Why is knowledge evil ?

The bible recognizes that there is a spectrum between man and woman? I guess I am confused then, because I have always thought that the bible was very clear on the whole man is man, woman is woman type of thing.

I also thought it said, god created man, and then created woman from a rib of the man...

I wasn't aware that there was a smorgasbord of other options available to create anything but a dualistic nature, based upon gender, according to the bible.

 

I've always wondered this as well. I tend to attribute it to faith vs wisdom. It's not like atheism is a new thing, it was around back when the Bible was being written as well, and there is a certain suspension of knowledge when it comes to any definite belief on universal truths. (Not just religion, but philosophy as well.)

 

that had me thinking google has serious searching problem lol

 

Just goes to show you that the people of the world (that use google) are more interested in fuzzy balls and tequila then in the meaning of life...

 

Actually there is another option presented that is man, both male and female of the same kind.
Or the one which you describe which is man plus woman, a different and lesser kind of man.

 

When you translate this into english, AND show it's relevance to the conversation, I'll try re-reading it and responding to it...

 

Well its' relevance is in regards your statement as to being unaware of any other options beside the dualistic representation of man and woman. I was pointing out that there is.
Initially in genesis God creates man in his own image and likeness, male and female of the same kind. Further on is another "creation of man", dust animated by the breath of life and further the "man" is put to sleep and out of him is made another kind of man, woman.

 

Now you are talking about words that have been translated from another language and concepts such as man for humankind, and man as a gender have been contested over for centuries.

Having said that though, that has no relevance to what I was talking about. Whether you want to call it man and woman, or man and 'man who is woman' the actuality is that there was a male person, and a female person created, which forms the basis for every duality issue there is throughout the bible.

 

Knowledge in itself is not evil.

 

Actually I was comparing what you said to the actual representations that exist.

Having said that though, that has no relevance to what I was talking about. Whether you want to call it man and woman, or man and 'man who is woman' the actuality is that there was a male person, and a female person created, which forms the basis for every duality issue there is throughout the bible.[/QUOTE]
I would agree that man and woman are significant and recognizable symbols for a dualistic view and this may be the primary symbol for the Jerry Springer Nation, but I see it as a rather simplistic generalization of the actual dynamics of things. The real tension is not between maleness and femaleness, it is between separation and wholeness.

 

Tension between something that is illusion and real? That's a bit neurotic.

 

I vote for certifiably insane.

 

Did you miss the part where we were talking about what the bible says of it?

We were not discussing personal views of gender... so as I said, your response had no relevance to the discussion happening...

 

Oh no the Bible said it? Must be true without a reasonable doubt.

 

We also weren't discussing the validity of what the bible said...

 

No, not at all, I am bringing up broad esoteric themes which are set out in the bible. Things which you admitted to having no knowledge of.
Another example is when Jesus was asked a question about marriage and he pointed out that there are no marriages in heaven, but we are as the angels.

I am not discussing personal views of gender, like I say broad esoteric themes, and they are highly relevant to the whole question of the meanings of good and evil and knowledge.

 

@thedope - Question. Jesus in my opinion (as far as esoteric themes goes) speaks of the symbolic Heaven within every man accessible at this moment. So in that sense, in which way would he mean when he says that there are no marriages "in Heaven" then?

 

Heaven becomes our state of relationship with the world. We go from reproduction to creation. The marriage of a man and woman is a facsimile of true union. Bodies can only touch, minds join, and what God has joined, no man may put asunder.

 

So no "special relationships" then? Is that the right term?

 

All holy.