Again it doesn't mean we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater either. — 3017amen

:rofl:

You make so much sense to me!

are you saying that it's prudent to have eatin from the tree of knowledge in order to gain wisdom and the like, or are you saying ignorance is bliss? — 3017amen

I am saying that one cannot be a decent human being without knowledge of good and evil, which is basically the knowledge of everything as everything is subject to the adjectives of good and or evil.

A & E chose wisely and perhaps that is why Christians sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to god's [plan.

Christians are conflicted on this as they call what is necessary to god's plan good, yet still call what A & E did a fall.

Stupid is as stupid thinks.

Regards
DL

It makes better sense for humans to recognize their finitude and seek Revelation in this case through Christianity. — 3017amen

Why should anyone seek what is shown to be a satanic genocidal god?

Should people not seek a good god?

Regards
DL

everything is subject to the adjectives of good and or evil. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

How about a tree? Is a tree good or bad?

Why not focus more energy on an interpersonal /inspirational relationship with The Man called Jesus. — 3017amen

Because Christianity has tied Jesus to Yahweh which makes Jesus party to the genocide of man in Noah's days.

Jesus himself is shown as having really poor morals.
Just look at his no divorce and substitutional punishment policies.

Both of those are satanic.

As a Gnostic Christian, I use one of the Jesus' shown in scriptures but you will not see the church quote that one.

Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught.

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Allan Watts explain those quotes in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

Your misinterpretation of the Bible is one reason why some people say that only adults should be allowed to read it. It is a richly complex book, and the uninitiated, unguided often make a hash out of it. — Bitter Crank

Especially when one is fool enough to read a myth literally.

Regards
DL

1. We lack a complete knowledge of "good and evil" — TheMadFool

I do not agree with this.

Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;

I can almost guarantee that our morals are better than bible gods and that like 70 odd % of the population, we begin our moral sense with the Golden Rule. Most other begin with a variant of it.

Regards
DL

The creation story is a great piece; just don't take it literally. — Bitter Crank

Any who do miss the moral of the story.

Note that the Jews see our elevation which Christianity sees a fall.

Jews are correct while Christians are conflicted as they sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to god's plan.

Regards
DL

The problem is - that denies free will. — Shamshir

What free will could A & E have when they did not know anything of good and evil?

To make a free willed choice and not a coin flip, one must know what one is choosing from. Right?

You cannot order lunch without knowing what is on the menu. Right?

A & E could not even desire to choose without knowledge of what they were choosing.

Regards
DL

How do you understand the fall of man in a different way? — TheMadFool

Try the original/better thinking.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/20/comparative-theodicy/
‘Instead of the Fall of man (in the sense of humanity as a whole), Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants’."

Regards
DL

So I say quit waving the Fundy flag judging mankind and make an educated renewed paradigm. Isn't it simpler to say something along the lines of " the interpretation of the allegory is that we are not perfect beings". — 3017amen

Yes, it would be quite simplistic to take your view, given that the moral of the story is that we are perfect and evolving to a more perfect state at all times.

We are always doing the best we can withy what we have and can demonstrate that we are living in the best of all possible world, --- given the past that got us here, --- and that this is the only possible world.

Regards
DL

How about a tree? Is a tree good or bad? — TheMadFool

Show which tree and where it is growing.

In your driveway is evil but in your back yard, it could be good.

Do try harder as I do not write anything that does not logically compute.

Refute or accept.

Regards
DL

What free will could A & E have when they did not know anything of good and evil? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

They started from a blank state - meaning no bias, meaning they were truly free.

To make a free willed choice and not a coin flip, one must know what one is choosing from. Right? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Wrong. To make a free willed choice, one must merely choose.

You cannot order lunch without knowing what is on the menu. Right? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You can - and you'll be informed whether it is or isn't available.

A & E could not even desire to choose without knowledge of what they were choosing. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Then how were they tempted? Because they could.

And that's the story.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Yea, but this term, "image" has always bothered me in Abrahamic scripture, at least as it is conveyed in English. The term ought to be "likeness".

"Image" denotes looks, whereas "likeness" denotes character or, maybe better stated, one's nature as a being. Its the difference between "wear what JC wore" and "be like JC in spirit", for one hypothetical example.

You have interesting things to say but please note the following: — TheMadFool

I’m well aware of the traditional doctrine - I was raised Catholic, thank you.

I disagree with the standard interpretation. I think that if you read it without assuming the authors, church or doctrine actually know anything for certain about what ‘God’ is or how the concept relates to humanity, the Book lends itself to surprisingly astute observations about the human experience.

Hello GCB! I see that you are a little upset, from what I can infer from your posts to me (& other's).

I'm intrigued with Gnosticism. I propose to take that same level of energy and use it to help those of us who wish to raise the bar, and maybe tweak some of those aforementioned doctrine's, dogma's, precept's and/or paradigm's if you will.

That being said, as a Christian Existentialist I have come to believe Christianity does not devote enough apologetic's to spirituality. Accordingly, what is your take? In history, do you feel that church politics overruled the value of what Gnosticism had?

Obviously you are part of the spiritual realm often referred to as the collective consciousness. Please share your thoughts on, if we had a do-over, what would YOU do differently?

They started from a blank state - meaning no bias, meaning they were truly free. — Shamshir

Not when Satan or the talking serpent is there with a power that god gave her to deceive the whole world.

Or do you think the serpent had no role in Eden? Was she just a useless character?

Wrong. To make a free willed choice, one must merely choose. — Shamshir

So a coin toss as they knew not what they were choosing.

You can - and you'll be informed whether it is or isn't available. — Shamshir

Another coin toss.

Then how were they tempted? Because they could. — Shamshir

You indicated that Satan had no role. Did she or didn't she and if she did, what role?

Regards
DL

"Image" denotes looks, whereas "likeness" denotes character or, maybe better stated, one's nature as a being. Its the difference between "wear what JC wore" and "be like JC in spirit", for one hypothetical example. — javra

I can agree with this and accept it as an decent analogy.

Regards
DL

the Book lends itself to surprisingly astute observations about the human experience. — Possibility

Yes, including the fact that humans want a powerful god and not a moral one.

That is why they choose to follow a genocidal moral monster instead of seeking a good god.

Regards
DL

Hello GCB! I see that you are a little upset, from what I can infer from your posts to me (& other's). — 3017amen

Upset, no. Disappointed, yes.
I hate to see people with I.Q.s and morals that are lower than plant life.

what would YOU do differently? — 3017amen

I think that the literal reading of myths was the worst mistake Christianity ever made. They became idol worshipers instead of the perpetual seekers after god that Jesus preached.

Christianity should have followed it's older and wiser esoteric teachings and not accepted a genocidal prick as a god. Christians end in calling evil good.

Gnostic Christianity chose morals over power while Christians have accepted an immoral prick for a god.

Have a bit of history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

Regards
DL

The Bible was inspired by God but it's a human construct right? — 3017amen

One cannot honestly preach or teach as truth what isn't known for sure, plus the divine inspiration behind Genesis is just plain wrong, as Genesis is even the polar opposite of what was found.

While true the Saviour is here for redemption purposes subsequent to the fall, it doesn't explain the initial judgement that we were supposedly born into. — 3017amen

Same for "Saviour" being truth and fact as being divine.

“The preachers claim ‘perhaps’ as fact and truth.”

Their ingrained beliefs the priests’ duly preach,
As if notions were truth and fact to teach.
Oh, cleric, repent; at least say, ‘Have faith’;
Yet, of unknowns ne’er shown none can e’er reach.

Or say 'maybe' or 'perhaps' or 'I hope' or 'I wish' instead of that it is truth and fact for sure for all. Or 'faith', which even the churches use as an honest word, but, then, of course, go beyond it to claim truth in practice, right and left. Yeah, I know, they want what they want and they want all to do the same, yet there may be children or unsuspecting adults present.

Not when Satan or the talking serpent is there with a power that god gave her to deceive the whole world. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Irrelevant. A natural consequence of their blank state free will is that they could be deceived. No bias, no prejudice.

So a coin toss as they knew not what they were choosing. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Coin toss or not - a choice is a choice.

You indicated that Satan had no role. Did she or didn't she and if she did, what role? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

As far as Edem is concerned, the title Satan is not present.

Name the three origins of the Edem story, or stop spitting.

Name the three origins of the Edem story, or stop spitting. — Shamshir

It is well known that the Sumerian and Egyptian myths were plagiarized for the bible. That mekes your request irrelevant as I am dealing with the biblical myth.

Regards
DL

Coin toss or not - a choice is a choice. — Shamshir

I would expect that from a fool.

Regards
DL

Egyptian accounts are irrelevant in the context of Genesis.

You fail. Go to an actual museum, instead of loitering around the forum.

I share in some of both your thought processes', however, I only have time to take issue with one element.

In Christianity there is a conscious phenomenon called Revelation. In keeping with the notion of volition/volitional existent beings, to choose as Pascal did to spiritually accept a higher ideal in order to gain wisdom...is that not a virtue?

Are you negating the benefits of such?

I can unequivocally state, but not prove to you, that transformation and revelation exists in consciousness. (Being in the engineering field and a musician), I've tried to make sense out of both sides of my brain viz. our existential existence, and agree we are logically barred from a cosmologic worldly vision. And so both of you seem to think, as I, that Jesus is the better model to follow?

Can we can agree that Jesus was a Pacifist?

Can we agree he would not endorse extremism (both politically far right or far left) or otherwise in Religion?

Cheers. FYI, as religions go, I'm a fan of Gnosticism. And am a bit peeved about the at the very least cultural genocide of the Gnostics after the Council of Nicea. I'll be trying to stick out of this debate, though.

I'm a fan of Gnosticism. — javra

All moral people will give the ancient Gnostic Christians points for putting morality at the top of their list for their god and calling out Yahweh for the vile demiurge he is.

All who idol worship Yahweh are idolizing genocide and a satanic god.

Regards
DL

I can unequivocally state, but not prove to you — 3017amen

Halfway to honesty, but better not to imply that there is no doubt as in that the truth is for sure. A 'maybe' would be best.

There was a Big Bang. (not honest)

Maybe there was a Big Bang, because everything is moving outward, but we cannot see anything before 380,000 years because all was opaque.

Yes, I know, for invisible realms it really gets tougher, as the "maybe's" have even less support than the science example above..

Can we can agree that Jesus was a Pacifist?

Can we agree he would not endorse extremism (both politically far right or far left) or otherwise in Religion? — 3017amen

No.

Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.

Luke 19:27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.

Qur'an 8:7 "Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: `Wipe the infidels out to the last.'"

That Jesus seems to be quite extreme.

Then again, that is the Rome created Jesus. Not the more eastern mystic Jesus that I follow.

My Jesus is not a pacifist although my founders were and look at how easily the inquisitions wiped them out. If Christianity ever thought Jesus a pacifist, they sure did not follow his ways.

Regards
DL