Is the ongoing punishment of Adam and Eve justifiable?

[gaffo]

That is what Christianity called the events in Eden, so yes, Original Sin.

The Jews read it as Original Virtue and I am not sure why Christianity reversed the moral of the story from our elevation to our fall.

Perhaps you have an idea about that.

Regards
DL

I'm not the one to consult in this area.

PhilX

??

Common sense is all you need to apply to the myth.

Regards
DL

yep

[Greatest I am]

Christian dogma says that Adam and Eve were murdered by neglect when God locked away the tree of life.

not so. Christian dogma says that Adam/Eve sinned due to that other tree, and neglects to know of the other tree.

dogma equates the Tree of Knowledge with the Tree of Life, and in fact compounds the confusion by claiming the latter is in fact Jesus Christ (where that leaves the Jews - who knows).

What killed A & E if not the tree of life being locked away?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

[

commen sense is from a simple reading of Genesis - where "eyes were open, knowing oneself as naked "as Gods"".

clearly a Rise - not a fall.

I agree.

The only fall was the murderer. God.

Regards
DL

[Eodnhoj7]

Is the ongoing punishment of Adam and Eve justifiable?

Christian dogma says that Adam and Eve were murdered by neglect when God locked away the tree of life.

Eve was deceived by Satan and the talking serpent that God put in Eden. This caused the Original Sin concept that Christianity calls a happy fault and necessary to God’s plan.

Was gaining an education and a moral sense, which basically is what gaining knowledge is, justifiable to you?

Can you see yourself punishing your children for gaining an education and a moral sense the way God is punishing Adam and Eve to this day?

Regards
DL

If I see a tree and pull it apart to understand it, and in doing so destroy it, do I know the tree anymore?

Yes, in memory, and you gain understanding od all the trees.

What that has to do with the question is beyond me though.

Care to speak to the issues in the O.P. or explain your strange answer?

Regards
DL

The tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil represents a polarity in observation where the previous perspectives through which Adam and Eve "knew" reality was under a unity with the creator.

Eating from the tree of knowledge, metaphorically at minimum, represents the first act of "division" where knowledge and measurement existed by "tearing asunder".

Knowledge as division inevitably results in further division with any form of "unity" (that which knowledge moves towards) itself being divided, hence a polarity occurs not just within knowledge but the inherent perspective of the human condition itself...hence Adam and Eve's separation.

[Greatest I am]

If I see a tree and pull it apart to understand it, and in doing so destroy it, do I know the tree anymore?

Yes, in memory, and you gain understanding od all the trees.

What that has to do with the question is beyond me though.

Care to speak to the issues in the O.P. or explain your strange answer?

Regards
DL

The tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil represents a polarity in observation where the previous perspectives through which Adam and Eve "knew" reality was under a unity with the creator.

Eating from the tree of knowledge, metaphorically at minimum, represents the first act of "division" where knowledge and measurement existed by "tearing asunder".

Knowledge as division inevitably results in further division with any form of "unity" (that which knowledge moves towards) itself being divided, hence a polarity occurs not just within knowledge but the inherent perspective of the human condition itself...hence Adam and Eve's separation.

I see it as almost the opposite and the bible seems to agree with me more, if I am reading it right.

Before A & E ate of it and lost their innocence and were morally blind, their eyes closed as scriptures say it, they were far from God.

After they gained knowledge and the ability to make moral decisions, as scriptures say, they had their eyes opened, and then God says that they became as Gods in the knowing of good and evil.

IOW, they became closer to God than before, as you stated.

See it?

Regards
DL

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes, in memory, and you gain understanding od all the trees.

What that has to do with the question is beyond me though.

Care to speak to the issues in the O.P. or explain your strange answer?

Regards
DL

The tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil represents a polarity in observation where the previous perspectives through which Adam and Eve "knew" reality was under a unity with the creator.

Eating from the tree of knowledge, metaphorically at minimum, represents the first act of "division" where knowledge and measurement existed by "tearing asunder".

Knowledge as division inevitably results in further division with any form of "unity" (that which knowledge moves towards) itself being divided, hence a polarity occurs not just within knowledge but the inherent perspective of the human condition itself...hence Adam and Eve's separation.

I see it as almost the opposite and the bible seems to agree with me more, if I am reading it right.

Before A & E ate of it and lost their innocence and were morally blind, their eyes closed as scriptures say it, they were far from God.

After they gained knowledge and the ability to make moral decisions, as scriptures say, they had their eyes opened, and then God says that they became as Gods in the knowing of good and evil.

IOW, they became closer to God than before, as you stated.

See it?

Regards
DL

Christ's death synthesized the divide, but considering God "walked in the garden" with Adam and Eve (and appears as a man in several old testament scriptures) the fall separated Adam and Eve from God. While the separation may be viewed as unnecessary, it represents a freedom of the will God provided in the image of Man as an image of himself. Now to exert free will...does it require a poor choice? Not at all considering any extreme in itself is an absence of free will. Hence if will is to maintain itself as free, in the respect it is unified and contains no limit the taking of the fruit represents a simultaneous division of the will in man, considering perspective itself (through knowledge) manifests as an element of the will.

[Greatest I am]

being divided, hence a polarity occurs not just within knowledge but the inherent perspective of the human condition itself...hence Adam and Eve's separation.

I see it as almost the opposite and the bible seems to agree with me more, if I am reading it right.

Before A & E ate of it and lost their innocence and were morally blind, their eyes closed as scriptures say it, they were far from God.

After they gained knowledge and the ability to make moral decisions, as scriptures say, they had their eyes opened, and then God says that they became as Gods in the knowing of good and evil.

IOW, they became closer to God than before, as you stated.

See it?

Regards
DL
[/quote]
Christ's death synthesized the divide, but considering God "walked in the garden" with Adam and Eve (and appears as a man in several old testament scriptures) the fall separated Adam and Eve from God. While the separation may be viewed as unnecessary, it represents a freedom of the will God provided in the image of Man as an image of himself. Now to exert free will...does it require a poor choice? Not at all considering any extreme in itself is an absence of free will. Hence if will is to maintain itself as free, in the respect it is unified and contains no limit the taking of the fruit represents a simultaneous division of the will in man, considering perspective itself (through knowledge) manifests as an element of the will.
[/quote]

How does an Omni-present God separate himself from anything, and how does, they have become as Gods sound like a separation?

How is gaining God like knowledge a fall?

As to free will. To exercise that one must have desire to choose. Before A & E ate, they had no desire as they did not know what to choose from. See it?

Regards
DL

[Eodnhoj7]

being divided, hence a polarity occurs not just within knowledge but the inherent perspective of the human condition itself...hence Adam and Eve's separation.

I see it as almost the opposite and the bible seems to agree with me more, if I am reading it right.

Before A & E ate of it and lost their innocence and were morally blind, their eyes closed as scriptures say it, they were far from God.

Provide quotation because If I remember their eyes being closed were in regards to their "nakedness" or "vulnerability" which opens up a variety of interpretation including a "dependence on God".

After they gained knowledge and the ability to make moral decisions, as scriptures say, they had their eyes opened, and then God says that they became as Gods in the knowing of good and evil.

There eyes were open in regards to their "nakedness" if my memory serves with nakedness equating to "vulnerability/absence og God-likeness" it was a reference to mortality. The garment's of skin, some scholars equate to literal clothes, other's say that they were given "flesh" and lived as supernatural beings prior to the fall.

IOW, they became closer to God than before, as you stated.

See it?



Regards
DL

Christ's death synthesized the divide, but considering God "walked in the garden" with Adam and Eve (and appears as a man in several old testament scriptures) the fall separated Adam and Eve from God. While the separation may be viewed as unnecessary, it represents a freedom of the will God provided in the image of Man as an image of himself. Now to exert free will...does it require a poor choice? Not at all considering any extreme in itself is an absence of free will. Hence if will is to maintain itself as free, in the respect it is unified and contains no limit the taking of the fruit represents a simultaneous division of the will in man, considering perspective itself (through knowledge) manifests as an element of the will.
[/quote]

How does an Omni-present God separate himself from anything, and how does, they have become as Gods sound like a separation?

He does not necessarily seperate himself considering the same free will that we practice is strictly an extension of his, as we are his "image". All Good we do is through him and of him while all "sin"(or seperation) is not so much a thing in itself but a limit to that very same good.

How is gaining God like knowledge a fall?

"You shall become as "gods"" implies a percieved sense of seperation in the respect a plural notion is viewed. Adam and Eve where already created in his image, they were already like "God".

As to free will. To exercise that one must have desire to choose. Before A & E ate, they had no desire as they did not know what to choose from. See it?

They must be allowed to choose but that does not mean they have to choose. The trees were merely two choices that provided them not just free will but mirrored a similiar nature to that of God's nature as "being in opposition to nothingness (deficiency)."

Regards
DL
[/quote]

[Greatest I am]

First.
If I have to quote Gen 3 then we are done.

You do not seem to get what freedom of choice is so let me give you a couple of things to ponder before we get back to dialog.

This link, please start at the 30 min. mark and you will understand that A & E could not even desire to choose without the knowledge within the tree of knowledge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAJkiUHizhk

Apologies. This next is rather long.

Eve was correct in eating of the tree of knowledge and rejecting God.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

This indicates that Jesus had no choice.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

This then begs the question.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane and immoral God. That’s who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women. They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.

------------------------

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature, then the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.

Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

Regards
DL

-----------------------
Evolutionary theology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1O ... _A&index=9

[Greatest I am]

"You shall become as "gods"" implies a percieved sense of seperation in the respect a plural notion is viewed. Adam and Eve where already created in his image, they were already like "God".

I wanted to have you think of this separately and consider how Jesus uses the word brethren.

I have it in an explanation of why Gnostic Christians like me call our God, I am.

Modern Gnostic Christians name our God "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that lazy Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Here is the real way 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=alRNbes ... r_embedded

Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural.

Regards
DL

[Eodnhoj7]

"You shall become as "gods"" implies a percieved sense of seperation in the respect a plural notion is viewed. Adam and Eve where already created in his image, they were already like "God".

I wanted to have you think of this separately and consider how Jesus uses the word brethren.

I have it in an explanation of why Gnostic Christians like me call our God, I am.

Modern Gnostic Christians name our God "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that lazy Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Here is the real way 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=alRNbes ... r_embedded

Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural.

Regards
DL

The above colored and underlined sentence summarizes my point, Gnosticism want's an inherent dualism or seperation to exist between man and God. It claims "experiential" knowledge with very little of a rational base, not knowing that this experiential knowledge is akin to mysticism in various other traditions. To claim "I Am God" can only be in respect to the nature of being an extension of God himself and in this manner the "I" becomes hazy in definition.

[Greatest I am]

"You shall become as "gods"" implies a percieved sense of seperation in the respect a plural notion is viewed. Adam and Eve where already created in his image, they were already like "God".

I wanted to have you think of this separately and consider how Jesus uses the word brethren.

I have it in an explanation of why Gnostic Christians like me call our God, I am.

Modern Gnostic Christians name our God "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that lazy Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Here is the real way 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=alRNbes ... r_embedded

Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural.

Regards
DL

The above colored and underlined sentence summarizes my point, Gnosticism want's an inherent dualism or seperation to exist between man and God. It claims "experiential" knowledge with very little of a rational base, not knowing that this experiential knowledge is akin to mysticism in various other traditions. To claim "I Am God" can only be in respect to the nature of being an extension of God himself and in this manner the "I" becomes hazy in definition.

If the word God is still hazy after seeing how I defined it and how Allan Watts explained it then I have no other way of showing that God was always a man or a man speaking for some imaginary construct of his own mind.

Man is responsible for what is, not some stupid supernatural construct.

Regards
DL

[Eodnhoj7]

I wanted to have you think of this separately and consider how Jesus uses the word brethren.

I have it in an explanation of why Gnostic Christians like me call our God, I am.

Modern Gnostic Christians name our God "I am", and yes, we do mean ourselves.

You are your controller. I am mine. You represent and present whatever mind picture you have of your God or ideal human, and so do I.

The name "I Am" you might see as meaning something like, --- I think I have grown up thanks to having forced my apotheosis through Gnosis and meditation.

In Gnostic Christianity, we follow the Christian tradition that lazy Christians have forgotten that they are to do. That is, become brethren to Jesus.

That is why some say that the only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Here is the real way 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=alRNbes ... r_embedded

Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural.

Regards
DL

The above colored and underlined sentence summarizes my point, Gnosticism want's an inherent dualism or seperation to exist between man and God. It claims "experiential" knowledge with very little of a rational base, not knowing that this experiential knowledge is akin to mysticism in various other traditions. To claim "I Am God" can only be in respect to the nature of being an extension of God himself and in this manner the "I" becomes hazy in definition.

If the word God is still hazy after seeing how I defined it and how Allan Watts explained it then I have no other way of showing that God was always a man or a man speaking for some imaginary construct of his own mind.

Man is responsible for what is, not some stupid supernatural construct.

Regards
DL

Man is a supernatural construct, but this does not qualify the necessity of evil except in a manner where it can eradicate itself. In these respects a necessary evil is merely an act of generosity where the individual is allowed to seek the seperation he/she choses because forced love inhibits freewill and in itself is evil.

God always has been a man through the nature of Jesus Christ within the scriptures, where the synthesis of man's weakness during his conception merely being the beginning of taking on our deficiencies. The scriptures in the old testament point to God taking on the form of man in many respects whether through the act of "walking through the garden" or the wrestling match which resulted in the manifestation of Israel.

The pagan mysteries even point to man being the "be all end all" through the allegorical use of of archetypes as extensions of human consciousness.

Man is the beginning and end with Jesus Christ being the Pinnacle of human nature as a synthesis of Reason/Intellect/God-Father and Will/Emotion/Intuition/God-Mother/Holy-Spirit in regards to the Christian perspective with Man cycling through himself under Paganism as a movement of various forces (war/fertility/ecstacy/etc.).

[Greatest I am]

"Man is a supernatural construct,"

I disagree and if I have to tell you why then you might as well ignore me.

As to Jesus, if you only see one in the scriptures you do not know how to look.

I quoted the good one I follow who would free us from religions and their vile traditions od homophobia and misogyny while you only see the vile Rome created construct who would slave us to religions.

You like the one which the Pope now would deny individuals, while I promote the one we can all access and become.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_bvGTc6SM8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfGRN4HVrQ

That Jesus is quite immoral as shown. I would add his immoral substitutionary atonement policy as well as his no divorce for women policy.

Regards
DL

[Eodnhoj7]

"Man is a supernatural construct,"

I disagree and if I have to tell you why then you might as well ignore me.

Being "ignored" is experiential truth...but the truth is there is nothing to ignore as the gnostic philosophy is irrational under its own terms as argued above and on other threads.

As to Jesus, if you only see one in the scriptures you do not know how to look.

I quoted the good one I follow who would free us from religions and their vile traditions od homophobia and misogyny while you only see the vile Rome created construct who would slave us to religions.

You like the one which the Pope now would deny individuals, while I promote the one we can all access and become.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_bvGTc6SM8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfGRN4HVrQ

That Jesus is quite immoral as shown. I would add his immoral substitutionary atonement policy as well as his no divorce for women policy.

Regards
DL

How can he be immoral if you argue subjective experience is moral? Under those terms he is moral and the polarity of force between gnosticism and standard Christianity would require, under a relativistic Neitzchian view point (which you exhibits tendencies toward by observing the necessity of the devil), that your philosophy (under those premises) is actually immoral and contradictory.