Who fell in Eden? Man or God?

[French Patriot]

Who fell in Eden? Man or God?

 

Christians see a fall for man in Eden while the Jews see it as where man was elevated.

 

I see it as where, thanks to God’s murder by neglect of Adam and Eve, as where God fell. Adam and Eve would have lived much longer if God had not locked away the tree of life.

 

Common sense from a simple reading of Genesis, where man’s eyes were open, knowing oneself as naked as Gods and developing a moral sense, tells us that it would be seen as good for man and not a fall. They have become as Gods in the knowing of good and evil.

 

I see a clear rise for improved man and a fall for a murdering God.

 

Do you see as the Jews do, Original Virtue, --- or as Christians do, Original Sin, or as I do with God bringing death to earth with Original Murder?

 

Regards

DL

[JamesHackerMP]

Isn't this the second thread you have posted just like this?

First of all, God--if he's a supreme, omniscient and omnipotent being--already knew the outcome. He knew exactly what he was doing by planting the tree of knowledge of good and evil right smack-dab in the middle of the garden and told Adam and Eve never to touch it.

Think of God as a couple of parents who are about to take a weekend trip, leaving their two teenage children to have the house for themselves. They drop a couple of $20's on the kitchen table so they can order a few pizzas. There is a liquor cabinet mom and dad don't want the kids to get into. Father warns the two teenagers that it would be very naughty of them to get into it and says quite sternly, "no parties or alcohol while we're gone." And since he trusts them he leaves the key to said liquor cabinet, smack dab in plain view.

Any idiot, especially people who have young adult children, knows the result: before the car pulls out of the driveway, brother and sister call their friends (who call all of their friends), order a few pizzas, the liquor cabinet is opened, and a wild party ensues. Father shouldn't at all be surprised when he and Mother get home and the place is a train wreck.

Do you really think God actually trusted Adam and Eve? Do you think he was actually surprised when they ate from the tree he specifically told them not to eat from? Father did it on purpose. He gave them the key to the liquor cabinet deliberately, because he knew exactly what they were going to do with it. Man was already created exactly like that, to sin. You can't fall when you're already there.

God had already given them a moral sense, they already possessed the ability to sin. I fail to see how you can boil it down to one or the other. I know you gave us a choice between one or the other, but I've never quite believed that Adam and Eve didn't know what they were doing. So there was no "fall", by God or by Man.

Original Murder, on the other hand: I think you need to develop that point a bit more before I can comment on it. Man sometimes has to learn the hard way--like getting expelled from Eden because He/She fucked up.

Edited May 21, 2018 by JamesHackerMP

[French Patriot]

41 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Isn't this the second thread you have posted just like this?

The other speaks to punishment for A & E. This one has other issues.

41 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

First of all, God--if he's a supreme, omniscient and omnipotent being--already knew the outcome. He knew exactly what he was doing by planting the tree of knowledge of good and evil right smack-dab in the middle of the garden and told Adam and Eve never to touch it.

Think of God as a couple of parents who are about to take a weekend trip, leaving their two teenage children to have the house for themselves. They drop a couple of $20's on the kitchen table so they can order a few pizzas. There is a liquor cabinet mom and dad don't want the kids to get into. Father warns the two teenagers that it would be very naughty of them to get into it and says quite sternly, "no parties or alcohol while we're gone." And since he trusts them he leaves the key to said liquor cabinet, smack dab in plain view.

Any idiot, especially people who have young adult children, knows the result: before the car pulls out of the driveway, brother and sister call their friends (who call all of their friends), order a few pizzas, the liquor cabinet is opened, and a wild party ensues. Father shouldn't at all be surprised when he and Mother get home and the place is a train wreck.

I hear you. It starts to sound like a set up to me as well.

41 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Do you really think God actually trusted Adam and Eve? Do you think he was actually surprised when they ate from the tree he specifically told them not to eat from? Father did it on purpose. He gave them the key to the liquor cabinet deliberately, because he knew exactly what they were going to do with it. Man was already created exactly like that, to sin. You can't fall when you're already there.

No to all ?s and I agree with the rest.

41 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:



God had already given them a moral sense, they already possessed the ability to sin.

I do not agree with this bit. I agree that as natural animals we do indeed have the ability to sin. I do not think we can evolve properly without sinning, in the sense that we must compete and thus create victims/losers who would think evil has befallen them. But spiritually and intellectually, without the knowledge of good and evil, we would not have a moral sense and would be legally under the rule of mens rea which states that without evil intent, no one can be convicted of a crime/sin.

 

41 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I fail to see how you can boil it down to one or the other. I know you gave us a choice between one or the other, but I've never quite believed that Adam and Eve didn't know what they were doing. So there was no "fall", by God or by Man.

Original Murder, on the other hand: I think you need to develop that point a bit more before I can comment on it. Man sometimes has to learn the hard way--like getting expelled from Eden because He/She fucked up.

Think of the J W blood transfusion trials where parents were charged with murder when they denied blood transfusions to their children who died from that neglect. They were found guilty.

In the bible, God is shown to also kill A & E by neglect when he to denied his new children what would have kept them alive. The tree of life is analogous in this cas to the J W blood transfusion.

Do you think that the term murder by neglect applies here to God?

Regards

DL

P.S. Even if you do not agree, good to meet a thinking mind.

Edited May 21, 2018 by French Patriot

[JamesHackerMP]

Thank you that's quite flattering.

I didn't mean to say that man has some kind of 'moral instinct', simply the capability to have one, and, just the same, the capability to act immorally. There really isn't a 'moral instinct' at all, just a survival instinct. But of course, we're talking religion here not science, right? The religious view is that man has the capability to sin or to refrain from doing so.

As for God's neglect, I think I said above that Man tends to learn things the hard way. They weren't murdered by neglect in the bible, after all, they went on to sire three sons. (Somehow these three sons were the fathers of the rest of humanity, despite a lack of genetic material, but then again we're talking about religous traditions/myths, here.) It was Cain who was sentenced to wander eternally. Adam and Eve were sentenced to till the soil and eat bread. Not a terrible fate, lots of people these days till the soil and eat bread, and have for thousands of years.

J.W. blood transfusion trials? Does JW stand for Jehovah's Witnesses?

[French Patriot]

6 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Thank you that's quite flattering.

I didn't mean to say that man has some kind of 'moral instinct', simply the capability to have one, and, just the same, the capability to act immorally. There really isn't a 'moral instinct' at all, just a survival instinct. But of course, we're talking religion here not science, right? The religious view is that man has the capability to sin or to refrain from doing so.

Credit earned is credit due buddy. Take a bow.

In morality, science helps us understand why we must sin to survive. Apologies for the length of what follow.

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.

 -----------------------

Evolutionary theology.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9

 

6 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said:

As for God's neglect, I think I said above that Man tends to learn things the hard way. They weren't murdered by neglect in the bible, after all, they went on to sire three sons. (Somehow these three sons were the fathers of the rest of humanity, despite a lack of genetic material, but then again we're talking about religous traditions/myths, here.) It was Cain who was sentenced to wander eternally. Adam and Eve were sentenced to till the soil and eat bread. Not a terrible fate, lots of people these days till the soil and eat bread, and have for thousands of years.

J.W. blood transfusion trials? Does JW stand for Jehovah's Witnesses?

J W is indeed Jehovah Witness.

They reproduced for sure, but the J W analogy is a good one and if God had not locked away the tree of life, A & E would not have died. A shame you do not recognize that as murder as that is what it is for the J W withhold blood. Only a double moral standard would have us condemn man for that while not condemning God for the same basic act.

Regards

DL

 

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by French Patriot

[Goddess]

Reasoning on this pretty much made me give up on the idea of organized religion.

Tree of life was guarded by an angel with a flaming sword?  Before swords were invented.......

The Bible story of A & E seems to be that we are nothing but pawns in a giant bet between Satan and God - God bets that humans will be loyal to him under pressure and Satan bets they will not.

Having once been a JW (for most of my life) the blood transfusion issue is one that still peeves me.  When the nations around Israel were sacrificing their children to Molech, God said that such a thing never entered into his heart and Israel was not to so the same.  Yet JW's sacrifice their children to their God in the name of blood transfusions and don't see the similarity.

 

[French Patriot]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Reasoning on this pretty much made me give up on the idea of organized religion.

Tree of life was guarded by an angel with a flaming sword?  Before swords were invented.......

The Bible story of A & E seems to be that we are nothing but pawns in a giant bet between Satan and God - God bets that humans will be loyal to him under pressure and Satan bets they will not.

Having once been a JW (for most of my life) the blood transfusion issue is one that still peeves me.  When the nations around Israel were sacrificing their children to Molech, God said that such a thing never entered into his heart and Israel was not to so the same.  Yet JW's sacrifice their children to their God in the name of blood transfusions and don't see the similarity.

 

I feel the same way on organized religions.

I do see some value in local churches thanks to the good social work that some do but to kowtow to some far away regime is foolish. All they want is cash and slaved adherents as is quite apparent with the Popes latest appeal for adherents and their cash.

 Regards

DL

[Goddess]

Have you read "Jehovah Unmasked" by Nathaniel J. Merritt?  You likely have.  

[French Patriot]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

Have you read "Jehovah Unmasked" by Nathaniel J. Merritt?  You likely have.  

Actually, no.

I know enough of them, as well as all the mainstream supernaturally based religions, to disrespect them all.

The knowledge and wisdom people centered religions are the only ones I favor. They do not need to lie to their adherents like the supernaturally based religions. 

Regards

DL

 

 

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

Actually, no.

I know enough of them, as well as all the mainstream supernaturally based religions, to disrespect them all.

The knowledge and wisdom people centered religions are the only ones I favor. They do not need to lie to their adherents like the supernaturally based religions. 

Regards

DL

 

 

Jehovah Unmasked explains the Gnostic version of the creation account.

[French Patriot]

44 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Jehovah Unmasked explains the Gnostic version of the creation account.

That would be from our myths.

Not our beliefs.

Our myths where written to put against the Christian myths when we all knew that all the Gods were myths.

Have a look at how intelligently people sought the best rules and laws to live by before foolish literal reading of myths began.

http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

This next link speaks of the aftermath.

 

Most of what you will hear of Gnostic Christianity are distortions. We lost the God wars and the winners wrote the history to suit their vile agenda.

Here is how well we were doing before the Inquisitions and the end of freedom of religions imposed by Christianity.

Regards

DL

[Goddess]

I have a friend who is a Gnostic Bishop with a Sanctuary in CA.  I like gnosticism.  It's closest to what I understand.  

[French Patriot]

17 hours ago, Goddess said:

I have a friend who is a Gnostic Bishop with a Sanctuary in CA.  I like gnosticism.  It's closest to what I understand.  

Most people just inherit their traditional family Gods.

Gnostic Christians choose to be so which shows they have a seeker's mind set and not an idol worshiping mind set.

It is unfortunate that I do not have a local church or I would break my loner ways and support it.

Toronto is coming along but it is not quite there yet and still too far from Ottawa for me to make that trip regularly.

With most revealed religions on the wane, and with more atheists starting to replace them, and given the vile reputation that mainstream religions are fostering, there might never be a Gnostic church in my area.

The Gnostic Christian doctrine and ideology is hard to beat though so time will tell.

Regards

DL

 

[Michael Hardner]

 

Quote

a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=gnosticism+definition

Still sounds like more Lord of the Rings pap to me.  Jesus was a philosopher not a religionist.  He wasn't founding a religion but a way of life within whatever religion you have, which for him was Judaism.

Holy books and ancient legends are mere historical artificacts, not containers of scientific truths.  

 

[Goddess]

28 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

 Jesus was a philosopher not a religionist.  He wasn't founding a religion but a way of life within whatever religion you have, which for him was Judaism.

Holy books and ancient legends are mere historical artificacts, not containers of scientific truths.  

 

Absolutely.

Christianity almost immediately became a religion of believing and obeying endless requirements.  It has virtually nothing to do with really transforming yourself or becoming a better person.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Christianity almost immediately became a religion of believing and obeying endless requirements.  It has virtually nothing to do with really transforming yourself or becoming a better person.

I disagree.  The golden rule requires Christians to do better, to treat others better: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Jesus was a philosopher not a religionist. 

Definitely amongst the greatest natural born humanists the West has produced.

 

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The golden rule requires Christians to do better, to treat others better: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” 

Yep... The E=mc2 that describes everything one needs to get along.

[French Patriot]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

https://www.google.ca/search?q=gnosticism+definition

Still sounds like more Lord of the Rings pap to me.  Jesus was a philosopher not a religionist.  He wasn't founding a religion but a way of life within whatever religion you have, which for him was Judaism.

Holy books and ancient legends are mere historical artificacts, not containers of scientific truths.  

 

I agree with your view of Jesus. So does Gnostic Christianity. That Jesus had no supernatural belief in his philosophy/ideology. Neither does Gnostic Christianity. Jesus was his own man and his own God and so are we.

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=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_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.

 

I urge you to also see that Freke link above.

 

Regards

DL

[French Patriot]

29 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I disagree.  The golden rule requires Christians to do better, to treat others better: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” 

That rule was ancient before Christianity used it.

If Christianity lived by it, then the word Inquisition would not exist.

The only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

Regards

DL

 

[Michael Hardner]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Definitely amongst the greatest natural born humanists the West has produced.

I suppose that is why there has been a 2000-year effort to claim him for the other side.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

1) That rule was ancient before Christianity used it.

2) The only good Christian is a Gnostic Christian.

 

1) Rabbi Hillel wrote  "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."  Jesus one-upped him.

2) Still don't know what Gnosticism is.  If adding magic to good humanism makes it better somehow, then great but I don't agree.

[eyeball]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I suppose that is why there has been a 2000-year effort to claim him for the other side.

 Or deny his prescription - like trying to put a genie back in a bottle.

[JamesHackerMP]

God certainly deserves his share of the blame. Like I said, he knew the outcome. Why? Because as you pointed out, he created man to sin just like that. It was his choice to create a species (probably many species) with the ability to sin. He wanted Adam and Eve to grab the fruit (or the key to the liquor cabinet as I put it).

You wrote above of God's rather harsh treatment of his own son. I thought the Christians believed that it's a trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit are the same thing). So really, God, if he made himself incarnate on Earth, was really allowing his body a sort of passive aggressive suicide, right?

Then again, there was that rather curious incident from the OT where he tells Abraham to sacrifice his own son and then pulls Abraham's hand back at the last minute, oh, just kidding, I just wanted to see if you would do it.

[French Patriot]

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

1) Rabbi Hillel wrote  "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."  Jesus one-upped him.

2) Still don't know what Gnosticism is.  If adding magic to good humanism makes it better somehow, then great but I don't agree.

Neither would I if it did.

If there was anything supernatural or magic in Gnostic Christianity, I would never have taken on the label.

I took it on because I saw that the only good Christian was a Gnostic Christian.

That has been the case from the tome Christianity usurped what I think were close to original Gnostic Christian holy books from the time we called ourselves Chrestians. Unfortunately this far up the time line and lacking original text, I may never be able to prove it.

Do try to remember that we lost the God wars and the Christians lied a lot about what we believed.

This link speaks too that.

 

Regards

DL

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, French Patriot said:

1) If there was anything supernatural or magic in Gnostic Christianity, I would never have taken on the label.

2) I took it on because I saw that the only good Christian was a Gnostic Christian.

1) Yes, but I posted this definition: "Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being,"

That's two supernatural beings to start out with...

2) Look.  I looked for a definition and found it.  What's your definition ?  Should be able to provide that in one paragraph, I would think.  I will even read it, which is more of my attention than I give to street preachers.

"Trust me, this religion is GREAT" isn't an effective recruiting tool to those who have heard it in the past and passed on by.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Michael Hardner