The tree of what knowledge?

reply to post by DISRAELI


I've thought about this a lot. I've come to a different conclusion. It's not that we separated our judgement from God's judgment. It's that we judged at all. Judging at all is the sin. God created everything through gods free will. God created what you would call evil as well as what you would call good. So hate towards anything, good or evil, is hate towards gods choice. If you do not trust gods choice, then there is room for your own condemnation. If you accept gods choice, then you are invincible.

reply to post by smithjustinb

We both agree that it is a matter of accepting or not accepting God's choice.
But there are things which God himself does not accept, and the rest of the Bible provides many examples.
The classic case is the first commandment; "You shall have no other gods but me".
So accepting God's choice would also have included not accepting the things which he does not accept.

Tardacus
before eating from the tree of knowledge they weren`t capable of knowing that disobeying god was wrong.
They didn`t gain the ability to understand that their actions were wrong until after they ate from the tree but by then it was too late they were already condemned...
Without the capability of knowing right and wrong there was no possibility that they wouldn`t eat from the tree.

Reading the OP more carefully, you would have realised that I had already answered that objection before you made it.
Your basic argument- that they could not know disobedience was wrong- is based on interpreting the phrase "knowing good and evil" as "having a concept of good and evil".
So I now draw your attention to the paragraph where I give a completely different interpretation of that phrase;

Good and evil; if they know good AND evil, side by side, that implies that they know them as distinct.
Their “knowledge” relates to the boundary line between them.
In fact it comes close to knowing good FROM evil.
So this will be the kind of knowledge that makes judgements on the rightness and wrongness of things.

So my case is that they DO know, all along, that some things are wrong.
The difference created by "taking the fruit" is that BEFORE taking the fruit they rely on God's judgement about what is right and what is wrong, and afterwards they rely upon their own judgement.
As I explain in a later paragraph;

If they’re claiming a “knowledge of good and evil”, that means making their own decisions about these things, instead of depending on God’s judgement.
In fact they were already doing this when they took the fruit in the first place.
They were making their own assessment of the fruit as “good for food, a delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise”.
Therefore they were already disregarding God’s judgement on the fruit as “not-to-be-touched”.
That makes the taking of the fruit a very fitting symbol of the act of claiming independent judgement.

If they had been told not to take the fruit,it would have been obvious enough that "taking the fruit" was something they had been told not to do.
If they had been told not to make independent decisions, they would have realised that "we will make independent decisions" was in itself an act of independent decision and therefore something they had been told not to do.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Your quote isn't an example of God's unacceptance. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. I think this is a suggestion from God saying that if you obey, it is beneficial to you rather than offensive to god.

reply to post by smithjustinb

I think it is.
The possibility is put forward that they may worship other gods.
This is a possibility which he is not accepting.

And later history shows that when the possibility becomes reality and they do worship other gods, he doesn't accept that either.
He wnats them to agree with him in not accepting the worship of other gods.
And similarly with other things that he does not accept.

God judges; he discerns between right and wrong.
His declared intention is that we accept his discernment of what is right, and reject what he discerns as wrong.

reply to post by DISRAELI


now you`re just trying to redefine the word knowledge to make it fit your theory.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

knowl·edge
ˈnälij/Submit
noun
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery
2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil they did not have understand,comprehension,grasp,command,experience,education,awareness,familiarity, of good and evil.

Clearly they were not capable of comprehending or understanding that disobeying god was wrong, until after they ate from the tree.

The Adam and Eve story is BEYOND insane in multiple ways. It ASPIRES to be merely insane. There is no word for the level of insanity AND immorality of that story... That being established, here are 2 key points why it is so:

1. IF there is even a slight, tiny basis of truth to the story, an alleged "God" who would leave a "tree of knowledge," or whatever it was that was supposedly forbidden to ingest, out in the open, most easily accessible, is either indescribably stupid - meaning effectively worse than a SEVERE developmental disorder level of stupid - having zero knowledge of perfectly natural, normal HUMAN curiosity, OR said being would be an indescribably diabolical, duplicitous, sadistic, cruel trickster, where there was absolutely no REAL intention of getting Adam and Eve's obedience in the first place.

2. The above is really an unnecessary point because there is NO way to create an entire species with only 2 specimens, if it is agreed that we're talking about HUMANS. How would genetic abnormalities and birth defects resulting from incest-inbreeding be any different in HUMANS of ancient times than it would be today? How would they NOT have inbred themselves out of existence within a few generations at the most? And yes, "God" sprinkling magical pixie dust or whatever equivalent that would prevent said genetic problems is not a valid answer.

reply to post by Tardacus

You are using a modern dictionary to extract the meanings of an English word.
What does that have to do with understanding the intended meaning of a Hebrew text?
I am looking at the whole phrase, not just one word, and I am looking at it in the context of the story.
The phrase is "knowing good and evil"; if "knowing" meant "having a concept of", then the implication would be that they had no concept of good either, which would be absurd.
Taking the phrase as a whole, it makes more sense that "knowing good and evil" should be a Hebraism for "weighing them together and deciding which is which", with the consequences which I suggested.

You are anxious to give an interpretation of the phrase which would put the Biblical God in a bad light.
If you think about it, that is not likely to have been part of the intentions of the original writer.

reply to post by Lightworth

I take it you did not read as far as the second post, where I suggested how the story might be reconciled with the evolutionary version of human origins.
If Adam can be taken as a symbolic figure, representing the human race at large, then all these comments about genetics and inbreeding go by the board, as not relevant.
For that matter, I'm not entirely sure that you read the OP. You are reacting to the "tree of knowledge" title with your perception of the traditional literal understanding of the story, and you haven't noticed that I'm offering a different view.
Try reading the OP. You may find that your comments have been answered already.

DISRAELI
reply to post by Komodo

 

I'm not sure.
I suppose I'm hinting at that possibility in the last line of the second post, when I suggest the possibility that the "Fall" was a necessary stage in what God had in mind for us.
Since that is effectively what he did at the crucifixion, using for his purposes what people were doing for their own reasons, I suppose it can't be ruled out.

14 Every man is a beast by his own knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his melting is but falsehood, and there is no breath therein.

Jeremiah 10:14 The more that man thinketh to do anything well by his own wisdom, and not as God instructeth him, the more doth he prove himself to be a vile beast.

Genesis 1
26Then God said, “Let us make/accomplish mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds] in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Will accomplish man to rule over the four
Makes man ruling over the three

woman from the side of man is ishshah and ish which according to Genesis 7 appears to be male/female of beasts..behemah

reply to post by DISRAELI


I DID read your first few posts initially, and just read them again, and saw nothing that addresses the "real" world religious interpretation of that psychotic story. Your trying to intellectualize and in ANY way deify the Adam and Eve spiel, even slightly, is like putting a dress on a pig, but the pig is still a pig. To begin with, how can any HONEST enough person assert as though it is a FACT that any kind of Single Creator of the universe, or even a Single Creator of only Earth humans, exists?! That's a matter of mere BELIEF or faith, not fact or science. I'm open to the possibility of the existence of such a singular Being, but could never, WILL never, outright believe without proof.

I thoroughly stand by my previous post as a protest of the ACTUAL malevolent effect that story, and the enslaving, brainwashing religions that stemmed from it, has had on FAR too many people on this planet for FAR too long. Shall I go on about more ridiculousness-at-best in the Adam and Eve madhouse? How about Dirt-Man and Rib-Woman? Spontaneous Generation? Yeah, brilliant.

That wacko story isn't the kind where one can interpret, pick and choose, or in any way glorify and try to make attractive; it's one where the entire poisoned baby has to be thrown out with the poisonous bath water. What the world clearly DOESN'T need is yet ANOTHER religious (enough) interpretation of a blithering-insane tale.

reply to post by DISRAELI
They chewed Khat!

DISRAELI
What was the “fatal fruit” consumed by Adam and Eve?

In the first place, it certainly wasn’t an apple.

Wedding cake.

Topped with tiny blueberries.

Tardacus
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

now you`re just trying to redefine the word knowledge to make it fit your theory.

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

knowl·edge
ˈnälij/Submit
noun
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery
2.
awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

before eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil they did not have understand,comprehension,grasp,command,experience,education,awareness,familiarity, of good and evil.

Clearly they were not capable of comprehending or understanding that disobeying god was wrong, until after they ate from the tree.

edit on 25-11-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-11-2013 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

Sure they were able to perceive 'wrong'. Why tell someone 'dying thou shalt die' if that person has no understanding that disobeying will bring that consequence? The command was given, the consequence was stated. The woman even confirms that this is so. The trees were made pleasant but up to this time were not perceived as pleasant. Once the command 'Do not' was given, the serpent enters the parable. The strength of sin is the law. The woman then perceived the tree as pleasant and one to make herself wise. It was there before but until the command was given and the serpent appeared, it was of no importance. It was not perceived as good for....a toddler passes by a stove a hundred times - the parent says Do Not Touch or you'll get burned - and that stove becomes perceived in a new light. Up until then, the stove was always there but it might have well not been. What happens if I come along and say to that child, it won't really burn you sweetheart? What was never perceived as interesting was brought to the child's attention by issuing the command 'do not touch'. I, as the serpent, sin, have been given strength by that very command. I, as the serpent, merely appeal to that child's desires to touch it.

Only after eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were they able to perceive their own nakedness. That tree brought awareness of guilt and shame because it defined what is good and what is evil. I would not have known what coveting was unless the law said 'Do not covet'. The law defines good and evil. The Mosaic law defines coveting as evil. Man's law today defines good and evil too. But like the Pharisees, circumvents the spirit. Murder is an evil but to get around the spirit of the law, man simply codifies into his law exemptions - unborn babies become defined as a clump of cells thus are exempted from being classified as life. Therefore, the world comes to perceive themselves as righteous according to law despite killing their unborn babies. In their perception, they do not murder. The law says its legal to do so, so their perception of good and evil comes from that law. As Obama says, abortion "is a good thing".As the ads are now harping, remove SHAME from abortion. This is man attempting to remove the very nakedness that one feels having committed murder.

So yes, they were capable of comprehending or understanding that disobeying god was "wrong". In fact 'wrongness' has nothing to do with it. When your parents told you 'do not take drugs', were you not capable of comprehending or understanding your parents command? Of course you were. Isn't is no different in this parable? Adam was given a command and the consequence. End of. Fully trusting your parents would have seen you not take drugs. Fully trusting God would have seen Adam not eat the fruit. To a person with no inner lusts, you would have trusted your parents and not taken drugs. Adam too. Having the LORD God, who is truth and in whom is no lie, tell you 'do not eat from the tree of' should have been sufficient. All of this leads to the fact that despite this, man was able to be swayed out of this relationship by a serpent which appealed to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life - all of which is of this world. They didn't trust Him enough - they didn't believe what He said was truth - their disobedience was actually this - unbelief and anomia, lawlessness. Inequity. The law of sin and death in our inward parts was given birth.

So He set mankind on a path in this world of finding out that law, law on stone and in ink, defining good and evil, is totally against Grace. Grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires, law says do this do that, and here are the penalties. Grace doesn't accuse or condemn, but law does both. It's why Paul states that the law was a ministration of death. Holy and good, because if a law could have made one righteous, it certainly was the Mosaic law - but as law can never change the inside of a person, then it just killed them. Israel was given a holy and good law, but they repeatedly died by it. And since the strength of sin is the law, Jesus walked among vipers in Judea, whom He also called accusers (satan's). They stalked Him throughout Judea looking for any occasion to accuse and condemn Him. Serpent - strength of sin - law. Nothing can change the inward nature of man except the Spirit of God. But man wants to keep choosing and living by law, the very thing which cannot change his inward nature. Just knowing that George Bush Sr declared that the New World order will be by the rule of law and the Pope yesterday saying that this world needs more thou shalt nots, is a wake up call to Christians world wide. It's no coincidence that Adam and eve had before them the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil' and Israel was given two stone tablets and told I set before you today life and death...choose life!

The Tree of Life and the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Laws are for the disobedient. There was inequity in the bosom of man and a beast nature not ruled over. Like a red flag is to a bull, so is law to a man in adam. Whether in or out of religion, unregenerate man uses law to accuse and condemn. Man uses law to define his good and evil and thus serves IT, and in the secular world, just ends up codifying what his beast nature wants to do, as a "good". So everybody still living by law serves it, not the One True God. God is not law, He is Grace. Grace whispers walk this way, grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires....law just says you will live by it or die by it. It's why sharia law and "noahide laws" are being embraced by men who reject that the grace of God is sufficient. Its why satan's messengers come as preachers of "righteousness". It's why we are witnessing thousands of laws being passed worldwide as man tries to legislate everything. He is seeking peace and safety in law. Law IS for the disobedient, and used justly, can be beneficial. But it will never stay that way. These vipers will do no differently than in Judea - passing law after law making the commands of Our God of null effect.

Lightworth
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

I DID read your first few posts initially, and just read them again, and saw nothing that addresses the "real" world religious interpretation of that psychotic story. Your trying to intellectualize and in ANY way deify the Adam and Eve spiel, even slightly, is like putting a dress on a pig, but the pig is still a pig. To begin with, how can any HONEST enough person assert as though it is a FACT that any kind of Single Creator of the universe, or even a Single Creator of only Earth humans, exists?! That's a matter of mere BELIEF or faith, not fact or science. I'm open to the possibility of the existence of such a singular Being, but could never, WILL never, outright believe without proof.

I thoroughly stand by my previous post as a protest of the ACTUAL malevolent effect that story, and the enslaving, brainwashing religions that stemmed from it, has had on FAR too many people on this planet for FAR too long. Shall I go on about more ridiculousness-at-best in the Adam and Eve madhouse? How about Dirt-Man and Rib-Woman? Spontaneous Generation? Yeah, brilliant.

That wacko story isn't the kind where one can interpret, pick and choose, or in any way glorify and try to make attractive; it's one where the entire poisoned baby has to be thrown out with the poisonous bath water. What the world clearly DOESN'T need is yet ANOTHER religious (enough) interpretation of a blithering-insane tale.

It obviously does if it doesn't understand that it is munching from that very tree, today.
How do you know what is good and evil? Who gives you YOUR knowledge of good and evil? The pulpit of mass media ? Your local laws? Your parents? All three?

A man builds a 100 mile long road for drivers. There is no speed limit, thus no law. You go on that road and drive at 100 miles an hour. You sir have no sin. You have broken no law because there is no law. You are neither a speeder or non-speeder. With God directing your speed you will go neither too fast or too slow to cause an accident. Lets say this is around 65mph. However, With your lust or 'need for speed' determining your driving speed, you very well may go faster thus endangering other lives or your own.

There have been some accidents. Now, a man comes along and slaps a 55mph speed limit on to this road. Man has issued a law in an attempt to deal with the people who are driving too fast causing harm to people. He thinks that the solution is law and thus refuses to address this underlying 'need for speed'. In the process, more and more speed limit signs go up. What happens to the one who loves speed? Those speed limit signs can actually increase his speed. What happens to the person tootling along at 65mph under direction of God? Why they are declared law breakers, aren't they? So the law not only declares you a law-breaker (sinner) but also declares as sinners those who aren't in reality. And it also ensnares those who unknowingly exceed 55mph for even two minutes. And all of them become subject to the mercy of the Highway patrol officer (man!). If caught by one feeling very generous, you may just get a caution and sent your way. If caught by another, all three get convicted - the purposeful speeder, the one going at the 'safe speed' as regulated by his creator and the one that inadvertently crept up in speed for two minutes. All broke the written law. All are 'guilty' by that written law. Right is determined by that speed limit law. So then 'wrong' is.

And all because man chose the knowledge of good and evil. There were some accidents by those driving beyond a safe speed and so the populace demanded the law - the speed limit - as the solution. And it does not mean that the 55mph limit wasn't in itself a good limit. But the populace chose to place everyone under written law which will not show mercy, and will not discern between the purposeful speeder, the one who was driving safely under God or tge one that had no intention of speeding. All of which comes about because the populace refuses to address the one thing that caused the accidents in the first place - an inherent lust for speed that some allow to reign over them. Why then do we keep seeking the law when the Tree of Life stands there which by grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires? Isn't it the best solution for everyone? To have that lust for speed overcome in the body and for all to drive safely and securely under the direction of a just, merciful and good God?

But no. We keep looking to law for peace and security instead of the God of peace. That sir, is why your comments are entirely bogus. All that you list as reasons were merely given to you by the very world which seeks its peace and safety in laws. Of course it doesn't want you to seek understanding of scripture because then it keeps you in the darkness of their world which is controlled by the very laws that they sell to you as their solutions. Of course it doesn't want Christians to understand that the very strength of sin is the law because it's desperately convincing them too that serving law can produce peace. It does not want Christians to realise that half of the ten commandments contain the knowledge of evil - do not MURDER, do not STEAL, do not COVET etc. It's happy that they don't notice this because then law-keeping Christians start going around ACCUSING people based upon law, thus CONDEMNING them - neither of which Jesus Christ did. Thus we get condemned by our very own lips and words. Jesus Christ did not come to condemn the world, but to save it! The knowledge of good and evil as given in the mosaic law is holy and good. But it was given to disobedient people. Love does no harm so there would be no murder, no stealing, etc and thus NO NEED FOR LAWS. murder is evil because love does no harm. But focusing on Do Not Murder instead of love leads us to accuse and condemn our brethren. We accuse with no internal spirit led discernment as to motive. It can lead us to accuse a non-Christian of murder when God is their judge and will make that judgement. We then dont pray for that person to be converted. We then subtly move into Moses seat. We then have become the accuser.

Oh you say it's nonsense that we need to look again at Genesis. The end is known from the beginning. It only serves Satan to allow our brethren to continue believing that they ate some apple or it's a metaphor for sex with Satan. What do men and women bring forth from their loins? Children. What do men and women bring forth from the loins of their minds? Thoughts. Out of the mouth come evil THOUGHTS. What were Cain and Able but 'evil' and good' after their parents ate from the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil?

You write that your words are "a protest of the ACTUAL malevolent effect that story, and the enslaving, brainwashing religions that stemmed from it". Well, no, in reality, the serpent is more than happy for nobody to receive understanding from above because at the end of the millenium, now, it gets to go out and deceive the nations all over again. And as Eve was DECEIVED, so to will it deceive the world AGAIN. In this manner it gets to steal, kill and destroy.

George bush Sr announced it on 9/11/90 - were you listening? The new world order will be by the rule of law. Pope Francis yesterday - the world needs more "Thou Shalt Nots" - law.

reply to post by SisyphusRide

the full title is (tree of "knowledge of" life and death and of good and evil) I don't think it has much to do with scientific advancement or the restriction thereof. good posts thx

Thats because their were 2 trees in Eden.

A lot of people don't realize that there are forgotten books, that might shed some light on some of this.

The "First book of Adam and Eve and the "Second book of Adam and Eve" www.sacred-texts.com...

1st book chapter 4 vs 2:

2 And, indeed, when Adam looked at his flesh, that was altered, he wept bitterly, he and Eve, over what they had done. And they walked and went gently down into the Cave of Treasures.

Evidently their bodies were "altered" in some way. And could be why they wanted to be covered.
Its been years since I have read these books. But, they are a very interesting read. They gave me a completely different perspective of the life of Adam and Eve. I didn't understand just how child like they were, until I read the part about them being so afraid of the dark. (God was a big fat meanie for leaving them alone in the dark, they were babies)

Anyway, I think we need to look at the "whole" story, not just the parts that the council of men decided should be in our modern cannon of scripture.

reply to post by DISRAELI

Yes, I think it's fair to treat them as equivalent, anyway.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

I think that pre "tree-eating" man//woman were beasts with no consciousness, or more accurately self-unaware automatons. "god" saw them as such as they did not come to its attention till after they ate of the tree of good and evil and hid. WHy couldnt god see them and had to call out for them. Is this really an omnipotent/omniscient god? Then "god says lets cast them out lest they eat of the TREE OF LIFE (2nd tree mentioned) and they become one of us"

The nakedness comes about from our eyes being opened to the fact that the god is not the supreme creator but the deimurge, intent on filling the earth with mindless automatons to carry out physical labour. They were not allowed to breed. Breeding is only mentioned after the fear of them eating of the tree of life and becoming immortal. Therefore breeding was carried out in a lab ( perhaps similar to invitro fertilization or the workers were sterilized) and only after eating of the tree of life would they enjoy immortality. So perhaps the tree of life was a regeneration elixir.
More telling is the glaring idea that adam was invisible to god and god was invisible to adam prior to the eating of the tree of good and evil.

Disraeli you state
"When Adam and Eve were introduced into the story, we were told that God made them man and wife."

No initially eve was made as his "help-meet"

then a few sentences later the "legal concept" of marriage is introduced by saying

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh"

What I dont get is why legalism was snuck in prior to their "eyes being opened" if they lived in a state of grace (or my slant- ignorance)?

I honestly think they were the sheep/workers bought to this "hell" by a deimurge called jehovah who did not have mans best interest at heart.

Disraeli you state

One of the most important features of human consciousness is our ability to project our thoughts into the future, based partly on our ability to remember what has happened in the past.

So was adam/eve fully conscious when the edict to not eat of the trees given. The FIRST time we hear of any independent word, thought uttered by either human is in the conversation between the serpent and eve in the beginning of chapter 3.

Why was it so easy to tempt eve? Maybe because of the lack of a fully aware consciousness in the adam/eve automatons . The "ego" or a sense of self seperated from the animals, trees and god or whatever is now fully shown. Otherwise why did they forget gods edicts?

I think like Prometheus eve did humanity a service. Only through opening our consciousness can we search for the true creator. Certainly not the jehovah/deimurge of the Old Testament

The knowledge of "IAMTTHIS"

Because what you are is not an object. As soon as you identified yourself with an object ..you thought you were naked...

But are not.

You are NEVER EXISTING inside the reality you perceive. Because you are not an object of reality.


This is the absolute truth. And humanity right now is in the illusion of "iam this/you are that"

reply to post by Lightworth

Yes, I am an intellectual kind of person, so my way of trying to understand something will be the intellectual route.
You seem to be more emotive, so your response is going to be the emotive response.
The question of proving God's existemce is beyond the scope of this thread, which is a reasoned attempt at understanding what this particular story in the Genesis texts is trying to tell us.

Are you interested in the laws of ancient Israel, the stoning of adulterers and all that? You might like to know that my project in the New Year will be a rationalised and intellectualised study of those laws.
There should be enough material there to arouse your righteous anger. See you in the New Year.