Knowledge of Good and Evil

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Narnian

Paul did not mean that those who sinned should be burnt to death! The concept of the "fiery test" originates with Zarathustra, whose religion, Zoroastrianism, had more influence on the post exilic Jews and later Christians, than anything else. Between 1000-1700BC, Zarathustra wrote this;
<...>
This is lost knowledge as far as modern day Christians and most theologians go. Fire as a purifying archetype is seen in the post exilic OT prophet Daniel’s symbolic story of the 3 ‘good’ men thrown into the fire. They did not burn because they were ‘good’, and only ‘bad’ burns.
<...>
Fire as purifier in the NT quoted by Jesus:
<...>
Secondly, I find that trying to reconstruct Paul as a liar and a deceiver is not taking into account poetic licence of all art forms, including literature.
<...>

Here's a passage from the Quran about purification by fire, which denotes it as a parable:

Originally Posted by Sura 13 verse 17

17. He sends down water from the skies, and the channels flow, each according to its measure: But the torrent bears away to foam that mounts up to the surface. Even so, from that (ore) which they heat in the fire, to make ornaments or utensils therewith, there is a scum likewise. Thus doth Allah (by parables) show forth Truth and Vanity. For the scum disappears like forth cast out; while that which is for the good of mankind remains on the earth. Thus doth Allah set forth parables.

[Narnian]

Thanks for the Koran quote.

Since there have been so many critiques of Victor's article, why hasn't he posted some with the article?

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Victor

Religions give us basic codes for moral action, and they often vary as do Judaic, Christian, and Islamic Law though they come from the same base. The basic foundations of our legal systems stem from ‘Theos nomos’, God’s Law! Agios nomos, man’s law, usually generates from those principles and adapts by necessity. But no one yet has accomplished a ‘perfect’ Law in heart, mind or spirit.

There are a couple of beliefs here that I found follow through in your writings... which is easy since Law is an encompassing and ubiquitous subject. The first belief I see is in what might be God's Law versus man's law. Another belief is that it is a goal to perfect Law. In one of your writings I saw Islamic law and the Torah (law from Moses) as an implied standard. Although the Qur'an affirms the Torah, the adherents to modern Islam commonly discount it as corrupted. However, there is a verse like this from the Qur'an:

5:66 Yusufali: If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil.
5:66 Pickthal: If they had observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which was revealed unto them from their Lord, they would surely have been nourished from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them there are people who are moderate, but many of them are of evil conduct.
5:66 Shakir: And if they had kept up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which was revealed to them from their Lord, they would certainly have eaten from above them and from beneath their feet there is a party of them keeping to the moderate course, and (as for) most of them, evil is that which they do
5:66 Khalifa: If only they would uphold the Torah and the Gospel, and what is sent down to them herein from their Lord, they would be showered with blessings from above them and from beneath their feet. Some of them are righteous, but many of them are evildoers.
---------------------
Which is inline with this thread as it implies a way to knowledge of good and evil. However, adherents to a different religion like Buddhism or Hinduism will see things a little differently, right? Victor, I am curious what you believe God's law is and why any man should try to perfect it?

I believe that God's law incorporates man's laws. Unusual statement but I merely mean that everything is being recorded, and the agreements between people are recognized. I witness the overwhelming majority of laws are written by people. There are often two or more people who find a need for an agreement or a law, and there is always another group who might oppose it. I can see in the world the issue of: 1. who writes a law, 2. who judges a law, 3. who enforces a law. Between people the wrong combination of how those three items are followed leads to oppression, false convictions, hypocrisy, iniquity, brutality, slavery, etc... is that not just because a man was involved? There seems to be an implied understanding that Man is evil, and God is good... so then what is God's law?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Victor
Religions give us basic codes for moral action, and they often vary as do Judaic, Christian, and Islamic Law though they come from the same base. The basic foundations of our legal systems stem from ‘Theos nomos’, God’s Law! Agios nomos, man’s law, usually generates from those principles and adapts by necessity. But no one yet has accomplished a ‘perfect’ Law in heart, mind or spirit.

I think there is one perfect Law of heart mind and spirit, and that is the Law of Love. If the way out of the KOG was through knowing good and evil = moralizing, the way back in is through Love, where we stop judging and leave moralizing behind.

[Victor]

First, I apologize for being so late in returning to the site. I have just finished a fourth thesis and the work has been long and difficult. As most of you know, when a work is so all-encompassing, finishing it is like a drop off a cliff! Recovery can be slow.

I would like to respond to Narnian. The critique's have, for the vast majority, been of a positive nature. I had heard no dissenting voice until now. What I wrote was from Paul's own mouth, it was a statement of his own personal history, his views on a budding religion, and his association with certain communities. I took him at his word! Seattlegal asks why I did not take into effect, poetic licence. It was not my task to defend Paul or to try to interpret his meanings other than they appear in Canon, without inflection or demeanor. That, as we all know, is impossible with the written word. Aside from Paul's writings I could only determine areas of his life by those who wrote of the same period in history (Luke) and those who wrote in opposition to his theology. (Hebrews, for one) Since many have read the thesis I see no point in presenting vast portions of it again, here. The critiques speak for themselves; the major point of any thing I write is to make people THINK! Whether you agree or disagree is most important for you; it is your pronouncement to the world and, at least for the time being, we are all still a free people here on this site!

Now, cyberpi, teaching an old dog new tricks is not easy so I don't know how to do the quote thing, but your next to last paragraph is my reference. Obviously we ALL interpret our world and the things in it quite differently from one another and for many reasons. I would hope and pray that most of our 'reason' comes from life experience. And I find your question of great interest. I shall respond with the following. I only ask that you consider it coming from a 'Believer'.

The 'perfect Law' is somewhat like the "three laws of robotics"! Yes, even an old stuffed shirt gets into sci-fi! I do not believe that G-d's Law can be perfected, but as you know, somewhere, sometime, some hack writer has to get into the act and purloin The Almighty's efforts to give us some guidance.
To my person, G-d's Law is as follows:
Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make any graven image of anything in the heavens or the earth to bow down and worship them. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy G-d in vain. Thou shalt keep the sabbath and honor it. Thou shalt honor they mother and thy father.... and parents provoke not thy children to anger. Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Thou shalt not covet.... and the first of all these is to love the Lord thy G-d with all they heart, and mind, and soul, and to love they neighbor as thyself.

No, off the cuff they are not all in the right order or stated perfectly, but then neither will I attempt, as a human being, to add a thousand more laws to those of the pharisees! It's like golf clubs, 14 give me more choices than I am capable of making in a single day!

Be well; live long and prosper! You all give me reason to smile.
I Am, as always.

Victor G

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I think there is one perfect Law of heart mind and spirit, and that is the Law of Love. If the way out of the KOG was through knowing good and evil = moralizing, the way back in is through Love, where we stop judging and leave moralizing behind.

If you Love me, then you will Judge me.
If you don't, then you won't.
If I Love you then I will hear you.
If I don't, then I won't.
Not with stones, but with words.
Thrown words can only enlighten me. Thrown stones can only condemn me.
Surely I might be mislead, but only if I first misfollow.
So I have heard, I have judged, and I have moralized.
Will you forgive me if I have judged wrong?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Here's a passage from the Quran about purification by fire, which denotes it as a parable:

Interesting. That sounds like making steel from Iron, or pure copper from cuprious sulfate, or gleaning gold from quartz and pyrite. Nothing spiritual about that...just physics (logical).

v/r

Joshua

[flowperson]

Q:

I believe it's really referring to alchemical processes, which by ancient traditions are as much spiritual as logical. Actually many modern chemical and physical processes have their roots in alchemy which goes back, in rudimentary forms, to 3,000 bce in China and India.

It is Eastern cultures, including Arabic, which transferred much technical knowledge of this sort beginning around the time of Jesus until the middle ages in Europe, and into the beginnings of the European trades and crafts explosion of the latter middle ages. It's a history of many cultures sharing the learning and applying of these skills over thousands of years in order to bring us the modern world that we enjoy today.

flow....

[juantoo3]

Interesting point Flow!

I have long pondered how alchemy "evolved" into modern science, and how the "philosopher's stone" seemed to drive men to circumnavigate the globe. Was it not gold and immortality (the fabled "fountain of youth") that brought the famous Spanish explorers to the New World?

[inhumility]

Originally Posted by Victor

I have just finished a fourth thesis and the work has been long and difficult.

Originally Posted by Victor

Victor G

Hi Victor!
You have done a marvelous job. Congratulations.
Thanks

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

If you Love me, then you will Judge me.
If you don't, then you won't.
If I Love you then I will hear you.
If I don't, then I won't.
Not with stones, but with words.
Thrown words can only enlighten me. Thrown stones can only condemn me.
Surely I might be mislead, but only if I first misfollow.
So I have heard, I have judged, and I have moralized.
Will you forgive me if I have judged wrong?

Hi cyberpi

I think I kind of understand what you mean about judging...it's the whole thing about training and pruning the vine so that it will grow strong and fruitful, the parent teaching and guiding the child towards a happy and successful life. But...

The Way of the Garden is Love, not judgement.

If I love you, I will listen to you. I will feed you, I will heal you. I will welcome you home with joy no matter where you have been. I will be patient, I will be kind.

I will forgive.


The child learns the most from what we do and how we love them, not our words of judgement. Believe me, we have discipline in our home. My kids do not run wild and control the household...it would be very bad for all of us if they did! But there is a difference between teaching and judging. In the case of the first the responsibility remains with the child. In the second, we take that responsibility upon our selves.

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy;
O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

cheers,
luna

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I think I kind of understand what you mean about judging...it's the whole thing about training and pruning the vine so that it will grow strong and fruitful, the parent teaching and guiding the child towards a happy and successful life. But...

No, definitely not that.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

The Way of the Garden is Love, not judgement.

I was trying to show that Love requires judgment, and that judgment requires Love... just as the body requires the brain and the brain requires the body.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

If I love you, I will listen to you. I will feed you, I will heal you. I will welcome you home with joy no matter where you have been. I will be patient, I will be kind. I will forgive.

And, you will Judge me. In order to hear and have patience, a person internally judges. In order to forgive, a person has judged first already.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

The child learns the most from what we do and how we love them, not our words of judgement. Believe me, we have discipline in our home. My kids do not run wild and control the household...it would be very bad for all of us if they did!

I agree that it is good to teach by example which is known as not being a hypocrite. But if a parent can raise children with tape across their mouth and without using sign language then I would like to see it. Helen Keller comes to mind. I submit that parenting requires some form of communication and behind every word is judgment.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

But there is a difference between teaching and judging. In the case of the first the responsibility remains with the child. In the second, we take that responsibility upon our selves.

I have two ears, two eyes, and a tongue within my control... so when am I NOT directly responsible for the use of one or the other? Is the student made responsible for what I say as a teacher? Is the judge made responsible for what I hear when I am judged? Whether speaking or hearing, I judge. I submit that whether I am a student, a teacher, being judged, or judging others, that I am the one responsible for the use of my brain, voice, eyes, and ears.

I can not support law by people, Faith in people, or democracy for anyone who is opposed to judgment. The person opposed to judging has either ascribed themselves to judgement by somebody else... either Victor's Theology of Law (hopefully God), some form of dictatorship by the scholarly or powerful, or anarchy. Voting in a democracy requires that a person judge not only what they think is right from wrong, good from evil, for a law over their neighbor, but also in a representative democracy it requires judging between people. Literally. At best I would say that a person must always have the right to abstain from judging, or from judgment. If a person is ignorant of a referendum, then they should abstain. I suggest that abstaining is not an insult to democracy; however, it is my goal to suggest and to promote that individuals should Judge. Not just with words, but given a powerful vote in law and diluted only by the number of people who are willing to judge and vote.

Upon having a Law, I submit that judgment is required when someone breaks it. I am certainly for forgiving a person that disobeys the law... after the person is minimally judged with words, and if he repents. So embrace the felon, the bank robber, the rapist, or the child molestor with all of the Love that you have. I strongly recommend it. Listen to him, forgive him, feed him, make him cookies... but I advise after he is willing to confess. Otherwise nothing has been taught, nothing has been learned because there was no judgment. Forgiveness requires judgment. Otherwise, there was nothing to forgive.

[lunamoth]

Hi Cyberpi, Thank you for your reply. I guess we are on quite different wavelengths (again ). I'll try to address some of your points as best I can.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

No, definitely not that.

OK.

I was trying to show that Love requires judgment, and that judgment requires Love... just as the body requires the brain and the brain requires the body.

You seem to be using the word judgement the way I might say assessment, or analysis. When I say judgement I mean a judgement about that person, not the act. Assessment: Sal is a prostitute, which is lillegal and dangerous as a profession. Judgement: Sal is a bad person and prostitution is a sin.

And, you will Judge me. In order to hear and have patience, a person internally judges. In order to forgive, a person has judged first already.

I can't even begin to understand anything you say unless I 'judge' you in such a manner. All of our language, all of our interpersonal relationships are judgement the way you seem to be using the word. I have a feeling we are arguing over semantics.

I agree that it is good to teach by example which is known as not being a hypocrite. But if a parent can raise children with tape across their mouth and without using sign language then I would like to see it. Helen Keller comes to mind. I submit that parenting requires some form of communication and behind every word is judgment.

Of course I use words to communicate with my child, and of course I will try to point out right from wrong, or beneficial from harmful, socially acceptable from non-acceptable. However, I would suggest that as parents we use way too many words and way too many judgements and criticisms with our children, and I am quite guilty of this myself. When kids are little that is the best time to let them learn from their mistakes, rather than telling them what to do and trying to rescue them from every bad consequence. In a perfect world though its very possible that our children could learn by observing us without us every having to criticize or discipline.

I have two ears, two eyes, and a tongue within my control... so when am I NOT directly responsible for the use of one or the other? Is the student made responsible for what I say as a teacher? Is the judge made responsible for what I hear when I am judged? Whether speaking or hearing, I judge. I submit that whether I am a student, a teacher, being judged, or judging others, that I am the one responsible for the use of my brain, voice, eyes, and ears.

I think I addressed this above.

I can not support law by people, Faith in people, or democracy for anyone who is opposed to judgment.

Oh, well you are quite correct that the law brings judgement. I'm not an anarchist (I seem to be saying that a lot lately); I agree that the functioning of our society depends upon laws and our more or less agreement to obedience to them. This thread however (let me go back and check), yes this thread is about morality and the knowledge of good and evil. Victor said that there is no perfect (univeral ) law, but I disagree. Love is that perfect "law." Love transcends morality and good and evil. It's a perfect law, a divine law, but we souls living in a fallen, imperfect world can never fully follow this law (which, IMO, is where grace comes in). So, we need to muddle along the best we can with our man-made laws for keeping order and peace, all the while realizing that while these laws are necessary, they are also indicative that we are not living fully in the KOG. As individuals, when we participate in love (forgiveness, healing, feeding, welcoming home), we are living out that divine law.

The person opposed to judging has either ascribed themselves to judgement by somebody else... either Victor's Theology of Law (hopefully God), some form of dictatorship by the scholarly or powerful, or anarchy.

I believe that this kind of thinking is dangerous and also the reason we have so much relgious strife in the world.

Voting in a democracy requires that a person judge not only what they think is right from wrong, good from evil, for a law over their neighbor, but also in a representative democracy it requires judging between people. Literally. At best I would say that a person must always have the right to abstain from judging, or from judgment. If a person is ignorant of a referendum, then they should abstain. I suggest that abstaining is not an insult to democracy; however, it is my goal to suggest and to promote that individuals should Judge. Not just with words, but given a powerful vote in law and diluted only by the number of people who are willing to judge and vote.

I said above that we need to judge to function as a society.

Upon having a Law, I submit that judgment is required when someone breaks it. I am certainly for forgiving a person that disobeys the law... after the person is minimally judged with words, and if he repents. So embrace the felon, the bank robber, the rapist, or the child molestor with all of the Love that you have. I strongly recommend it. Listen to him, forgive him, feed him, make him cookies... but I advise after he is willing to confess. Otherwise nothing has been taught, nothing has been learned because there was no judgment. Forgiveness requires judgment. Otherwise, there was nothing to forgive.

I disagree, but I still think we can judge the action and enforce laws to keep people and property 'safe,' (which is, BTW, an illusion) without judging the person. Aside: the fact that we need so many laws to keep the peace is yet another symptom that we are widely out of whack. The thing about grace/forgiveness, the unconditional love we are called to give to each other is that it is never something to be earned, but always to be freely given. I'm not capable of it, probably won't be except in glimmers during this life, nevertheless it is what we are called to be and do.

Think about the prodigal son...his father gave him his inheritace freely when he asked and forgave him before he even left to squander his inheritiance. That is love, grace, forgivness, the kind of love our LORD shows to us.

Think also about Jesus on the cross. Father, forgive them. They know not what they do.

peace

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Victor

The critiques speak for themselves; the major point of any thing I write is to make people THINK! Whether you agree or disagree is most important for you; it is your pronouncement to the world and, at least for the time being, we are all still a free people here on this site!

That sounds good to me. However I am responding to what I read in your critiques as a 'theology of Law' where a person does not think, but instead submits to a religious scholar or prophet who does the thinking. For example something like Shariah (Islamic Law) where it is a scholarly religious leader that does the thinking, derives Laws, issues Fatwas, and requires judgement or being the judge of it. That requirement is heavily enforced with the concept of a 'theology of Law'. If the measure of good and evil (title of thread) is whether I follow everyone's laws... if I am to be judged merely on adherance to a law, then there is no need to THINK... only to follow the law.

Originally Posted by Victor

To my person, G-d's Law is as follows:
Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Thou shalt not make any graven image of anything in the heavens or the earth to bow down and worship them. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy G-d in vain. Thou shalt keep the sabbath and honor it. Thou shalt honor they mother and thy father.... and parents provoke not thy children to anger. Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Thou shalt not covet.... and the first of all these is to love the Lord thy G-d with all they heart, and mind, and soul, and to love they neighbor as thyself.

While that is a good start, and those words or commandments do teach... I find that God's Laws are far more fair, more encompassing, more forgiving, and more powerful than written words. Lets start with Judaism and go back further in time prior to Moses. In Genesis 26:5 there is the voice of God saying, "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." The translated word 'laws' comes from the Hebrew word 'Torah' and is differenced there from God's voice, commandments, and statutes. Abraham did not have the 'Law from Moses'. Was there a law in writing for Abraham to follow? Was it in a book? Again, God says something to Moses in Exodus 16:28 about God's laws prior to having given the commandments that you have listed. So I would question again, what is God's laws versus Man's laws given that those verses are directly stated as God's voice and differentiate his laws from his words, his commandments, and his statutes. I submit that God's law is far more encompassing than what can be listed.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

So I would question again, what is God's laws versus Man's laws given that those verses are directly stated as God's voice and differentiate his laws from his words, his commandments, and his statutes. I submit that God's law is far more encompassing than what can be listed.

I am very intrigued, please continue!