Found. The tree of knowledge of good and evil.
In the only place it could be found. In the Bible.
I will assume here that those who compiled the books of the Bible knew what they were doing, in terms of giving us a myth with a moral lesson.
God is said to be the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. Bible God is to be at the top and bottom of any attribute we can think of for God. He is to be our example of the greatest love as well as the greatest hate. After all, he does set the standards of what is good and what is evil.
The Bible tells us not to add or subtract from it and to use it as it’s own judge. If we are to do so then we must judge what is in it as good or evil. FMPOV, the O T shows God’s evil side and the N T shows God’s good side. Most recognize this and this is why the emphasis is on following Jesus and not the barbaric God of the O T. IOW, the O T is the evil side of the tree of knowledge while the N T is the good side of the tree of knowledge.
Many that follow the Bible God recognize this. Literalists and fundamentals do not. They end up venerating the evil side of God, the O T, as well as the good side, Jesus and the N T, when they are supposed to be rejecting the God of evil in the O T.
Literalists and fundamentals can thus be seen as immature thinkers and true sheep. While Christians who recognize the evil in the God of the O T can be seen as better thinkers and able to discern good from evil. Literalist can be seen as poor thinkers who cannot discern evil. They end up with a theology that embraces everything from genocide to infanticide as long as God is doing it. Arguably an immoral position.
This is how literalists and fundamentals all end up hurting their parent religions.
If, as I stated, that the O T of the Bible should be seen as the evil side of the tree of knowledge and God, then the tree of life should be near. I submit that it is also within the Bible but that it has nothing to do with eternal life. Nowhere in the Bible is the great lose of this tree of immortality bemoaned. Yet to many, it is the most important aspect of the Bible. I think we can trust scriptures, when they speak of a tree of life, and only means a good life and not an eternal one.
Literalists and fundamentals thus end up having much work to do on their morals because they are hindered by the notion that they should be embracing and honoring an evil God.
In effect, from a biblical standpoint, they are the Anti-Christ, as they continue to venerate evil.
Who do you follow, the good God of the N T, or the evil God of the O T?
Reading the Bible as I do, and seeing it as containing the tree of knowledge and the tree of life, make this book all inclusive in and of itself and in that way, I am true to the authors and compilers who said not to add or subtract anything from it. It was meant to show a complete story and God and I think that reading it as I do is the only way to understand the full story. God thus become the epitome of both good and evil. As it should be for a God who takes responsibility. Mythically speaking that is.
Regards
DL
In the only place it could be found. In the Bible.
I will assume here that those who compiled the books of the Bible knew what they were doing, in terms of giving us a myth with a moral lesson.
God is said to be the Alpha and the Omega. The beginning and the end. Bible God is to be at the top and bottom of any attribute we can think of for God. He is to be our example of the greatest love as well as the greatest hate. After all, he does set the standards of what is good and what is evil.
The Bible tells us not to add or subtract from it and to use it as it’s own judge. If we are to do so then we must judge what is in it as good or evil. FMPOV, the O T shows God’s evil side and the N T shows God’s good side. Most recognize this and this is why the emphasis is on following Jesus and not the barbaric God of the O T. IOW, the O T is the evil side of the tree of knowledge while the N T is the good side of the tree of knowledge.
Many that follow the Bible God recognize this. Literalists and fundamentals do not. They end up venerating the evil side of God, the O T, as well as the good side, Jesus and the N T, when they are supposed to be rejecting the God of evil in the O T.
Literalists and fundamentals can thus be seen as immature thinkers and true sheep. While Christians who recognize the evil in the God of the O T can be seen as better thinkers and able to discern good from evil. Literalist can be seen as poor thinkers who cannot discern evil. They end up with a theology that embraces everything from genocide to infanticide as long as God is doing it. Arguably an immoral position.
This is how literalists and fundamentals all end up hurting their parent religions.
If, as I stated, that the O T of the Bible should be seen as the evil side of the tree of knowledge and God, then the tree of life should be near. I submit that it is also within the Bible but that it has nothing to do with eternal life. Nowhere in the Bible is the great lose of this tree of immortality bemoaned. Yet to many, it is the most important aspect of the Bible. I think we can trust scriptures, when they speak of a tree of life, and only means a good life and not an eternal one.
Literalists and fundamentals thus end up having much work to do on their morals because they are hindered by the notion that they should be embracing and honoring an evil God.
In effect, from a biblical standpoint, they are the Anti-Christ, as they continue to venerate evil.
Who do you follow, the good God of the N T, or the evil God of the O T?
Reading the Bible as I do, and seeing it as containing the tree of knowledge and the tree of life, make this book all inclusive in and of itself and in that way, I am true to the authors and compilers who said not to add or subtract anything from it. It was meant to show a complete story and God and I think that reading it as I do is the only way to understand the full story. God thus become the epitome of both good and evil. As it should be for a God who takes responsibility. Mythically speaking that is.
Regards
DL
