Original Sin

[godnotgod]

forbidden:

forbidden [fəˈbɪdən]
adj
1. not permitted by order or law

not:
not (nt)
adv.
In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition:

permitted:
per·mit (pr-mt)
v. per·mit·ted, per·mit·ting, per·mits
v.tr.
1. To allow the doing of (something); consent to: permit the sale of alcoholic beverages.
2. To grant consent or leave to (someone); authorize: permitted him to explain.
3. To afford opportunity or possibility for

lets re-word it so as to make your question as clear as day...shall we?
to no degree was eating from the tree of knowledge to be granted, having been consented to or authorized by god for a & e to partake from.

for what purpose, reason, or cause; with what intention, justification, or motive?

The taboo was a device, a piece de resistance*, to get A & E to eat of it. Why? Because A & E possessed rational minds. God's mind is beyond rational thought. God wants man to share his divine consciousness. This is the gift of divine union, the goal of all religious endeavor. The Fruit is a symbol of Divine Consciousness. By partaking of it, the rational mind is overcome and divine mind comes into play.

"The place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictions, and this is the wall of Paradise wherein Thou dost abide. The door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit of Reason, and, unless he be vanquished, the way in will not lie open."

Nicholas of Cusa

You see, the 'coincidence of contradictions' contains the knowledge of good and evil, along with all dualities. On the surface, things only seem to be in contradiction, such as good and evil. Only with a mind in divine union can the intimate relationship between the opposites be understood. This is the wisdom of the East, the knowledge of Yin and Yang, and how they work together.

By commanding A & E NOT to eat of the Fruit, he knew, of course, that they would. That is the nature of children's minds.

*We see a similar device in the Zen koan, a non-rational riddle designed to 'burst the bag', so to speak, of the rational mind, so that what is called in Zen 'Big Mind' can then come into play. Until the rational mind, the thinking mind, the discriminating mind, is completely quieted, the divine mind cannot manifest itself within man.

 

[godnotgod]

so obviously it was not a privilege to know the difference between good and evil

"Before Enlightenment, it is Something Special;
after Enlightenment, it is Nothing Special"

 

[Heathen Hammer]

God's mind is beyond rational thought.

Dog Whisperer Fallacy. Sorry, this idea is not true. There is no 'higher degree' of rational thought. Either God is rational, or he isn't. And if he's going to teach man anything he must be rational.

Yin and yang balance is a rational concept; the idea that God deliberately wanted his first two humans to perform an action which he himself despises [as it's a sin], so that he could punish them, while simultaneously being just and loving and good, is not rational.

 

[godnotgod]

Dog Whisperer Fallacy. Sorry, this idea is not true. There is no 'higher degree' of rational thought. Either God is rational, or he isn't. And if he's going to teach man anything he must be rational.

And yet, throughout the centuries of the so-called 'Rational God' trying to teach moral lessons to man, we are worse off than ever.

God is non-dual. To say that He is rational is to put him in a dualistic category of 'rational/non-rational', so God is beyond the trap of the rational/non-rational mind.

Yin and yang balance is a rational concept;

I am afraid it is not. That all opposites are opposed to one another is rational. It is the rational mind which mistakenly sees them as such. The reality, which the Yin/Yang symbol reflects, is that they are in harmony. This is not realized via rational thought, but via mystical insight in which no conflict exists within the mind.

the idea that God deliberately wanted his first two humans to perform an action which he himself despises [as it's a sin], so that he could punish them, while simultaneously being just and loving and good, is not rational.

But He did not despise the action; He instructed them NOT to eat of it exactly because He wanted them to. Place a mystery box in your children's room and specifically forbid them to open it. What is the first thing they will do when you leave the room? Do you think God did not know that? The 'sin' and 'punishment' came about due to the fact that the story has become corrupted. Some took the allegory literally, wherein Obedience to Law is first and foremost in importance, while some intuitively saw through the 'wink, wink' twinkle in God's eye and understood his intent. Lucky are the few. Those who took his 'commandment' literally also mistook Free Will for Freedom, and shut the door, because they thought that Free Will is what got them into trouble in the first place. It is they who dare not question God's intent as all that is important to them is Obedience. Essence, or Divine Union, is for them, essentially, Unlawful Knowledge.

It is important to understand this story as an allegory, designed to teach a lesson, rather than an actual historical event.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

And yet, throughout the centuries of the so-called 'Rational God' trying to teach moral lessons to man, we are worse off than ever.

No shoot. Wonder why?

God is non-dual. To say that He is rational is to put him in a dualistic category of 'rational/non-rational', so God is beyond the trap of the rational/non-rational mind.

That's an irrational assertion.

I am afraid it is not. That all opposites are opposed to one another is rational. It is the rational mind which mistakenly sees them as such. The reality, which the Yin/Yang symbol reflects, is that they are in harmony. This is not realized via rational thought, but via mystical insight in which no conflict exists within the mind.

But I am afraid so. I am neither Buddhist [polar opposite in fact, hahah!] nor enlightened, but I came to this conclusion myself. Thus, it is a rational mind which reached this conclusion.

But He did not despise the action; He instructed them NOT to eat of it exactly because He wanted them to.

If it's sin he despises it.
That is the common definition of sin. And he kills them and their descendants because of it. Are you saying that's an indication he likes it? Wow.

Place a mystery box in your children's room and specifically forbid them to open it. What is the first thing they will do when you leave the room? Do you think God did not know that? The 'sin' and 'punishment' came about due to the fact that the story has become corrupted. Some took the allegory literally, wherein Obedience to Law is first and foremost in importance, while some intuitively saw through the 'wink, wink' twinkle in God's eye and understood his intent.

I also understand the intent and am saying it's not rational given his other claimed attributes. The intent destroys the attributes claimed.

It is important to understand this story as an allegory, designed to teach a lesson, rather than an actual historical event.

I am fully aware its non historical. What I am saying is it's an irrational allegory.
It's a bad lesson.

 

[godnotgod]

No shoot. Wonder why?

Maybe because it is the faulty rational mind which creates a ruthless image of God whose dictates are not realistic.

That's an irrational assertion.

It is neither rational nor non-rational. The assertion comes from seeing the nature of things, rather than conceptualizing them.

But I am afraid so. I am neither Buddhist [polar opposite in fact, hahah!] nor enlightened, but I came to this conclusion myself. Thus, it is a rational mind which reached this conclusion.

The key to understanding Yin Yang harmony is not in thinking, but in seeing, and seeing is non-rational, as no thought exists in seeing.

If it's sin he despises it.
That is the common definition of sin. And he kills them and their descendants because of it. Are you saying that's an indication he likes it? Wow.

No. I am saying there is no sin in the first place. The orthodox story of sin, crucifixion, redemption, punishment, etc. that we have come to know is a corrupted one. The thrust of the allegory is not sin and obedience, but divine union and awakening.

I also understand the intent and am saying it's not rational given his other claimed attributes. The intent destroys the attributes claimed.

It is not rational. That's the point. God is using a trick to get A&E to eat of the Fruit, because the Fruit is good for them. So ultimately, the intent and the attributes match. In the scenario I am presenting, all parts fit together without contradiction.

I am fully aware its non historical. What I am saying is it's an irrational allegory.
It's a bad lesson.

The lesson is OK; it's the mind that is not attentive enough to see the true intent. It is too involved with its own machinations of Reason, Logic, and Analysis within the dual world to see the way reality actually is, and so the lesson has been missed.

It's OK. Try again. When you get it, the problem will be solved forever, and you can put the lesson aside. When the mind finally sees that the 'coincidence of contradictions' is illusory, then the knowledge of good and evil will have reached fruition, and divine union will have been realized. It is then that one sees that it was this way all along.

 

[Thief]

Then why was it forbidden?

Someone made a leap in discussion....
And quoting scripture is fraught with problems...here's why.

In my copy God does indeed speak to Adam, saying...
'... do not eat....in the day you do...you will die....'

The word 'forbidden' is not used.

Does Adam understand death?....I say he did.

That Adam and Eve did partake, indicates the manipulation performed in the garden had indeed taken hold.
Man would be that creature seeking knowledge...even unto death.

Without this quality, spiritual life would be difficult.
If the fear of death stops you...then indeed.... it will.

 

[Prophet]

No. I am saying there is no sin in the first place. The orthodox story of sin, crucifixion, redemption, punishment, etc. that we have come to know is a corrupted one. The thrust of the allegory is not sin and obedience, but divine union and awakening.

I don't think we can simply ignore sin. I surely do agree with you that the orthodox story behind sin is corrupted. After Jesus died, some Roman folks decided to merge their religion with Jesus teachings leading to the aforementioned corruption.

Words are only sounds. We should never be afraid of them. While many fundamentalist Christians are primarily concerned with bad behavior or adherence to rules when they accuse a being of being sinful, a being who has unlocked the true interpretation behind Jesus' words knows when he spoke of sin, he meant the great sin of pride.

I'm thinking your religion has scriptures from this point which demonstrate understanding how being egocentric stands in the way of Divine union.

 

[godnotgod]

I don't think we can simply ignore sin. I surely do agree with you that the orthodox story behind sin is corrupted. After Jesus died, some Roman folks decided to merge their religion with Jesus teachings leading to the aforementioned corruption.

Words are only sounds. We should never be afraid of them. While many fundamentalist Christians are primarily concerned with bad behavior or adherence to rules when they accuse a being of being sinful, a being who has unlocked the true interpretation behind Jesus' words knows when he spoke of sin, he meant the great sin of pride.

I'm thinking your religion has scriptures from this point which demonstrate understanding how being egocentric stands in the way of Divine union.

The focus of the discussion is what has been termed 'Original Sin'. My question for you is, how could sin have been committed when all of this business was God's doing? God created the entire scenario for 'sin' to occur. As I stated earlier, this was the first sting operation. A God who set up such a scenario to 'test' his subjects is a God whose mind is a suspicious one. Besides, if God anticipated a 'wrong' outcome as a possibility, he already knew that A & E had a 'propensity to sin'. A & E are total creations of God. Any so called 'propensity to sin' had to have come from him, as it also did in the case of Lucifer. But I am afraid what we have here is a very human God, totally created and hatched in the very clever mind of man himself, and then presented as if He were some separate entity over and above man.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Maybe because it is the faulty rational mind which creates a ruthless image of God whose dictates are not realistic.

What if the dictates are actually ruthless?
If a human did what God did, you would call him ruthless.

It is neither rational nor non-rational. The assertion comes from seeing the nature of things, rather than conceptualizing them.

It's irrational to assert he cannot be put into a rational duality. You are simply making up paradoxical properties and applying them to something. You are pretending a paradox can exist. God cannot use square circles, and he cannot perform an act without Time. {for example}

The key to understanding Yin Yang harmony is not in thinking, but in seeing, and seeing is non-rational, as no thought exists in seeing.

Yeah right

No. I am saying there is no sin in the first place. The orthodox story of sin, crucifixion, redemption, punishment, etc. that we have come to know is a corrupted one. The thrust of the allegory is not sin and obedience, but divine union and awakening.

Not the story we are talking about.
The allegory we are talking about teaches not to disobey God, and what happens when it happened at the beginning, to explain why bad things happen and to impress on people that God sees you as corrupt and worthy of Hell.

It is not rational. That's the point. God is using a trick to get A&E to eat of the Fruit, because the Fruit is good for them. So ultimately, the intent and the attributes match. In the scenario I am presenting, all parts fit together without contradiction.

They DO contradict with the idea of a just and merciful God.
How is the fruit good for them when it incurs the wrath of God permanently not only on the sinners but on every single one of their descendents [not to mention before they can even commit a single act, themselves]?? You are applying inapplicable adjectives to what the story shows, Im afraid, to sugar coat a great evil.

The lesson is OK; it's the mind that is not attentive enough to see the true intent. It is too involved with its own machinations of Reason, Logic, and Analysis within the dual world to see the way reality actually is, and so the lesson has been missed.

No, the lesson is flawed. Reason, logic and analysis are not errors, they are the only way to actually compare results and find truth. If this entire scenario were played out by a human initiator we would hold them as the villain; the irrational follower sees God as 'just'. That is a conundrum, indicative of cognitive dissonance. Again let me explain the Dog Whisperer Fallacy to you in short: the only valid lessons God can give Man must be rational, because that's the only way Man understands. If the lessons are irrational they will be discarded as useless, which they are.

It's OK. Try again. When you get it, the problem will be solved forever, and you can put the lesson aside. When the mind finally sees that the 'coincidence of contradictions' is illusory, then the knowledge of good and evil will have reached fruition, and divine union will have been realized. It is then that one sees that it was this way all along.

If your lesson is blatantly faulty, you have no true basis to sit there and patronize me
Contradictions are what they are, and they render the lesson invalid. Because it's a lesson Man must understand. In order to be understood, it must be rational. It's not.

 

[Prophet]

The focus of the discussion is what has been termed 'Original Sin'. My question for you is, how could sin have been committed when all of this business was God's doing? God created the entire scenario for 'sin' to occur. As I stated earlier, this was the first sting operation. A God who set up such a scenario to 'test' his subjects is a God whose mind is a suspicious one. Besides, if God anticipated a 'wrong' outcome as a possibility, he already knew that A & E had a 'propensity to sin'. A & E are total creations of God. Any so called 'propensity to sin' had to have come from him, as it also did in the case of Lucifer. But I am afraid what we have here is a very human God, totally created and hatched in the very clever mind of man himself, and then presented as if He were some separate entity over and above man.

We are in agreement on the concept of original sin. If you were more aware, you'd take the time to understand what I was saying before you took to debating me.

 

[godnotgod]

What if the dictates are actually ruthless?
If a human did what God did, you would call him ruthless.

They are indeed ruthless, and they are ruthless precisely because it is man himself who created both God and his dictates with the rational mind, and then proceeded to project God outwardly as if He were an entity apart from his own mind!

It's irrational to assert he cannot be put into a rational duality. You are simply making up paradoxical properties and applying them to something. You are pretending a paradox can exist. God cannot use square circles, and he cannot perform an act without Time. {for example}

Once again, I am making the assertion from a vantage point outside of Reason. That is not to say I am being unreasonable, it is saying that I am not utilizing the discriminating mind (a mind which distinguishes differences between 'rational' and 'non-rational') in order to determine the nature of the divine essence. To say that the divine essence is 'rational' is to encapsulate God inside of a conceptual box. The finite cannot encompass the infinite. Therefore, my statement stands: God is outside of the rational mind. God did not 'think' the world into existence. That would be much too cumbersome.

Yeah right

The moment you begin to use the rational mind, you see reality as dual. Dualistic concepts about reality are inaccurate. We know reality is singular and seamless. Only a mind which sees reality as it actually is can comprehend what the Yin Yang symbol actually represents.

Not the story we are talking about.
The allegory we are talking about teaches not to disobey God, and what happens when it happened at the beginning, to explain why bad things happen and to impress on people that God sees you as corrupt and worthy of Hell.

That is the corrupted version of the original story which I have presented to you.

They DO contradict with the idea of a just and merciful God.
How is the fruit good for them when it incurs the wrath of God permanently not only on the sinners but on every single one of their descendents [not to mention before they can even commit a single act, themselves]?? You are applying inapplicable adjectives to what the story shows, Im afraid, to sugar coat a great evil.

I don't think you are reading my posts thoroughly. The 'wrath of God' and all the rest of that nonsense is part of the corruption. Once again: The Fruit is a symbol of Divine Union, the unconditional gift to man of his own divine essence. By commanding A&E NOT to eat of it, God, of course, in his infinite wisdom and love, KNEW they would eat of it, and that is exactly and precisely what God WANTED them to do.

THERE WAS NO SIN, ORIGINAL OR OTHERWISE! Man eats divine fruit, becomes enlightened and filled with the divine essence, realizes complete union with God, and all's well that ends well. Story end. The rest of it is pure poppycock, melodrama, and fiction. None of the characters are real. In other words: IT'S ALL ONE BIG ACT, get it?*wink*, *wink*

No, the lesson is flawed. Reason, logic and alanysis are not errors, they are the only way to actually compare results and find truth. If this entire scenario were played out by a human initiator we would hold them as the villain; the irrational follower sees God as 'just'. That is a conundrum, indicitive of cognitive dissonance. Again let me explain the Dog Whisperer Fallacy to you in short: the only valid lessons God can give Man must be rational, because that's the only way Man understands. If the lessons are irrational they will be discarded as useless, which they are.

And that is exactly why God is outside the rational mind. The orthodox 'conceptual' God, which is a creation of man, is rational, but the mystical God is neither. If God, as I claim, is outside the rational mind, then he is also outside the irrational mind. Therefore, the lesson in question is not irrational; it is neither rational nor non-rational. It is of a divinely inspired wisdom that is beyond the comprehension of the ordinary man. That is to say, the ordinary man is one who is immersed in the workings of the rational mind. When the intuitive mind is sufficiently awakened, it is capable of comprehending the lesson at hand, but its type of comprehension comes not from thinking, but from seeing, without thought. It is, to be precise, the divine essence seeing itself.

If your lesson is blatantly faulty, you have no true basis to sit there and patronize me
Contradictions are what they are, and they render the lesson invalid. Because it's a lesson Man must understand.

No, he cannot understand the lesson rationally. That's the point of the allegory. It may seem cruel and faulty, but when understood via of the seeing mind, rather than the rational, discursive mind, which is incapable of 'understanding' the nature of the divine essence, the mind is then transformed and divine union is achieved. So the lesson is a perfect one, without flaw. The flaw is within the rational mind, because it forms concepts, based on Logic, Reason, and Analysis in an attempt to 'understand' reality, but conceptual thought can never understand the true nature of reality. All it can do is to gain factual knowledge about it. True understanding as to the nature of reality can only come via the intuitive mind. It can never be 'thought' into realization, though the faulty rational mind will continue to convince you that it has the situation well in hand. Poppycock!

 

[godnotgod]

We are in agreement on the concept of original sin. If you were more aware, you'd take the time to understand what I was saying before you took to debating me.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but your response was to my statement that:
"there is no sin in the first place."

 

[Heathen Hammer]

They are indeed ruthless, and they are ruthless precisely because it is man himself who created both God and his dictates with the rational mind, and then proceeded to project God outwardly as if He were an entity apart from his own mind!

Ooohhhh, wait, did you just troll me? Well played! Im giving you a frubal.

Once again, I am making the assertion from a vantage point outside of Reason. That is not to say I am being unreasonable, it is saying that I am not utilizing the discriminating mind (a mind which distinguishes differences between 'rational' and 'non-rational') in order to determine the nature of the divine essence. To say that the divine essence is 'rational' is to encapsulate God inside of a conceptual box. The finite cannot encompass the infinite. Therefore, my statement stands: God is outside of the rational mind. God did not 'think' the world into existence. That would be much too cumbersome.

We're moving on to nonsense prose from you now.

The moment you begin to use the rational mind, you see reality as dual. Dualistic concepts about reality are inaccurate. We know reality is singular and seamless. Only a mind which sees reality as it actually is can comprehend what the Yin Yang symbol actually represents.

Actually I personally see a myriad shades of grey. But in the context of the events and the entity we were discussing at this moment, there is the duality of 'claim one thing' and 'do another'. the Abrahamic system is rife with dualities. I am forced to deal in them if I am engaged in discussion about it.

That is the corrupted version of the original story which I have presented to you.

Well, I can only discuss with any seriousness, a widely known story as opposed to one you may personally keep in private.

You seem to be trying to present a Buddhist side of Christianity's creation story and in my Heathen polytheist mind that makes any possible permutations even more irrational than the baseline look at xtian Eden.

I don't think you are reading my posts thoroughly. The 'wrath of God' and all the rest of that nonsense is part of the corruption. Once again: The Fruit is a symbol of Divine Union, the unconditional gift to man of his own divine essence. By commanding A&E NOT to eat of it, God, of course, in his infinite wisdom and love, KNEW they would eat of it, and that is exactly and precisely what God WANTED them to do.

All right, so you are presenting the idea of God being wroth, as man's perverse idea of God, but not God himself's actual activity?

Well, even if you are, you realize I am right? Whether Jehovah exists or not, or if this idea originates only in Man, the idea itself sucks, and Ive explained why it sucks, in a rational way. Real or man made, it's a stupid system, and that's all I care about showing.

THERE WAS NO SIN, ORIGINAL OR OTHERWISE! Man eats divine fruit, becomes enlightened and filled with the divine essence, realizes complete union with God, and all's well that ends well. Story end. The rest of it is pure poppycock, melodrama, and fiction. None of the characters are real. In other words: IT'S ALL ONE BIG ACT, get it?*wink*, *wink*

Im sorry I can only give you 1 frubal for trolling me today

And that is exactly why God is outside the rational mind. The orthodox 'conceptual' God, which is a creation of man, is rational, but the mystical God is neither. If God, as I claim, is outside the rational mind, then he is also outside the irrational mind. Therefore, the lesson in question is not irrational; it is neither rational nor non-rational. It is of a divinely inspired wisdom that is beyond the comprehension of the ordinary man. That is to say, the ordinary man is one who is immersed in the workings of the rational mind. When the intuitive mind is sufficiently awakened, it is capable of comprehending the lesson at hand, but its type of comprehension comes not from thinking, but from seeing, without thought. It is, to be precise, the divine essence seeing itself.

Actually.. Im sorry, but my Dog Whisperer Fallacy holds for an actual God as well as a man made idea of him.

If he's irrational then he is simply a capricious danger to man, and his existence is merely a threat, and not a boon nor a connective unity.

No, he cannot understand the lesson rationally. That's the point of the allegory. It may seem cruel and faulty, but when understood via of the seeing mind, rather than the rational, discursive mind, which is incapable of 'understanding' the nature of the divine essence, the mind is then transformed and divine union is achieved. So the lesson is a perfect one, without flaw. The flaw is within the rational mind, because it forms concepts, based on Logic, Reason, and Analysis in an attempt to 'understand' reality, but conceptual thought can never understand the true nature of reality. All it can do is to gain factual knowledge about it. True understanding as to the nature of reality can only come via the intuitive mind. It can never be 'thought' into realization, though the faulty rational mind will continue to convince you that it has the situation well in hand. Poppycock!

Good luck with that, mate.

 

[godnotgod]

Well, I can only discuss with any seriousness, a widely known story as opposed to one you may personally keep in private.

Actually, I heard the version I am presenting on the radio years ago delivered by Alan Watts. I have tried to locate it years later, but the only thing I can remember about it is that it may have been of Persian origin. It is not something I made up. While I understand perfectly your objection to the orthodox story, please understand that the original, as I heard it, is very different, and essentially cuts to the chase without all the other contradictory elements included which most of us have come to know.

You seem to be trying to present a Buddhist side of Christianity's creation story and in my Heathen polytheist mind that makes any possible permutations even more irrational than the baseline look at xtian Eden.

It is not Buddhist, but it is of Eastern origin, as I have pointed out.

All right, so you are presenting the idea of God being wroth, as man's perverse idea of God, but not God himself's actual activity?

Yes.

Well, even if you are, you realize I am right? Whether Jehovah exists or not, or if this idea originates only in Man, the idea itself sucks, and Ive explained why it sucks, in a rational way. Real or man made, it's a stupid system, and that's all I care about showing.

OK, just realize there is an original, uncorrupted version with a very different theme, and it is that version in which all the elements just fall right into place.

If he's irrational then he is simply a capricious danger to man, and his existence is merely a threat, and not a boon nor a connective unity.

The God so invented by man is irrational and extremely dangerous. Just read Deuteronomy 20 to see what a murderous, ruthless, and racist God Yaweh is. But besides that 'gaseous vertebrate' as Heckel called him, there is a divine essence within that can be realized by everyone. I would have to say that the God-image so created by man is purely a projection of his very own Ego, as are the idealized images of Jesus and Satan. One must delve deeper into the character of Yeshu, the Nazorean Essene to see what the real teachings were, before St. Paul overwrote them with those of Mithra. Essentially, the Essene teachings focused on the breath as the life force, while the Mithraic rituals were blood based. I think some of the ruthlessness of the Judaic God came out of the idea of a solar deity, in which it was thought the Sun would die at its furthest point away from the earth during the winter solstice unless it were nourished with human blood. This was Moloch, who is thought by some scholars to be one and the same as Yaweh.


[/QUOTE]

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It is neither rational nor non-rational. The assertion comes from seeing the nature of things, rather than conceptualizing them.




The key to understanding Yin Yang harmony is not in thinking, but in seeing, and seeing is non-rational, as no thought exists in seeing.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The focus of the discussion is what has been termed 'Original Sin'. My question for you is, how could sin have been committed when all of this business was God's doing? God created the entire scenario for 'sin' to occur. As I stated earlier, this was the first sting operation. A God who set up such a scenario to 'test' his subjects is a God whose mind is a suspicious one. Besides, if God anticipated a 'wrong' outcome as a possibility, he already knew that A & E had a 'propensity to sin'. A & E are total creations of God. Any so called 'propensity to sin' had to have come from him, as it also did in the case of Lucifer. But I am afraid what we have here is a very human God, totally created and hatched in the very clever mind of man himself, and then presented as if He were some separate entity over and above man.

Now this I agree with and have said many times....:yes:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Someone made a leap in discussion....
And quoting scripture is fraught with problems...here's why.

In my copy God does indeed speak to Adam, saying...
'... do not eat....in the day you do...you will die....'

The word 'forbidden' is not used.

Whether the word is used or not it is implicit as you clearly show....("do not eat")...means you have been forbidden to eat.

Does Adam understand death?....I say he did.

We don't get the sense that he did. He lacked knowledge as if he were a child. He didn't know good or evil and we have no indication he had ever witness death until after eating the "fruit".

That Adam and Eve did partake, indicates the manipulation performed in the garden had indeed taken hold.

Actually the "serpent" told Adam the truth.

 

[orcel]

Because sin is tied to spirituality... Hell and Heaven are not physical concepts, they are spiritual. Your physical body does not go to either, but your soul. And since sin has a great influence on where your soul goes, it is spiritual.

I disagree, remember humanity was created to be physical. Looking back to the Garden of Eden (before the Fall) God judged the creation as good and it was described as paradise. Later Jesus refrers to eternal paradise. And later still Paul referes to a new clean body after death. Therefore i suggest heaven is a physical existence.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Actually, I heard the version I am presenting on the radio years ago delivered by Alan Watts. I have tried to locate it years later, but the only thing I can remember about it is that it may have been of Persian origin. It is not something I made up. While I understand perfectly your objection to the orthodox story, please understand that the original, as I heard it, is very different, and essentially cuts to the chase without all the other contradictory elements included which most of us have come to know.

It is not Buddhist, but it is of Eastern origin, as I have pointed out.

Yes.

OK, just realize there is an original, uncorrupted version with a very different theme, and it is that version in which all the elements just fall right into place.

The God so invented by man is irrational and extremely dangerous. Just read Deuteronomy 20 to see what a murderous, ruthless, and racist God Yaweh is. But besides that 'gaseous vertebrate' as Heckel called him, there is a divine essence within that can be realized by everyone. I would have to say that the God-image so created by man is purely a projection of his very own Ego, as are the idealized images of Jesus and Satan. One must delve deeper into the character of Yeshu, the Nazorean Essene to see what the real teachings were, before St. Paul overwrote them with those of Mithra. Essentially, the Essene teachings focused on the breath as the life force, while the Mithraic rituals were blood based. I think some of the ruthlessness of the Judaic God came out of the idea of a solar deity, in which it was thought the Sun would die at its furthest point away from the earth during the winter solstice unless it were nourished with human blood. This was Moloch, who is thought by some scholars to be one and the same as Yaweh.

So darn it, are we agreeing now?

Whoohoo! Unity!