The Original Sin: who is to blame?

[ecco]

When you mistakenly thought I was saying that God is omniscient, you called me out by indicating that there is nothing in scripture that says God is omniscient.

Now, by the same criteria, I must call you out. Where in your holy scripture does it state that "Lucifer was created million of years before Adam and Eve were created"?

There are many places, if you care to read them and do your own investigation on the subject.

Is that your duck and dodge way of admitting there is nothing in your own holy scripture that supports your nonsensical allegation regarding when Lucifer was created?

First I had to explain the difference between omniscience and omnipotence to you. Then I had to show you the Bible passages supporting a worldwide flood.

You've been on this forum for a year and a half. I shouldn't have to explain that when you make an assertion, it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence for that assertion

Since you don't/can't it is obvious to everyone that you just made it up.

 

[ecco]

I don't know, can you?

Your diagram certainly proves nothing mathematically. In fact, mathematics proves it's just made up nonsense.

You cannot put an equilateral angle with an area of 703 inside three equilateral angles whose areas are each 666.

Your picture can only represent four triangles of equal dimensions.

...who said anything about an equilateral triangle? The equilateral triangle has nothing to do with Genesis 1:1, nor the pic.
No - the three exterior are smaller / not equilateral.

The three exterior are 666. The interior is 703. You can't even remember your own diagram.

The picture clearly shows four equilateral triangles. If the picture does not represent what you are trying to demonstrate, then why did you post it?

 

[ecco]

If you can't follow the thread, that is not my problem.

Your opinion is worthless as it is based on ignorance.

Personal insults do not impress me as valid debate strategies.

Bye now.

I wasn't attacking you personally. I merely pointed out that you hadn't been following the thread.

I wasn't attacking you personally. When you state Hitler was an atheist, you are clearly ignorant of the facts.

ig·no·rant
/ˈiɡnərənt/
adjective

1. • lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.
     "they were ignorant of astronomy"

But, bye is OK too.

 

[Faithofchristian]

It's not my job to prove Christian things to Christians. When necessary, for the sake of conversation, I respond to what they believe or what is written in their holy scripture.



It's not about what I "heard". It's about what is written in your holy scripture. If you choose to ignore it, don't try to shift the blame to me.

Genesis 17
17And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark wentupon the face of the waters. 19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.

​

First, you show you do not know the difference between omnipotent and omniscient and now you don't understand what is written in your holy scripture.

You do list your religion as Christian, don't you?

Your the one that made the statement so give your proof that the whole earth was covered over by a flood of water.

Are you in the habit of saying things without any proof to back up what your saying.
So where's your proof

 

[Faithofchristian]

Is that your duck and dodge way of admitting there is nothing in your own holy scripture that supports your nonsensical allegation regarding when Lucifer was created?

First I had to explain the difference between omniscience and omnipotence to you. Then I had to show you the Bible passages supporting a worldwide flood.

You've been on this forum for a year and a half. I shouldn't have to explain that when you make an assertion, it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence for that assertion

Since you don't/can't it is obvious to everyone that you just made it up.

It's not my place to explain what you said, seeing your the one that made the statement, so I'm within my right to ask you to give your proof of evidence, that the earth being covered over by a flood.

your the one that's doing the duck and dodging the question, Seeing how your the one that made the statement in the first place that the whole earth being covered over by a flood,

Just to let you know just how wrong you really are, The flood of Noah's did not cover the whole earth as you think it did.
So again where's your proof of evidence, that the flood of Noah's covered the whole earth as you say it did.

 

[9-18-1]

OK.

G-d is the ultimate unchanging source of everything. How is this relevant?

It will be. Note your own use of "unchanging".

I don't know which one is true. Again, relevance?

It can be 'known'.

Not sure I agree, but, relevance?

Look below.

This is what I think ( assuming I understand what you are asking, of course )

Question: Can an "unbeliever" be a "knower"?
Answer: Not simultaneously. I think most people oscilate between the two. And rarely operate ( if ever ) in the extremes.

But the answer is YES, they CAN be. If/when this is TRUE, one who 'knows' is in a superior position to one who "believes" something which can be UNTRUE.

So for example:

Is the Qur'an the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of G-d?
Yes/No

If no, it can be 'known'.
If yes, it can be 'known'.
It can also be "believed", not known, and untrue.

What happens if it is "believed" to be true, when in fact untrue?

The Qur'an is *not* the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of G-d is rendered a FALSE statement under what condition(s)?
Any sign of manhandling/tampering.
Such signs are present in both.
Applies to Torah as well.
The rest is "BELIEF".

How many people "BELIEVE" any of these books came from a god?

Question: Is "knowing" superior to "believing"
Answer: They are like comparing apples to oranges.

False: they can both be placed at the core of a being as an object ie. ones "belief" defines/shapes his/her entire worldview vs. seeing the reality just the way it is.

Knowing is intellectual. Believing is beyond intellect. Both are useful in different ways and in different situations. It's really the same thing I said the first time you started a thread on belief.

False: knowing is not strictly "intellectual" unless one identifies with the body/mind, which is not the true being.

Question: If "knowing" is superior to "believing", is "belief" a virtue?
Answer: When knowing is superior, belief is not a virtue. When believing is superior, then belief is a virtue.

False: 'when' not needed. Knowing is *always* superior to "belief". "Belief" can never be superior to knowing.

This is the difference between my mindset and yours.

I know.

You are operating black vs. white. It's fundamentalism. Literal. Stereotyping. Generalizing. Over-simplified.

Fundamentalism has no polarity: if you associate it with bad/evil, you are eating from the tree and polarizing within yourself. Yes, fundamentalism can be bad, but it can also be good. It depends what one does with it. Like technology.

Yes/no question-answer strings are "fundamental" because they eliminate everything into the fundamentals which produce the most accurate worldview.

Applying simple yes/no question-answer strings yields the reality just the way it is. Then you use if-then:

IF:
The Qur'an is not the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god, while approx. 1.8 billion Muslims erroneously "believe" it is (ie. as sanctioned by the 'state')...
THEN:
Islam is a humanitarian catastrophe/crisis which perpetuates the most principle division humanity has endured for thousands of years: "BELIEVER" vs. "UNBELIEVER".

Christianity: same problem before it.
Judaism: same problem before it.

"BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE

None of those meet your own criteria for questions with "yes/no" answers.

Those are the starting points - you're supposed to follow where they lead into to the yes/no result.

You don't believe in belief, yet you talk about "satanic" which encompasses nothing more than belief.

I 'know' what satan is and/or describes:

What happens when someone "believes" something that is not true, yes holds "BELIEF" itself to be the HIGHEST VIRTUE?

The beings' physical existence becomes an expression (ie. psychological, emotional, habitual) of his/her own binds which exist in an ongoing state.

This is where human suffering comes from based on the question I asked approx. 4 years ago:

From whence human suffering?

The most relevant finding/answer I have come up with so far:

"BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE

If truth above all authority were made the highest virtue, humanity would begin to alleviate all forms of human suffering.

You should know since that is what you apparently have done.

You can't 'know' what I know, in the same way I can't 'know' what anyone else 'knows'. What I know, I know. What I do not know, I do not know.

I do not know there is a god, or there is not a god.
I allow the possibility.

But there is no explanation needed (esp. requiring a god/deity) to explain "from whence human suffering?". The answer doesn't require the assumption of god:

Human beings suffer themselves. When they start trying to appropriate their own internal source of suffering onto an EXTERNAL OBJECT (ie. it is this or that which causes me suffering) whence such things as enmity (ie. Cain and desire to spill blood).

I don't suffer other people: all of my own inner sufferings are mine. However only in acknowledging this and systematically testing the claims made by the various prophets (including chastity, which *is* a virtue) could I see the reality just the way it is.

I know what god is not, and there are many who "BELIEVE" in these gods. They are fixed to books (ie. Torah-Bible, Qur'an) and idols (ie. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad) still "believing" them to have been messengers from a god. I know this/these is/are not true - the rest of the "believers" project their own "belief" on me, and try to apply the principle of "belief" to me when it in fact is their own trying to defend itself.

I don't need to defend anything that is:

OK.

G-d is the ultimate unchanging source of everything. How is this relevant?

because what is unchanging is true, and it is true that human beings suffer themselves.

There are certain 'fixed axioms' which are never not true - these are the same as the laws that govern even the physical cosmos: from macro- to microcosm until quantum mechanics, which introduces the problem of "choice" (ie. superposition, probability, wave function collapse).

con - science
self - inquiry
+
choice
=
conscious(ness)

'I AM' is the key.

 

[dybmh]

There is nothing convincing or persuasive about anything you have said. It's no different than any other religious person preaching their own gospel.

I'll focus on this:

I 'know' what satan is and/or describes:

How do u know anything about satan?

Is there anymore evidence besides the diagram?

 

[Jedster]

Why שלשול ? Has someone been eating ex-lax?

 

[9-18-1]

There is nothing convincing or persuasive about anything you have said.

Then why are you still listening?

It's no different than any other religious person preaching their own gospel.

That would be Judaism - which I reject. I don't appeal to any authority as you do. However, I will link you to a mystic who I agree with.

I'll focus on this:



How do u know anything about satan?

Is there anymore evidence besides the diagram?

You can't know it unless you understand it inside of yourself. See, Canaanites are scapegoaters. They try to externalize, externalize etc. They will appropriate all things satan as forces acting from/on the outside rather than the inside.

This is backwards, just as Judaism and Islam are having been derived from Canaanite practices that do exactly that: export all of the evil onto a single object/entity, then condemn/kill it.

Where do you think the idea for Jesus came from? A Canaanite human sacrifice to absolve the sins of the entire planet, and therefor to deny Jesus one is denounced?

Why the f*ck do you think binah is UNDERSTANDING? Have you read the book of Job?

It's like you only think in terms of facts (left hemisphere/image) but never employ the implications/meaning (right hemisphere/likeness). Jesus said you have to cast your net to the right for a reason.

Take it from someone else:

Now understand than when suffering occurs (ie. satan) it is as a result of not being in truth. Look back at the diagram. It is very simple: in the heavens above, earth below, waters below that, when there is anything persisting that causes suffering, that is satan (ie. psychology, emotion, behavior).

Each has their own binds, therefor each has their own satan. Moving from a place of untruth to truth is the same thing as releasing the binds, which requires understanding that satan is the "belief" in something as being god, when in fact it is not.

What does satan make people "believe" according to the Abrahamic mythology? This is yet another (add it to the mountain) reason why:

"BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE.

Why שלשול ? Has someone been eating ex-lax?

Yes - I have a Canaanite-type trying to "dump" their own "belief"-based contentions on me, but they perceive it as me being based in "belief" whereas they "believe" their contentions are sound.

Also the gematria of it is 666 - a reference I think was missed.

"Belief" requires an object - identifying as anything beyond 'I AM' already requires this.
Truth is not an object, it is something one lives in.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Well, that's a nice story. Where did you get that information? But, nevertheless, isn't your God omnipotent? If an omnipotent God allows a cherub, great or otherwise, to become so evil that he messes with people thousands of years later, that doesn't say much for your omnipotent God.

Your omnipotent God could zap Satan/Lucifer out of existence. But He doesn't. Therefore He is the cause of Original Sin and Continuing Sin.

I doubt you would allow fire ants to keep biting your kids when they played in your backyard. If you didn't get rid of them, who should your kids blame, the fire ants or you?

Where did you get that from, As I never said nor do I support the idea that God is all knowing.
As there is no where in the Bible/scriptures that supports nor teaches the idea that God as being all knowing.
That's man's teachings that say, God is all knowing.
The same as man's teachings well say about the Rapture, but there is no where in the Bible that teaches anything about a Rapture.
But there is in the Bible/ scriptures that God is against those who teach people that they will be raptured ( fly ) away to save their soul

Ezekiel 13:20---"Wherefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith you there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that you hunt to make them fly"

 

[9-18-1]

The three exterior are 666. The interior is 703. You can't even remember your own diagram.

Correct: three exterior are 666, center is 703, consistent with what I stated: the three exterior are smaller. I never indicated an equilateral triangle anywhere.

The graphic was just meant to demonstrate removing 666x3 leaving the 703, which is the same as like the original 'the Adam' and Eve.

It is also a word:

מסגרת = framework/structure

which is the framework/structure (703) that exists independent of 666x3: 'mark of the beast' and is equivalent to Adam and Eve in a garden in perpetuity. Only when the mark enters in the psychology/heart/behavior does death begin, and we all have our own marks according to how far away we are from the framework/structure of the Edenic state.

How that happens is written in Genesis, but it requires binah/chokmah - understanding and wisdom.

The picture clearly shows four equilateral triangles. If the picture does not represent what you are trying to demonstrate, then why did you post it?

I think you're focusing too much on the picture (which is not mine anyways, as pointed out) and not what the implications are: it is easier to understand if one forgets the picture entirely, it was just a visual aid.

 

[wellwisher]

Original sin is connected to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is symbolic of law. Law differentiates behavior and teaches us good versus evil. This lesson is reinforced, by social conditioning. We get negative reinforcement; punishment, when evil is done, and positive reinforcement; pat on the back, if you follow the rules of good. This helps to engrain knowledge of good and evil.

Original sin is connected to an underlying legal assumption, that we are all potential sinners, and therefore everyone is placed under the law, even if you are honest and never break the law. For example, even if you never speed on the highway, and never plan to, you are still under the speed law, as though you are the same as a sinner who speeds all the time.

Original sin is connected to an assumption used for law enforcement. Those who enforce the law, do not know, who is who, in terms of the good and the evil. They do not know how to divide the law based only on need. Therefore, everyone has to play, as though everyone is a sinner; worse case scenario. This is original sin. Even the sinless are given a criminal tattoo.

The story of Adam and Eve was different from this. God is omniscient and he knew in advance Adam and Eve would sin. God created the prohibition to expedite a change in human behavior; law, that was needed for the next stage of conscious evolution. He only made the law, do not eat of the Tree of Knowledge, only for Adam and Eve. There is no place it says he made the law for all creatures in paradise. God made the law specific to his needs to those, who he knew, would sin. He did did not assume all creation was suspect; had original sin. He made the prohibition only for two people who he knew would sin. It is perfect law.

With law, everyone is placed under the law, even before they do anything. This is same as assuming sin is inevitable for all. Original sin is implicit of the assumption of innate sin, even before it happens. It is similar to a racist assumption for the human race we all stemmed from the criminals Adam and Eve; blood line or DNA. This is irrational. Faith does not assume anything up front, for those who live by faith.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

Ezekiel 13:20---"Wherefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith you there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that you hunt to make them fly"

Just a small point FoC... when you see "Behold" in the bible, it means there's gematria in the text written after it. Its also one of the reasons why Ezekiel sounds a bit barmy. He uses a LOT of gematria.

 

[dybmh]

Then why are you still listening?



That would be Judaism - which I reject. I don't appeal to any authority as you do. However, I will link you to a mystic who I agree with.



You can't know it unless you understand it inside of yourself. See, Canaanites are scapegoaters. They try to externalize, externalize etc. They will appropriate all things satan as forces acting from/on the outside rather than the inside.

This is backwards, just as Judaism and Islam are having been derived from Canaanite practices that do exactly that: export all of the evil onto a single object/entity, then condemn/kill it.

Where do you think the idea for Jesus came from? A Canaanite human sacrifice to absolve the sins of the entire planet, and therefor to deny Jesus one is denounced?

Why the f*ck do you think binah is UNDERSTANDING? Have you read the book of Job?

It's like you only think in terms of facts (left hemisphere/image) but never employ the implications/meaning (right hemisphere/likeness). Jesus said you have to cast your net to the right for a reason.

Take it from someone else:

Now understand than when suffering occurs (ie. satan) it is as a result of not being in truth. Look back at the diagram. It is very simple: in the heavens above, earth below, waters below that, when there is anything persisting that causes suffering, that is satan (ie. psychology, emotion, behavior).

Each has their own binds, therefor each has their own satan. Moving from a place of untruth to truth is the same thing as releasing the binds, which requires understanding that satan is the "belief" in something as being god, when in fact it is not.

What does satan make people "believe" according to the Abrahamic mythology? This is yet another (add it to the mountain) reason why:

"BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE.



Yes - I have a Canaanite-type trying to "dump" their own "belief"-based contentions on me, but they perceive it as me being based in "belief" whereas they "believe" their contentions are sound.

Also the gematria of it is 666 - a reference I think was missed.

"Belief" requires an object - identifying as anything beyond 'I AM' already requires this.
Truth is not an object, it is something one lives in.

That's a lot of words.

But I asked you if you have any evidence to support the claim that you **know** what satan is.

Do you have any evidence at all?

I 'know' what satan is and/or describes:

How do u know anything about satan?

Is there anymore evidence besides the diagram?

 

[9-18-1]

Original sin is connected to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is symbolic of law. Law differentiates behavior and teaches us good versus evil. This lesson is reinforced, by social conditioning. We get negative reinforcement; punishment, when evil is done, and positive reinforcement; pat on the back, if you follow the rules of good. This helps to engrain knowledge of good and evil.

This is good - if 'law' is taken to be unchanging. As such when one is not in accordance with this law, however one is themselves internally polarized (ie. collapsed into a "I am good fighting against evil) but misappropriates this polarization as having an "outside" origin, the person is in ignorance.

Scapegoating = ignorance (Canaanite; Cain; tiller of the soil)
Ignorance = Suffering (war, disease, death etc.)

Original sin is connected to an underlying legal assumption, that we are all potential sinners, and therefore everyone is placed under the law, even if you are honest and never break the law. For example, even if you never speed on the highway, and never plan to, you are still under the speed law, as though you are the same as a sinner who speeds all the time.

This is good.

Original sin is connected to an assumption used for law enforcement. Those who enforce the law, do not know, who is who, in terms of the good and the evil. They do not know how to divide the law based only on need. Therefore, everyone has to play, as though everyone is a sinner; worse case scenario. This is original sin. Even the sinless are given a criminal tattoo.

Reconcile with scapegoating.

The story of Adam and Eve was different from this. God is omniscient and he knew in advance Adam and Eve would sin. God created the prohibition to expedite a change in human behavior; law, that was needed for the next stage of conscious evolution. He only made the law, do not eat of the Tree of Knowledge, only for Adam and Eve. There is no place it says he made the law for all creatures in paradise. God made the law specific to his needs to those, who he knew, would sin. He did did not assume all creation was suspect; had original sin. He made the prohibition only for two people who he knew would sin. It is perfect law.

Different take: God gave Adam the choice whether or not to own up to his own fault, or try to blame it on the woman. Adam choose to blame it on the woman: this is the 'fall'. God had brought the woman to man because God defines something as objectively GOOD "It is NOT GOOD for man to be ALONE." Therefor if one is to obey God, they must obey that it is not good for man to be alone, because God has defined this Itself. Whether or not it is 'true' begs each "man" to test it: what do I do with the woman? Blame/shame her, or take responsibility for ones own action?

Look at Islam. Who is blamed if a woman is raped?
See the backwards/upside-down nature?
See the original sin manifest on the planet?

And the Muslims "believe" Moses (who did not actually exist as a Hebrew man) was a prophet of God, and Moses "received" Torah. This first story is in Torah. How closely does the religion of Islam adhere to the Edenic state?

How many wives did Muhammad have?
Is Muhammad regarded as infallible?
What happens when one is critical of Muhammad?
Define 'idol worship'.
Is the Qur'an the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of God?
If no; what are the implications of all of this?
Define 'gravity' (of a situation).
Define 'humanitarian crisis'.

Etc.

Islam is a humanitarian crisis, and if I need to, I'll argue for humanity (whatever is left of it) that Islam is necessarily satanic; or, that Islam is satanic is a necessarily true statement.

I can do it with nothing else but the first book of Moses: ironically the very book Muslims "believe" in but do not know.

With law, everyone is placed under the law, even before they do anything. This is same as assuming sin is inevitable for all. Original sin is implicit of the assumption of innate sin, even before it happens. It is similar to a racist assumption for the human race we all stemmed from the criminals Adam and Eve; blood line or DNA. This is irrational. Faith does not assume anything up front, for those who live by faith.

Good point - that Adam and Eve are historical people is immediately scapegoating and leads to racism. This all leads to idol worship.

I am still questioning if there is a definite relationship between 'idol worship' and 'scapegoating'. It is almost a certainty to me, but still contemplating.

 

[dybmh]

You can't even remember your own diagram.

Important note: It's not his diagram. It's plagiarized copywrited material unless 9-18-1 is Leo Tavares.

The diagram is lifted off a website promoting a belief system called:

hyperlink >>> Mathematical Monotheism

 

[9-18-1]

That's a lot of words.

But I asked you if you have any evidence to support the claim that you **know** what satan is.

Do you have any evidence at all?

Your standard of evidence is limited by your own prejudices (against me). I have attempted to use different creative ways to have you understand where you are going wrong, but it is of no consequence: you are demanding a standard of evidence you have not applied to the precepts in/of Judaism in which you "believe" - taking this "belief" as ones own identity and protecting/defending it at all costs. The first manifestation of this is "you don't know what I believe or don't believe". That is your "belief".

"BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE"

How do u know anything about satan?

Is there anymore evidence besides the diagram?

I know it the same way you can know it, but choose not to: understand your own binds as I understand mine. Satan is not "outside" anywhere, it is just as much inside of you as it is inside of me. I can not comprehend your binds (ie. the sources of them) but I can see how they manifest. That is the expression: psychology/emotion/habitual. I tried to use the Abram story to remind you that you must detach from all emotions, but your taking offense to "here comes the Jew" set you off, and I still wonder whether or not that is what this is all about.

In any event, what you are asking of me to provide "evidence" for is you, in you, and of you, and exemplified but your inability to keep trying to seek the answer on the outside.

I explained I know what satan is - but you have to know where to look for it. Not from me - inside yourself.

I apply that standard to myself: I comprehend my own binds. That is why I stated: I do not "blame" anyone else for my suffering. I do, however, know that women are not treated properly on this planet.

So if someone calls me a name, I don't suffer that. I know what I am, and why they do it. Just in the same way I know what satan is and how it acts on people.

 

[9-18-1]

It was intended as an insult.

Correction: it was taken as an insult.

 

[dybmh]

Correction: it was taken as an insult.

I didn't take it as an insult.

So what was the intention?

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

There's also a video about it on youtube. It impresses the yahoos.