What are people to do?

[Waterfall]

I think it is very strange that people have to wait forever to be resurrected.

Has this idea not a time limit? 1000 year? 10.000 year? 100.000 year? 1.000.000 year?

If there is no time limit then people could wait forever, right?

Would God not demand a time limit (or date) if someone were to say things like that?

When should people abandon this idea?

Lets say Satan tells Jesus that he will destroy him and Jesus respond by saying...very well...can you give me a date? When will you destroy me? Someday? Thats like forever and never? How long time should I wait for this destruction or should I say...when things do not happen then we know it was not true, so can you give me a date - 2040?

How can we tell truth from lie whitout a date?

Maybe it has nothing to do whit time...but something else.

When this happens, then...

But then we would ask about that...what has to happen? Will it happen when everybody is dead (God will raise mankind from the dead?)? Then there could go a very long time, so...

What are your thoughts about this idea?

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 47 by Waterfall]
Human beings produce oxytocin and another substance when they engage in coitus. These chemicals allow the couple to bond better so as to help them raise their offspring. Call it part of the adapative process, evolution or God; it really makes little effective difference, but to deny the power of that bond is to admit one is a sociopath. Engaging multiple partners only weakens that bond as well as the ability to bond with another person long enough to raise children. Nowadays, it isn't long enough to get the other person's name.

There is no "apple" in the Genesis account. The snake doesn't signify darkness. The serpent isn't even really a snake to begin with. The word in the Hebrew is "naXash" and means "burning one, shining one'. Serpents are also called naxashim because of the burn of their bite.

The naXash was more "subtle"(Heb. "arum") than all others, but this word in the Hebrew is the same word as the preceding verse which describes Adam and Eve as "naked". It is a homonym. The difference in meaning is due to the difference in their respective positions of innocence and evil. Adam and Eve "know" no evil and are not ashamed while the naxash knows or is "wise" or "subtle" in his knowledge of evil and is not ashamed so he questions the truth.

One could posit the birth of dualism as Eve is separated from Adam, but your post doesn't really offer anything to support these claims. The tree of knowledge is, after all; one tree which seems to suggest an advaitic interpretation. Perhaps the author was using a Hendiadys instead and pointing to a tree of knowledge of evil enjoyment

[ttruscott]

The naXash was more "subtle"(Heb. "arum") than all others, but this word in the Hebrew is the same word as the preceding verse which describes Adam and Eve as "naked". It is a homonym. The difference in meaning is due to the difference in their respective positions of innocence and evil. Adam and Eve "know" no evil and are not ashamed while the naxash knows or is "wise" or "subtle" in his knowledge of evil and is not ashamed so he questions the truth.

Please consider:
They WERE arum, `rm, but rejected that appellation and refused to be ashamed. When their eyes were opened to their sin, they saw their `rm. Eating did not change their `rm, it only made them aware of it so they could be ashamed...

[shnarkle]

The naXash was more "subtle"(Heb. "arum") than all others, but this word in the Hebrew is the same word as the preceding verse which describes Adam and Eve as "naked". It is a homonym. The difference in meaning is due to the difference in their respective positions of innocence and evil. Adam and Eve "know" no evil and are not ashamed while the naxash knows or is "wise" or "subtle" in his knowledge of evil and is not ashamed so he questions the truth.

Please consider:
They WERE arum, `rm, but rejected that appellation and refused to be ashamed. When their eyes were opened to their sin, they saw their `rm. Eating did not change their `rm, it only made them aware of it so they could be ashamed...

It sounds like you're saying that they intentionally refused to be ashamed of their nakedness. How could they reject their nakedness if they didn't know they were naked? How could they refuse to be ashamed if they didn't know they were naked? How could they know they were naked, and not know they were naked? What am I missing here?

I know you understand what you're saying, I'm just a little slow when it comes to new interpretations.

I've always looked at it as if Adam and Eve were enlightened, and aware, but after their disobedience they were no longer aware, but had to mediate reality through their intellects which told them that they could hide from God. That's what deception does to people, it makes them blind and stupid. We don't see God for the same reason, and we think God doesn't see us.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to post 48 by Waterfall]

Existence whitout thought and will?

How does a thought exist if there is no such thing as existence in the first place? Existence must be eternal in order for anything to exist, including thoughts.

Existence is an intransitive verb which requires no object. Thoughts or the will don't think or will themselves into existence especially if there's no such thing as existence to begin with.

Existence allows things like intelligence to exist which in turn results in intelligent thoughts. Of course someone has to think those thoughts, and they also can't exist without existence.

How does existence make any sence without thought and will? Can you create anything without the use of thought and will? When you write, you write because you exist, but without thought and will, you would have a big problem writing anything.

Of couse things have to exist and that is what the book tells us...from eternity there was thought, will, darkness and light. They existed.

You are just saying existence existed, right?

But the existence of what? What existed from eternity? God? Then we are talking about a being that consist of thought, will, and light.

Maybe you have another idea about God?

What do you have if you remove those things from God? Existence? Nothing?

[Waterfall]

Human beings produce oxytocin and another substance when they engage in coitus. These chemicals allow the couple to bond better so as to help them raise their offspring. Call it part of the adapative process, evolution or God; it really makes little effective difference, but to deny the power of that bond is to admit one is a sociopath. Engaging multiple partners only weakens that bond as well as the ability to bond with another person long enough to raise children. Nowadays, it isn't long enough to get the other person's name.

What are you addressing here?

http://thelightuniversal.org/page67.html

There is no "apple" in the Genesis account. The snake doesn't signify darkness. The serpent isn't even really a snake to begin with. The word in the Hebrew is "naXash" and means "burning one, shining one'. Serpents are also called naxashim because of the burn of their bite.

No, but it was a fruit, and people call the fruit an apple, so...maybe it was another fruit...does it matter?

[shnarkle]

Existence whitout thought and will?

How does a thought exist if there is no such thing as existence in the first place? Existence must be eternal in order for anything to exist, including thoughts.

Existence is an intransitive verb which requires no object. Thoughts or the will don't think or will themselves into existence especially if there's no such thing as existence to begin with.

Existence allows things like intelligence to exist which in turn results in intelligent thoughts. Of course someone has to think those thoughts, and they also can't exist without existence.

How does existence make any sence without thought and will?

It doesn't, but that doesn't negate existence. If we look at those things in the world which exist, but have no will or intelligence of their own and make no sense whatsoever; these factors do not negate their existence. Things do not have to think or will in order to exist. By the same token whatever does willingly or unwillingly think must exist, but not because they willingly or unwillingly think. One does not need to, willingly or unwillingly; think or not think in order to exist.

Can you create anything without the use of thought and will?

Yes, we all have a number of autonomous systems in our bodies which carry out these functions without thought or will, e.g. cell division, digestion etc. These all involve creation When one goes to sleep they do not dream according to their will, and while what they dream may sometimes be intelligible the dreams themselves are not willfully thought or intended.

When you write, you write because you exist, but without thought and will, you would have a big problem writing anything.

And yet i would still exist, wouldn't I? The thinker must exist in order for there to be a thought in the first place. Thoughts and ideas do not create themselves, and they must first exist in order to create anything further.

Of couse things have to exist and that is what the book tells us...

I don't know what book you're referring to. The bible doesn't make this claim.

from eternity there was thought, will, darkness and light. They existed.

No, they didn't.

You are just saying existence existed, right?

No, I'm saying existence is eternal. Things exist in the past, but not before things like space and time or the beginning of space and time. There is no such thing as a time before time, or a space outside of space. Existence must be eternal in order for the beginning to exist.

But the existence of what? What existed from eternity?

No thing existed from eternity. Sorry, I misspoke earlier. I meant to say that the verb "exist" is an intransitive verb and requires no object. There is no "what" to exist because a "what" is a thing, and all things are created. God is not a "what" or a "thing".

God? Then we are talking about a being that consist of thought, will, and light.

No, you are talking about the definition of a word (e.g. "God")which you think has a referrent. If we look to the biblical texts, or most of the texts from antiquity, they all point out that this term "God" is essentially synonymous with transcendence. Would you agree with that assessement? The bible says "there is none beside me"; "there is none like me" etc. There is nothing that can compare with God. Incomparibility and transcendence are synonymous.

Transcendence transcends anything that can be thought, articulated, experienced or understood. Transcendence transcends time, space, and existence. Therefore you are talking about an idea, and God is not an idea. Ideas about God are still just ideas. Ultimately, God cannot be defined.

All beings are created. God is not created. Therefore, God is not a being.

Maybe you have another idea about God?

Sure, I have all sorts of ideas about God, but they're just ideas. Believing ideas about God is simply just another type of atheism. Why? Because one believes in ideas, and God is not an idea.

What do you have if you remove those things from God?

You can't remove things from God. God transcends all things. Nothing can be attributed to transcendence as transcendence transcends attributions.

Existence? Nothing?

Yes, but more importantly we are left with the origin of existence. The origin should not be conflated with the beginning. Origin and beginning are synonymous with respect to things, but existence doesn't require things; things require existence.

Existence, being eternal, originates in nothing which is also eternal. If you think otherwise, then it is up to you to come up with some logical argument for the beginning of nothing. Would you agree that nothing has no beginning, or do you think nothing could begin to exist? I don't see how you could articulate the latter without violating the law of non contradiction.

[shnarkle]

Human beings produce oxytocin and another substance when they engage in coitus. These chemicals allow the couple to bond better so as to help them raise their offspring. Call it part of the adapative process, evolution or God; it really makes little effective difference, but to deny the power of that bond is to admit one is a sociopath. Engaging multiple partners only weakens that bond as well as the ability to bond with another person long enough to raise children. Nowadays, it isn't long enough to get the other person's name.

What are you addressing here?

I'm addressing what you posted: e.g.

The ancient biblical myth(7) of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is apparently symbolic of the human monogamous relationship. But this myth stems originally from one of the Youngest, who attempted during life on Earth to give an allegorical exposition of the concept of "Dualism", of Darkness and of the Light, of the life in God’s Kingdom of His first—created children - and of the fall of the Eldest. And the ancient maxim of the Church: "What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder" - or, more correctly, "no one" - applies in reality to the dual relationship to each other of God’s first created children, but in no way does it apply to human marital relationships. There is therefore no justification whatsoever for its application to human beings, except in connection with the duality(8) of the human spirit. For in the great majority of cases God has nothing to do with contracted marriages. God does not demand of human beings that they should enter into matrimony with any particular fellow human. In this respect everyone has a perfectly free choice, God makes absolutely no particular selection in this matter.

http://thelightuniversal.org/page67.html

There is no "apple" in the Genesis account. The snake doesn't signify darkness. The serpent isn't even really a snake to begin with. The word in the Hebrew is "naXash" and means "burning one, shining one'. Serpents are also called naxashim because of the burn of their bite.

No, but it was a fruit,

No, knowledge doesn't produce literal fruit. It is what is produced from this knowledge. Knowledge of carpentry produces wooden furniture, that would be the fruit of studying carpentry. Knowledge of agriculture, e.g. seed cleaning, fertilization, amending soil, cultivation, etc. produces literal fruit. Adam and Eve were not given a prohibition to refrain from tending to the garden of Eden. In fact they were explicitly told to take care of the garden.

They were told not to "eat" but how does one consume knowledge? Surely you don't eat books, do you?. No, one learns, and in many cases one learns by doing, experiencing, etc. So they are consuming what knowledge produces, in this case the knowledge of evil, which God has already pointed out to them will lead to death. In the Hebrew it says, "in dying they will die".

In other words, they were on a trajectory that led to eternal life, but in consuming knowledge of evil they were immediately set on a new trajectory of dying which ultimately leads to death.

We can see something similar in the development of life. We see all forms of life growing and getting stronger until one day a peak is reached and the trajectory begins to change direction followed by a slow or sometimes quick descent to death.

[marco]

I've always looked at it as if Adam and Eve were enlightened, and aware, but after their disobedience they were no longer aware, but had to mediate reality through their intellects which told them that they could hide from God.

That line doessn't match the circumstances of the tale; rather, they tasted the forbidden fruit and became aware, causing God to ask, rhetorically of course: ""Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

Not that it matters much what interpretation we take from the nonsense.
how they came to know of their nakedness. Enlightenment came after their unenlightened indulgence.

[ttruscott]

[Waterfall]

I'm addressing what you posted: e.g.

The ancient biblical myth(7) of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is apparently symbolic of the human monogamous relationship. But this myth stems originally from one of the Youngest, who attempted during life on Earth to give an allegorical exposition of the concept of "Dualism", of Darkness and of the Light, of the life in God’s Kingdom of His first—created children - and of the fall of the Eldest. And the ancient maxim of the Church: "What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder" - or, more correctly, "no one" - applies in reality to the dual relationship to each other of God’s first created children, but in no way does it apply to human marital relationships. There is therefore no justification whatsoever for its application to human beings, except in connection with the duality(8) of the human spirit. For in the great majority of cases God has nothing to do with contracted marriages. God does not demand of human beings that they should enter into matrimony with any particular fellow human. In this respect everyone has a perfectly free choice, God makes absolutely no particular selection in this matter.

My english is not that good, so can you explain it to me:

http://thelightuniversal.org/page67.html

Maybe you already have read the text in its context, but I do not understand your problem with it...if you have a problem? If so...what is the problem?

No, knowledge doesn't produce literal fruit. It is what is produced from this knowledge. Knowledge of carpentry produces wooden furniture, that would be the fruit of studying carpentry. Knowledge of agriculture, e.g. seed cleaning, fertilization, amending soil, cultivation, etc. produces literal fruit. Adam and Eve were not given a prohibition to refrain from tending to the garden of Eden. In fact they were explicitly told to take care of the garden.

The fruit represent something in this explanation. As do Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel and the snake. What is the problem with that?

Even the ancient myth of Adam and Eve has in it some truth, though couched in purely human form. During an earthly existence, one of the Youngest tried through this myth to convey an explanation of the origin of humanity. Adam and Eve thus symbolize the Elder and his female dual; the serpent symbolizes the alluring, attracting and binding power of Darkness; the apple on the branch of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes the life-principle of Darkness, surrounded by and held fast by the Light. The serpent represents Darkness which tempted the woman to sin; the woman tempted the man to eat of the Tree to gain knowledge — to master, that is, the life-principle of Darkness. Removing the apple from the tree symbolizes the separation of Darkness and the Light. By their fall, Adam and Eve (the Eldest) were banished from the Garden of Eden (God’s Kingdom). Cain and Abel symbolize the various types of human beings who owe their existence to God’s fallen children. Cain’s murder of his brother symbolizes how sin and death came into the earthly world through the birth, or creation, of Cain and Abel (humanity).

How are we to understand the story about Adam and Eve?

IF mankind was created 5 millions years ago by some falling angels, then we have to understand things in that light...things could mean something else, right?