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?

[Waterfall]

[Replying to post 56 by shnarkle]

Thanks for all your answers here.

I will have to think about what you are saying...

[shnarkle]

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,

They didn't just become aware. They hid themselves. The meaning they attached to their nakedness had changed and that could only have come through their new understanding. If they didn't think about it they wouldn't have hid from God. They had no reason to feel vulnerable prior to this new understanding. They are quite clearly relying on their own understanding at this point and that understanding is clearly idiotic.

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

So you are of the opinion that our discussion on how they came to know of their nakedness is nonsense? Duly noted, I will keep that in mind with regards to the rest of your post.

[shnarkle]

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:

You posted it. If you don't understand what you're posting, then I'm not sure why you're posting it in the first place. It doesn't make any sense to me either which is why I addressed it and presented a position that makes much more sense. I can't explain your position to you because it doesn't make any sense to me either. I can only point out why it doesn't make any sense.

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?

I already answered this point which you then asked me what I was referring to. I posted the relevant passage. You will have to return to the post where you asked the question originally. I don't know how to produce links and don't want to keep going back and forth.

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?

I just explained the problem. There might be a language barrier here. What is your native language?

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?

Here again, I already addressed this question. Do you have any comments on what I"ve already posted on this subject?

[marco]

They didn't just become aware. They hid themselves. The meaning they attached to their nakedness had changed and that could only have come through their new understanding. If they didn't think about it they wouldn't have hid from God. They had no reason to feel vulnerable prior to this new understanding. They are quite clearly relying on their own understanding at this point and that understanding is clearly idiotic.

That is one way of looking at the situation in the myth. Another is that they had their eyes opened. Hiding is just the writer's rather clumsy explanation of their new and dangerous awareness. It is like the anger of the gods that humans discovered the secret of fire.

So you are of the opinion that our discussion on how they came to know of their nakedness is nonsense? Duly noted, I will keep that in mind with regards to the rest of your post.

No, the tale itself is nonsensical. Our exegesis is just a mental exercise. Do you really suppose there was a first man called Adam (Smith?) whose idiocies we know in some detail? Archeology is a fine science- but is it that good?

It is of course useful to examine myths because they tell us something about our own psychology, among other things.

[shnarkle]

They didn't just become aware. They hid themselves. The meaning they attached to their nakedness had changed and that could only have come through their new understanding. If they didn't think about it they wouldn't have hid from God. They had no reason to feel vulnerable prior to this new understanding. They are quite clearly relying on their own understanding at this point and that understanding is clearly idiotic.

That is one way of looking at the situation in the myth. Another is that they had their eyes opened. Hiding is just the writer's rather clumsy explanation of their new and dangerous awareness. It is like the anger of the gods that humans discovered the secret of fire.

So you are of the opinion that our discussion on how they came to know of their nakedness is nonsense? Duly noted, I will keep that in mind with regards to the rest of your post.

No, the tale itself is nonsensical.

So you've joined this discussion to reveal that the story is nonsensical. Got it. Sorry for misunderstanding your statement. It wasn't clear to me that our interpretations weren't included in the nonsense of the myth. I say this because of your claim that our interpretations are irrelevant. Here's what you posted:

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

How they came to know of their nakedness is precisely what we're discussing here. if the myth is nonsense, I didn't get the impression that you felt our discussion was meaningful.

Our exegesis is just a mental exercise.

No doubt, and while some exercise their mental faculties others feel this need to point out what we're doing. I still haven't quite grasped the point in supplying us with a play by play.

Do you really suppose there was a first man called Adam

No, it's a myth. The discussion wasn't about the historicity of the account. We were attempting to look into the meaning of the myth. Is there some reason why we need to be repeatedly reminded that we're looking at a myth? Perhaps you might enlighten us all as to why you think this is something we're all forgetting here?

Archeology is a fine science- but is it that good?

Other than you, who is talking about archeology? I do believe that archeology is a fine science and just in case you forget, let me be the first to remind you that archeology is a science. While this doesn't advance the discussion in any meaningful way, it might allow you to see why I'm pointing this out to you.

It is of course useful to examine myths because they tell us something about our own psychology, among other things.

While i agree that these myths are a great mirror into who we really are, I must say that your reflection of the text as"nonsense" is an amusing, if not unusual; admission.

[Waterfall]

You posted it. If you don't understand what you're posting, then I'm not sure why you're posting it in the first place. It doesn't make any sense to me either which is why I addressed it and presented a position that makes much more sense. I can't explain your position to you because it doesn't make any sense to me either. I can only point out why it doesn't make any sense.

I have the text in danish, so...

I pointed to this:

http://thelightuniversal.org/page67.html

Is the whole text not relevant for your understanding of the qoute:

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.

Do you have a problem with this:

By their creators - Ardor and the Eldest - humans were created as polygamous beings, because Ardor’s purpose was to ensure the survival of the species, so that he should not in the future be faced with any need to attempt further creation. His objective was therefore to render human beings capable of becoming fruitful, so that they could multiply, replenish the Barth and subdue it.

While human beings were still exclusively the creatures of the Eldest they lived a life similar to that of polygamous animals. The primal human beings thus roved in great herds under the leadership of a single male, or with three or four males as leaders. But there were continual and violent fights between these leaders and the younger males of the herd, especially because the sexual drive was not confined to certain seasons of the year. For this reason periods of greater peacefulness between them were precluded. On account of these polygamous relationships, and because of the primal human beings' total lack of spiritual intelligence, these creatures had no sense whatsoever of kinship with one another. Only the maternal instinct prevailed, as it does in the female of numerous animal species.

You talk about this:

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.

I am not sure there is a problem?

Can you point to the problem:

1. The ancient biblical myth(7) of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is apparently symbolic of the human monogamous relationship.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.


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

You have some thoughts about the story and that is fine...but things could mean something else, right? Who is Adam and Eve? What do they represent? What about Cain and Abel? The snake? The fruit? Who knows? Has the story been change on the way down to us? Why not begin with eating of the tree of life? Could Adam fall without Eve or Eve without Adam?

[shnarkle]

[quote="marco"]

For some reason my post was reposted again. I don't know how to delete it so I just erased the content

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 66 by Waterfall]

I responded to your posts, but given that I don't speak Danish, I'm afraid I am incapable of elaborating any further.

[marco]

We were attempting to look into the meaning of the myth. Is there some reason why we need to be repeatedly reminded that we're looking at a myth? Perhaps you might enlighten us all as to why you think this is something we're all forgetting here?

I find it amusing that I am being addressed by a plurality of posters. Amusing also is the dissection of a mythical tale about a mythical garden where the mythical gardeners have upset a mythical God and discussion centres around whether mythical enlightenment was postprandial or not.

Archeology is a fine science-

let me be the first to remind you that archeology is a science.

So it is, as I said.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to post 66 by Waterfall]

I responded to your posts, but given that I don't speak Danish, I'm afraid I am incapable of elaborating any further.

I understand english, but not as good as you, so if you just point out where there is a problem in the text.

There is also this...others may understand things better than me, so your explanations would not be a waste of time. Maybe I do not get it, but others may.

I understand this:

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.

But I cant see there is a problem?

What does it have to do with this text:

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.

Maybe it is not this text you have in mind?

Do you have a problem with this text:

By their creators - Ardor and the Eldest - humans were created as polygamous beings, because Ardor’s purpose was to ensure the survival of the species, so that he should not in the future be faced with any need to attempt further creation. His objective was therefore to render human beings capable of becoming fruitful, so that they could multiply, replenish the Barth and subdue it.

While human beings were still exclusively the creatures of the Eldest they lived a life similar to that of polygamous animals. The primal human beings thus roved in great herds under the leadership of a single male, or with three or four males as leaders. But there were continual and violent fights between these leaders and the younger males of the herd, especially because the sexual drive was not confined to certain seasons of the year. For this reason periods of greater peacefulness between them were precluded. On account of these polygamous relationships, and because of the primal human beings' total lack of spiritual intelligence, these creatures had no sense whatsoever of kinship with one another. Only the maternal instinct prevailed, as it does in the female of numerous animal species.

And just so we are on the same page...this "idea" may be true and it may not be true.

But it seems to be in accordence with science. The Bible talks about 6000 years (if they are to be taken literal)...this book talks about 5 million years (and those words are to be taken literal).

They could both be wrong and so on, so...this is my position.

I do not know (yet).

And thanks for your thoughts about the story about Adam and Eve. I have never read the Bible from A-Z. But I like the story about Adam and Eve and your thoughts.

I do not know science as good as...lets say...Divine Insight...or anybody else. I am a simple man without any scientific education. I have problems in my life. But I believe I can clean my self. Its like I have a class of water that has been contaminated and now I want the water to be clean. That is...get rid of the contaminations. And when it is gone then I will be clean again.

I have had something to drink ( a couple of beer and Irish coffee), so...maybe thats why it all flows better

Have I broken my words - it will not happen again - ahhh...I am not way out and putting music on