If Man Obeyed God

1. 54

   EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years ago

   What would the world look like today if man obeyed God and didn't eat from the tree of knowledge, hence didn't die, yet was still commanded to go forth and multiply?
   
   Would this also reflect on all other living things on the planet?
   
   Wouldn't the earth be piled up with people, animals, insects, everything from day one?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Two naked schizo people, wandering around in desperate fear they will be punished for not following orders they don't understand how to follow. 
      
      Either that or drowning under a pile of cockroaches a mile deep...

      replyreport
      1. 0

         jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         EncephaloiDead wrote:
         
         What would the world look like today if man obeyed God and didn't eat from the tree of knowledge, hence didn't die, yet was still commanded to go forth and multiply?
         
         
         "....the of Tree of Knowledge.....of good and evil..."  often this part of the phrase is ignored, but to understand this part is also very important.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Right.  Knowledge that nakedness is evil yet is God's work, knowledge that sex is good, but requires nakedness.  Sex is also evil for anyone not married, and they were not.
            
            Must get naked, must have sex, both are evil yet both are good.  Instant confusion and complete mental failure.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Exactly as I see it.  As our brain developed from the more mundane needs appertaining to survival, there became time and energy for play, satisfying the body and mind, adding to the sense of bondship.
               At the same time the choices became more complex.  When you have more options the chance of dilemma increases.  Choice comes as a two-edged sword.  On the one hand choice becomes a luxurious freedom.  On the other hand it can be a burdensome nuisance. And it can develop greed and selfishness.
               Other animals in the Garden find no need and build no facility for such sophisticated choices. They  can experience the bliss of just accepting things as they are.
               The lesson for us, I feel, is to practise greater simplicity when it comes to needs and wants.  Less of the latter can help return us to that Garden of Eden.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Sure.  Ask any child, growing up.  Given a choice to "steal" a cookie, do they take it or do they think that if they do that sister won't get one?  As we age and learn, as our brain develops and beings to think, choice causes us much trouble.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     I had not thought of it as applying to current generations, more to the evolution of our species.  Like the Genesis story could be referring to that evolutionary process.  This could be a way of understanding the biblical story.

                     replyreport
                     1. 95

                        wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        I think you're stretching here, to think that Genesis was written for people living thousands of years after it was written instead of "contemporary" people.  As is, it is perfect for an ignorant people to take in and believe.  It must be twisted considerably and "interpreted" for modern people to consider that it refers to evolution and a developing species.

                        replyreport
   2. 0

      Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Having eaten from the the of knowledge, i would assume that the mandate to go forth and multiply wouldn't be necessarily considered a stagnant mandate. I would think a time would come where someone might say 'Hey, we've multiplied enough...let's find other things to occupy our time. We'll multiply as need be.'
      
      Now, had man no knowledge, simply a mandate, we'd be knee deep in humanity.

      replyreport
   3. 77

      Chris Nealposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Not necessarily. It does not say that humans were made immortal in the beginning. In fact, one of the things that God said when He cast man out of the Garden was that men must be prevented from eating of the Tree of Life and live forever.

      replyreport
      1. 54

         EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         The answer is found in the first three chapters of Genesis. In the beginning, God created a perfect world with no death or pain (Genesis 1:31). He entrusted the care of the entire earth to Adam and Eve, the first humans (Genesis 1:28), and gave them only one restriction: “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day you eat of it you will surely die” (Genesis 2:17).
         
         Although they were warned of the consequences, Adam and Eve chose to rebel against God (Genesis 3:6), which brought the Curse on the earth and introduced pain and death into God’s originally perfect creation (Genesis 3:16–19). Scripture tells us that “just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, so death spread to all men because all sinned” (Romans 5:12), and now the whole creation groans under the Curse (Romans 8:22).
         
         http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … st-problem

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Chris Nealposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            You're going to have to explain that Genesis 1:31 interpretation for me.

            replyreport
            1. 54

               EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Interpretation? Are not the words written there plain as the nose on your face?

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Chris Nealposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  And yet the words you ascribe are not the ones written. Don't evade.

                  replyreport
   4. 85

      Paul K Francisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      There may be another way to looking at the genesis story. By singling out the tree of knowledge as forbidden, God was protecting the tree of life knowing that we would drawn to the forbidden fruit. Adam was told that if he ate of the tree of knowledge, he would surely die, but he did not die; he and the woman were grounded, for that is where they were to toil. It may have been God's intention that they ate because it was time for them to start learning. The learning continues.

      replyreport
2. 60

   Disappearingheadposted 10 years ago

   Well no bacon sandwiches for a start.

   replyreport
3. 74

   jacharlessposted 10 years ago

   Strange question. Almost rhetorical, really.
   
   IF man had not indulged of the knowledge within, he would still be his original being  -- immortal. He would have continued to eat of the TOL. The entire sum-substance of all sensationalism and science would once more be moot.
   
   Friends, and I, have often speculated on what humans would be doing; what worlds would they be exploring after they successfully managed this one; what the parameters of their creative abilities would entail.
   
   James

   replyreport
4. 86

   Bubblegum Senpaiposted 10 years ago

   I think there's a misnomer in the question. The bible makes it clear there were two trees, but only the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden. The other tree was the tree of life, and the reason Adam and Eve were forcibly removed from the garden was so that they would not eat of it too, because then the serpent would be right... they would be as gods. So, I really do believe that they would have had a physical death regardless of whether they ate from the tree.
   
   Basically, I think things would be as they are now, but peaceful and civil. We would live and die and multiply and use resources, but not abuse or horde resources.

   replyreport
5. 68

   Hendrikaposted 10 years ago

   I think the most important answer here is that we do not really know except that it would have been perfect. our brain cannot comprehend it as it is far above our understanding. We only know it was perfect even though "perfect" is not the same for everyone.
   
   This is the same as that we do not know what heaven will be like as everyone has their own idea of "heaven" We only know that it will be perfect as Jesus promised us.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      A Perfect Nothingness.  Perfect absence of all colour; all shape; all smell; all taste; all sound; all imagination, memory, plans, fears, joys, possessions.
      When you reach a total understanding that this is what to expect after you die, it will shock you into not wasting one second of This Life while you are in possession of those faculties.  Certainly you might then see that religious perceptions of an afterlife are an utter waste of time.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         kessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         You are correct, after life is perfect nothingness.
         But you do not quite understand the nature of it.
         
         After experiencing perfect nothingness you would long for anything, even the falsehood of an after life, once it is not nothingness.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            jonnycomelatelyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Haha, now there's a conundrum if ever there was on.
            
            If I start with nothing, that immediately negates the "nothingness" because to have a "start" there must be "some thing" (i.e., tangible and finite).
            
            I bet Moonfroth is watching this and having a fainting fit!

            replyreport
            1. 61

               kessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               You have started, so continue until the end,
               The end is when/where the conundrum disappears.
               
               There is a sequence to everything from beginning to end,
               when the end is seen it becomes logical.
               Otherwise.......

               replyreport