevitable, as long as there is time, space,
> >matter and energy, plus sentient beings.
>
> Think again.
>
Likewise.
>
> >> Then you must be very happy to suffer so much.
>
> >Of course I'm not. But ""It is better to be an unhappy Socrates, than
> >to be a happy pig".
>
> And therein lies your problem -- you are prejudiced against pigs.
>
How funny.
--
risto
|
