₦airaland Forum

I just checked nairaland and real eyesd that no one has asked what is the effect of not knowing good and evil.

So, people, let's discuss. What is effect of not having the knowledge of good and evil


Gabrielshow, i am raising this thread just for the purpose of having a wider opinion.

Ahan, doesn't anyone know or have any idea?

First of all, the story in the garden of Eden sounds to me like a fairytales and the only place we can read about such event is in a book of fairytales called the bible.

Unknownqueen 4:13-14

13. Tell us why it is valid without quoting another person's journal and publications called the Bible.
14. Prove to us that its a valid event asides just mumuishly believing that it will happen.

geoworldedu:
First of all, the story in the garden of Eden sounds to me like a fairytales and the only place we can read about such event is in a book of fairytales called the bible.

Unknownqueen 4:13-14

13. Tell us why it is valid without quoting another person's journal and publications called the Bible.
14. Prove to us that its a valid event asides just mumuishly believing that it will happen.

Good thing you say "to you" in show of yourself delu as people complaining that life is hard and the abundance of maternity hospitals and the fact that women are since been lower and less than men prove you are talking rubbish.

Ahan, still no one with any ideas?

Nifpmod can you please take it to frontpage for contributions?

Dtruthspeaker:
Ahan, still no one with any ideas?

Nifpmod can you please take it to frontpage for contributions?

I think the answer is obvious: We would still be walking about naked and unashamed if Adam and Eve didn't eat of the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

kppo:
I think the answer is obvious: We would still be walking about naked and unashamed if Adam and Eve didn't eat of the forbidden tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Ok. That is an effect.

But, what does it mean to walk about naked and unashamed?

Dtruthspeaker:
Good thing you say "to you" in show of yourself delu as people complaining that life is hard and the abundance of maternity hospitals and the fact that women are since been lower and less than men prove you are talking rubbish.

The idea that labor pain is some divine curse starts falling apart once you look at the body itself. Childbirth pain can already be explained by the baby’s large head, the narrow human pelvis, contractions, stretching, pressure, and all the physical strain involved, so there is no need to drag heaven into what anatomy already explains. Human biology created the difficulty, not a punishment story. What makes it even harder to defend is that modern science has gone far in reducing that pain through epidurals, surgery, better maternal care, and medical knowledge. If something was meant to stand forever as a curse, it is strange that human understanding keeps finding ways to weaken it. To me, that says knowledge has done more against suffering than fear ever did.

Roycemadeit:
The idea that labor pain is some divine curse starts falling apart once you look at the body itself. Childbirth pain can already be explained by the baby’s large head, the narrow human pelvis, contractions, stretching, pressure, and all the physical strain involved, so there is no need to drag heaven into what anatomy already explains. Human biology created the difficulty, not a punishment story. What makes it even harder to defend is that modern science has gone far in reducing that pain through epidurals, surgery, better maternal care, and medical knowledge. If something was meant to stand forever as a curse, it is strange that human understanding keeps finding ways to weaken it. To me, that says knowledge has done more against suffering than fear ever did.

Labour pains isn't the only curse, in that Pronouncement.

Dtruthspeaker:
Labour pains isn't the only curse, in that Pronouncement.

Snakes never eat sand, neither is every man tilling the ground.

Roycemadeit:
Snakes never eat sand, neither is every man tilling the ground.

Now you have changed post. But just for your info, It said dust, not sand and if you had played on the sand, you would know that you must eat dust.

Then on tilling the ground, is every work done by men, not on the ground? And they must fall into farming or mining.

Dtruthspeaker:
Ok. That is an effect.

But, what does it mean to walk about naked and unashamed?

I think it means to be one with nature just like animals who live in balance with nature.

kppo:
I think it means to be one with nature just like animals who live in balance with nature.

Uh oh!
What does it mean to be one with nature? And if it is what I think, then your answer is nullified by the fact that many today would claim one with nature with their knowledge of good and evil.

Gabrielshow26:
->As for the effect of knowing good and evil The effect was innocence, not ignorance. Genesis 2:25 tells us they were naked and 'not ashamed.' Shame only entered the world after the act of eating.
Probably, why we see Jesus making the assertion that we must be like babies, innocent and pure!

Do you mean to say "not knowing good and evil"?

Dtruthspeaker:
Uh oh!
What does it mean to be one with nature? And if it is what I think, then your answer is nullified by the fact that many today would claim one with nature with their knowledge of good and evil.

I think to be one with nature means:
1. you get food from your natural surroundings just like animals without having to sweat for it; and
2. females don't have to labour in pain before they give birth like is the case with animals.

In short, to be one with nature would simply mean no more experiencing of the curse God put on man and woman.

kppo:
I think to be one with nature means:
1. you get food from your natural surroundings just like animals without having to sweat for it; and
2. females don't have to labour in pain before they give birth like is the case with animals.

In short, to be one with nature would simply mean no more experiencing of the curse God put on man and woman.

I thought as much and righteous men and women experience these things even though they know good and evil.

Dtruthspeaker:
Do you mean to say "not knowing good and evil"?

Yeah, typo. Not knowing good and evil brings about innocence as found in babies.

Gabrielshow26:
Yeah, typo. Not knowing good and evil brings about innocence as found in babies.

That is the same conclusion i found too

So since you appreciate that the absence of the knowledge of good and evil is innocence, then in this light what did the presence of good and evil? (And i believe it must be a thing that is the opposite of innocence)

Dtruthspeaker:
That is the same conclusion i found too

So since you appreciate that the absence of the knowledge of good and evil is innocence, then in this light what did the presence of good and evil? (And i believe it must be a thing that is the opposite of innocence)

GUILT.

Their disobedience brought about guilt, shame among other things. These things—shame being clearly highlighted—are written in the story.

As for Cain being a murderer and a progeny from Satan? This is a logical leap. The same can be said of us, "beloved children of God"👀 which God never for once touched our mothers👀 yet we are his sons!

Even his begotten Son, Jesus, didn't come through God's use of his "joystick"😁. So this is out of question. The Devil seed doctrine likewise goes against what is clearly stated, "Cain was conceived after Adam knew his wife".

Gabrielshow26:
GUILT.

Their disobedience brought about guilt, shame among other things. These things—shame being clearly highlighted—[/b]are written in the story.

We are on the same page here how is it that you disagree? What you have just declared is what is called in Law as "mens rea" which means "guilty mind".

However, i now put it to you believe that [b]It is not their disobedience that brought guilt and shame but the fruit of knowledge of G & E. For, you yourself just answered that "it is the presence of G & E that makes a person guilty" (and not the presence of disobedience.

And this is in view of fact that you also appreciated that the absence of g & e makes a person innocent. (And not the absence of disobedience)

So, before G & E they could have disobeyed in other things eg God would have told them don't go into the rain you would get cold just like children, they disobeyed; or don't touch that plant (venus fly trap) it would, gbam too late but; or don't pluck the pawpaw it is not yet ri... Too late, plucked.

But no guilt because they lacked G & E.

But for G & E, the offence, sin and crime of it even commences as soon as it is "touched" like touching a person with ebola or Staph or dead body (Numbers 19:11)

But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it.

I believe you would agree with me that you would have to touch a fruit to eat it, so touching comes first.

So by this, do you see now that disobedience was at first, on its own and it did not make a person guilty?

But that guilt and mens only began AFTER G and E had entered man?

So that on the day of Judgement, you can use your own mouth to answer for your own SINS..

Gabrielshow26:
As for Cain being a murderer and a progeny from Satan? This is a logical leap. The same can be said of us, "beloved children of God"👀 which God never for once touched our mothers👀 yet we are his sons!

Even his begotten Son, Jesus, didn't come through God's use of his "joystick"😁. So this is out of question. The Devil seed doctrine likewise goes against what is clearly stated, "Cain was conceived after Adam knew his wife".

If you look, you would see that you are not pointing out where the gap/leap is.

All you are saying is that when you run with the view, you see now that we all are children of Sathan since we all can kil and do ivu things just like cain did, which is already proven.

https://www.nairaland.com/7723853/why-most-humans-evil#123728720

https://www.nairaland.com/6410287/humans-naturally-evil-good-video#98960517

And as we have all said being ivu and doing ivi is natural to us whereas God is not evil and being Good and doing Good is what is natural to God, so no one can rightfully say that we are children of God.

For, Mathew 7:16, you can never see a serpent behave like a sheep nor vice versa.

if indeed God is truly our Father then why are we adopted?

John 1:12 - But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" (whose son where we be before?)

John 3:1 - Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: (who pikin we be before?)

Ephesians 1:5 - Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.

Then, did you not see Jesus, The Son of God behaving and doing just like His Father throughout?

And thank God you even see that man's sparm and egg was not used at all for Him. That clearly tells you what God was avoiding. And that is why every reasonable person all over the world agrees that Jesus was born without sin.

So, you did not point out the gap and cain being born after Adam had intercourse with his wife only raises the question of paternity as he is supposed to have intercourse with his wife. And of course you cannot be saying that because Adam had intercourse with his wife, then the child must be his own?

Dtruthspeaker:
If you look, you would see that you are not pointing out where the gap/leap is.

All you are saying is that when you run with the view, you see now that we all are children of Sathan since we all can kil and do ivu things just like cain did, which is already proven.

https://www.nairaland.com/7723853/why-most-humans-evil#123728720

https://www.nairaland.com/6410287/humans-naturally-evil-good-video#98960517

And as we have all said being ivu and doing ivi is natural to us whereas God is not evil and being Good and doing Good is what is natural to God, so no one can rightfully say that we are children of God.

For, Mathew 7:16, you can never see a serpent behave like a sheep nor vice versa.

if indeed God is truly our Father then why are we adopted?

John 1:12 - But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" (whose son where we be before?)

John 3:1 - Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: (who pikin we be before?)

Ephesians 1:5 - Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.

Then, did you not see Jesus, The Son of God behaving and doing just like His Father throughout?

And thank God you even see that man's sparm and egg was not used at all for Him. That clearly tells you what God was avoiding. And that is why every reasonable person all over the world agrees that Jesus was born without sin.

So, you did not point out the gap and cain being born after Adam had intercourse with his wife only raises the question of paternity as he is supposed to have intercourse with his wife. And of course you cannot be saying that because Adam had intercourse with his wife, then the child must be his own?

It’s fascinating to see you use 'mens rea' (guilty mind) to argue that disobedience doesn’t cause guilt. This is like saying a man isn't a criminal for shooting someone; he’s only a criminal because the bullet entered the body . The "guilt" (the crime) is the act of crossing the line God drew. The "Knowledge of Good and Evil" is simply the experiential realization of that rebellion... By the way, in any court of law, the mens rea is the intent to commit the forbidden act.

However, in Genesis 2:17, God only mentions eating. Eve added the "touching" part herself (a classic use of legalism👀). Using Eve’s added words to build a biological "Ebola" theory😮‍💨 is building a house on sand . The 'guilt' didn't come from a 'biological virus🤔' inside the fruit; the guilt came from the moment they decided their own will was superior to God's will. Thus, it was a test of sovereignty .

You also admitted the Bible said "Adam 'knew' his wife and she conceived Cain", but you still question the paternity? If we start ignoring the plain text of 'A happened, then B resulted,' we aren't studying scripture anymore—we're writing fan-fiction🤔. If 'Adam knew his wife' doesn't mean Adam is the father, then 'God so loved the world' might as well mean He hates it. Words have to mean things.

You asked 'whose pikin were we before?' as if adoption proves a Satanic bloodline😮‍💨. If I adopt a child, it doesn't mean their previous father was a literal serpent; it means they were orphaned or estranged. We were 'children of wrath' (Ephesians 2:3) because of our behavior and nature, not our DNA. If it were biological, 'repentance' wouldn't work—you’d need a blood transfusion, not a Savior.

You claimed God avoided using 'man’s sperm' to avoid sin. True. But He also didn't use 'Satan’s sperm.🤔' Jesus was the 'Son of Adam' (Luke 3:38). If the entire human line was 'Satanic' by blood, Jesus couldn't be the 'Lamb without blemish' while sharing Mary’s 'Satanic' DNA🤕. By your logic, Mary was a 'Serpent Seed' too.

Naturally, I agree with you that doing 'ivu' is natural to us. We both agree. But that’s called the Fall, not a Pedigree. A broken car isn't a different brand👀; it's just a Ford that’s crashed. We are God's 'Fords' that crashed into a wall of sin😔.

Claiming Cain is Satan's literal son because he was 'evil' is like saying a child who likes swimming must be the literal son of a fish . It’s a poetic metaphor you’re trying to turn into a biology textbook. Stick to the text: Adam knew Eve, Cain happened. Any other thing requires Eisegesis🤧.

Gabrielshow26:
The 'guilt' didn't come from a 'biological virus🤔' inside the fruit; the guilt came from the moment they decided their own will...

So, are you saying that the guilt came from them even though you have already said that they did not have any guilt since they had not yet eaten the fruit?

And at this point where you say that guilt was in their "moment they decided", they have still not eating the fruit, so how can they be guilty when has not entered as you yourself said that guilt only enters AFTER EATING the fruit of good and evil aka mens rea?

Gabrielshow26:
However, in Genesis 2:17, God only mentions eating. Eve added the "touching" part herself (a classic use of legalism👀).

So, do you say that Eve is lying against God in saying that she added the word "touching" because you believe that God did not say that to her?

Gabrielshow26:
You also admitted the Bible said "Adam 'knew' his wife and she conceived Cain", but you still question the paternity?

I have made an allegations of paternity fraud by virtue of Mathew 7:16, et al and proving it which led to you trying to counter that cain was born only after Adam had intercourse with his wife which led me to ask are you saying that because Adam had intercourse with his wife, then the child must be his own?

Which you have not answered.

So, i ask again are you saying that because Adam had intercourse with his wife, then the child must be his own?

Gabrielshow26:
You asked 'whose pikin were we before?' as if adoption proves a Satanic bloodline

As you can see, the question is open ended for you to give proof of a different father that could reasonably be our father from whom we get our ivu nature from if it is satan.

So, prove. I am all ears and eyes.

Gabrielshow26:
Jesus was the 'Son of Adam' (Luke 3:38). If the entire human line was 'Satanic' by blood, Jesus couldn't be the 'Lamb without blemish' while sharing Mary’s 'Satanic' DNA🤕. By your logic, Mary was a 'Serpent Seed' to.

It is already settled that Jesus was/is unblemished and sinless for many other reasons. So now I am saying even marry blood did not taint Him.

For first thank God you yourself said "lamb without blemish".

Where does a lamb without blemish come from?
Answer: certainly not from the sky but they were all given birth to.

So, how is it that a lamb which came from blemished ewe now came out unblemished?

Clearly, God hath done a wonderful work of separating the blemished from the unblemished in the womb of which Mary in being a maiden Virgin undefiled is already a step and a sign towards holiness an acceptable feature God wants.

Then in addition to her being a Virgin, she was "highly favoured" (not small favour oo or normal favour but HIGHLY FAVOURED).

It still did not stop there, she still had The he Lord with her.

It still did not stop there, shr was blessed above all other women.

So, in all these where can you reasonably find sin in her when The Lord has already found her holy? (This is where the Catholics are right however, they made the mistake of overstretching it.

Gabrielshow26:
It’s fascinating to see you use 'mens rea' (guilty mind) to argue that disobedience doesn’t cause guilt. This is like saying a man isn't a criminal for shooting someone; he’s only a criminal because the bullet entered the body ...

That is because you are looking at the man born today after the fall from innocence who now has the knowledge of good and evil and mens rea.

Whereas, Adam male and female being the first are the only humans to have lived and enjoyed a world free of guilt. Your shooter above never enjoyed nor got that experience, so, your counter does not apply.

So the area of concentration is the spot were man transited and transformed from an innocent person who could not be held guilty to one who could now be a judged guilty, which is what I have presented above pointing out that in their case and only in their case, they experienced a world in which they could have disobeyed as children do yet they could never be held guilty because of the absence of mens rea. (No other human after them had that because they had already fallen and transformed from innocent people who could not be found guilty into people with mens rea)

Gabrielshow26:
The "Knowledge of Good and Evil" is simply the experiential realization of that rebellion...

We have heard your own definition and the thread shows that all these comes down and amounts to what is called mens rea. So, lets not go backwards

Gabrielshow26:
By the way, in any court of law, the mens rea is the intent to commit the forbidden act.

Now you are trying to change the meaning of mens rea because you want to avoid the Truth.

Is it that you forget that i am a lawyer? In every court all over the world and even Google shows that mens rea is simply

mens rea
/ˌmɛnz ˈriːə/
Mens rea, Latin for "guilty mind," is the mental state or criminal intent a defendant must possess to be convicted of a crime.

And I know you see the primary word is "guilty mind".

And this Law of guilty mind is here because every one of us in the world was born only after Adam had eaten mens rea. So, it is only Adam who saw and enjoyed the world of complete innocence and a world absent of mens rea.

Gabrielshow26:
You claimed God avoided using 'man’s sperm' to avoid sin. True. But He also didn't use '[b]Satan’s sperm[/b] .🤔'

Fallacious argument.

Straw Man Fallacy: The opponent is not directly refuting the original statement ("Joe didn't use a pen" but is instead creating a superficial, similar-sounding argument ("Joe didn't use a biro"

Red Herring / Misdirection: The goal is to redirect the conversation away from the actual issue (whether Joe used a writing instrument) to a trivial nuance, confusing the issue.

So, you have no point here!

Gabrielshow26, i see you responded to people yesterday, are you still thinking about how to respond to my counters?

Or have you given up and seen that there is no valid argument you can make against the Truth?

Dtruthspeaker:
Gabrielshow26, i see you responded to people yesterday, are you still thinking about how to respond to my counters?

Or have you given up and seen that there is no valid argument you can make against the Truth?

I haven't replied probably because the conversation requires more effort and I have, at least six "mentions" of mine from you that I must respond to. I decided to address those low energy mentions that could be dismissed with little or no effort.

On the surface there are some fallacies you committed which I will point out in due course. You will get your answer(s), just taking my time.

Now that you have brought it up, might as well, tackle them this morning🤔.

Dtruthspeaker:
So, are you saying that the guilt came from them even though you have already said that they did not have any guilt since they had not yet eaten the fruit?

And at this point where you say that guilt was in their "moment they decided", they have still not eating the fruit, so how can they be guilty when has not entered as you yourself said that guilt only enters AFTER EATING the fruit of good and evil aka mens rea?

Causa et effectus. The effect of the "guilt" came from their inward decision to eat from the fruit. They won't have had any guilt if they had stayed away.