Did Adam make the right choice?

[Revelations won]

Did Adam make the right choice?

Did Adam make the right choice in partaking of the fruit from the tree of knowledge and should we be grateful to him and give due respect and honor our first earthly parents?

2. Did Adam’s choice prohibit anyone from receiving ALL that our Father in heaven has ever promised us pertaining to our eternal destiny?

Kind regards,
RW

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #120]

Maybe it wants to grow every personality. What I think about a lot is punishment and justice. And I think of it in terms of selfishness, in other words, myself, what I am. Since I'm a bad person and my first reaction is to blame God for making me, what if he stands before me at the end and offers to unmake me? In other words, to let me never have existed. It would be hard for me to say yes to that, despite knowing I should. So maybe he thinks to give every possible personality a chance to exist; that in a nonlinear way, that's what makes sense, and that's justice.

Indeed - I touch on this theme here and here.

These deal with the mind and imagery the mind creates and how this reflects back at the individual personality.
In the case of your own imagery, a male God stands before you at the end of your human life and offers to unmake you - to let you never have existed - because in your own judgement of your own personality, that is what you believe you deserve.

However, even that we are able to create these scenarios and even give God form in which we can reflect off of, we may not be able to make that Mind do as we want - so the offer might not be there.

Indeed, the offer may not be able to be made, because you have already become a personality through the experience you had, so to undo it would be to pretend that it never happened and this may not be an option for The Mind to be able to give to an individual personality.

It may also be the case that The Mind has stages for the personality to go through re "growing" said personality, and that next event is part of said process in the ongoing development of said personality. Thus the option may not be available on that count as well.

The very idea that you may not want to be erased could be an inbuilt aspect of the overall agenda - it may be the case that you/we are an aspect of said Mind, and eternal for that so cannot be erased in any way perhaps other than to be reintegrated into the essence of said Mind and then reconstituted into the reality experience [physical universe] in order to "grow a personality" and in that sense what is being erased is the data of your previous experience(s) rather than the essence of what/who you are are re "being a mind."

Given the drastic measure re erasure of data - which took spacetime and effort to grow, it would seem an extreme measure to which I can fathom no reason as to why it would be necessary.

On the other hand, there is the garden story where Adam blamed God for making others, so perhaps that is the extreme thing which grants the personality actual permanent death/erasure of data of experience. Blaming ones self might actually be what God is looking for in the personality grown.

Not because of some agenda where God wants to see humans groveling before his almightiness, but rather as a sign of humility and contrition for things done that needn't have been done - thus a substantial "growth" in the personalities persona.

That is the overall problem with the Adam story. It begins an impression which carries on throughout the mythology - Humans should just trust the process and accept they are guilty of not trusting the process and why they shouldn't have involved themselves with notions of good and evil is because this interferes with the trusting of the process.

That basically boils down my problem with it. They couldn't have known, for 100% certain, that God had their best interests at heart. If the rule is, whenever someone tells you no, then trust them it's no, well then nobody can do anything, because for every action, there's someone out there who will tell you it's wrong. I understand trusting one person with a no, over one other person with a yes, in a garden where you have infinite other things to eat and do, seems like a reasonable ask, but if it is reasonable, it's also reasonable for me to ask when exactly it stops being reasonable.

Here are some examples of no from Libertarians:

1. If you work for minimum wage, you are a thief using government force to steal from your employer more than he is willing to pay, and you must quit your job because it's wrong to steal.

2. If you call the police on someone breaking an overreaching government law but not physically hurting you, you are the one hurting that person. With force. Don't do it.

3. If you are summoned to jury duty, and take advantage of the law stating your employer must pay you for that day, you may not take advantage of it - it is theft. Call off from work, lie if necessary; it's not wrong to lie but it is wrong to steal. Or just don't go to jury duty.

If I just trusted anyone with a no you may not, I would not be able to do anything, and most of it is because of freedom-loving Libertarians, the most permissive people in the world.

I prefer to go with nature when it come to questions of yes or no.

Humans and their many laws don't appear to be progressing exponentially with what is going on in nature. When human laws do not align with nature, harm appears to be the outcome.

The fine act of balance is in understanding that there are flexibilities within natures ways, in relation to human minds and subsequent actions. We can tame and train to a certain degree whereby we allocate better standards of living than what nature provides at the coal face. Such is the flexibility of nature.
However, if this is done in a non-equitable manner, where some have and some do not, this can lead to the consequence of going against nature - and if sufficiently enough to prompt an extinction event, nature becomes inflexible and unable to assist us in turning things around.

However, we also understand that without having these ethical moralistic notions, we would never have been able to achieve tribal organization beyond basic stone tools.

If guilt was the only/best means by which the Mind of YHVH could propel the minds of humans to serve His agenda [through shaping physical materials into useful devices way beyond basic stone tools], then it would seem pertinent to understand why.

There might be some reason we can't understand why, but if so it's not reasonable to expect us to just trust.

It may be reasonable to expect certain epochs of humanity to trust the process, but we are in this information aged epoch and in that, we can understand why trust was part of the past in shaping that further which happens to be our present.
In that, the onus in on each of us to the best of our individual and combined abilities in understanding of the data, to place the pieces in the most likely positions they fit. to give us an overall picture of the reality being experienced and our parts within that.

We don't just have to trust the process, but can understand why the process should be regarded as trustworthy.

Which circles around to the individual personality grown through the experience of the physical universe reflecting upon their data of experience before some image of God and if that God say's "nope. No matter that you think you should be or want to be erased, you are still required to trust the process, because that wish will not be granted to you..."sorry".

[Purple Knight]

Given the drastic measure re erasure of data - which took spacetime and effort to grow, it would seem an extreme measure to which I can fathom no reason as to why it would be necessary.

If it grows wrong. As in, if it grows into a bad person.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #122]

Given the drastic measure re erasure of data - which took spacetime and effort to grow, it would seem an extreme measure to which I can fathom no reason as to why it would be necessary.

If it grows wrong. As in, if it grows into a bad person.

One would have to be the Mind which is making the judgement. One cannot assume that something is grown wrong because it turned out to be a bad personality.
That is why I mentioned;
"However, even that we are able to create these scenarios and even give God form in which we can reflect off of, we may not be able to make that Mind do as we want - so the offer might not be there."

If a bad personality is grown, and the bad personality believes that it should be erased, but doesn't want to be erased, then this may indicate that the bad personality - acknowledging its badness - wants the opportunity to learn how to grow into a good personality.

[Purple Knight]

If a bad personality is grown, and the bad personality believes that it should be erased, but doesn't want to be erased, then this may indicate that the bad personality - acknowledging its badness - wants the opportunity to learn how to grow into a good personality.

This is where I think you talking about memories versus personality is very relevant. The bad personality is bad innately, and blanking its memories is only going to make it worse. It's like a cat with a head tilt - it has to learn by experience that its vestibulomotor system is giving it bad information. The head tilt may disappear over time, thanks to learning and experience. The bad personality likewise, it is thrust into a world where its conscience (or lack thereof) is pointing the wrong way, and to properly set itself right, it needs constant input from the world around it, and it needs to learn the hard way, rely on information alone and not its inner compass, which is absent at best and malfunctioning at worst, giving the false sensation of a moral choice to actions which would be despised by moral people.

[William]

If a bad personality is grown, and the bad personality believes that it should be erased, but doesn't want to be erased, then this may indicate that the bad personality - acknowledging its badness - wants the opportunity to learn how to grow into a good personality.

This is where I think you talking about memories versus personality is very relevant. The bad personality is bad innately, and blanking its memories is only going to make it worse. It's like a cat with a head tilt - it has to learn by experience that its vestibulomotor system is giving it bad information. The head tilt may disappear over time, thanks to learning and experience. The bad personality likewise, it is thrust into a world where its conscience (or lack thereof) is pointing the wrong way, and to properly set itself right, it needs constant input from the world around it, and it needs to learn the hard way, rely on information alone and not its inner compass, which is absent at best and malfunctioning at worst, giving the false sensation of a moral choice to actions which would be despised by moral people.

The idea of erasure may be seen as an easy way out for a personality that doesn't want to face the consequences of their actions or deal with the pain and suffering that may come with the continuation of growth and learning. By projecting onto an image of a being that offers an easy out, the personality may be trying to avoid the ongoing difficult process of growth and learning, which may require facing and addressing the negative aspects of themselves.

Each personality begins as a blank slate so it cannot be said that a "bad personality" starts out as a bad personality.

Rather, it grows into a bad personality.

[Purple Knight]

Each personality begins as a blank slate so it cannot be said that a "bad personality" starts out as a bad personality.

Then wouldn't it revert to a blank slate if all its memories went poof?

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #126]

Each personality begins as a blank slate so it cannot be said that a "bad personality" starts out as a bad personality.

Then wouldn't it revert to a blank slate if all its memories went poof?

Yes. That is essentially what I meant IF an erasure was permitted.
Essentially this would mean the "Mind" that was attached to the personality would be erased and reconstituted back into the overall Mind, to be processed back into another form through which another personality could be grown from.
This equates to the process of growing personalities through the combination of mind and form.

All that would be missing from the Mind repurposed, is that it would not know that it has gone through this process before.

The fact that most human personalities begin their journey with a blank slate suggests that the process of erasure and reconstitution afterward may not be entirely necessary, as the blank slate allows for the growth of unique and genuine personalities through experience and external input. Additionally, retaining the data of experience may be crucial for the growth and development of a personality, as it allows for the processing and integration of new information and the formation of more complex and nuanced understandings of the world.

It is a mind from The Mind, which becomes a blank mind because the form it is placed into not allowing it to have a memory of a prior existence. So, the irony is that IF one asks for erasure, one is not really erased, but placed into the only situation where such a thing as erasure can be granted.

Being a mind from The Mind with the premise that The Mind is eternal, this would mean that minds being “portioned off” of The Mind and grafted into said human form, those portioned aspects retain the attribute of being eternal, so cannot be erased.
What is erased can be the data of previous experience [DoPE] and that can only be achieved by placing the portion-mind into a form which allows for that to occur.

If we assume that the mind is a portion of The Mind, and The Mind is eternal, then it follows that the mind is also eternal and cannot be erased. However, the data of previous experience (DoPE) can be erased or forgotten through the process of being placed into a form that does not allow for memory of a prior existence, essentially creating a blank slate. This would allow for the growth of a new personality without the burden of previous experiences influencing the growth process.

[Purple Knight]

Being a mind from The Mind with the premise that The Mind is eternal, this would mean that minds being “portioned off” of The Mind and grafted into said human form, those portioned aspects retain the attribute of being eternal, so cannot be erased.

Maybe it's trying to rid itself of its evil impulses and become perfect, so any of these portions that are evil, it splits off from itself to let them grow on their own, let them do evil, and then destroy them as just punishment for evil and cruel actions. Because what's left is perfect, it cannot commit injustice, so it may only punish for actions, not inclinations. So it has to let the evil bits grow separately and actually commit wrongs, even though that's more cruel, because it's the only thing that's right.

[William]

Being a mind from The Mind with the premise that The Mind is eternal, this would mean that minds being “portioned off” of The Mind and grafted into said human form, those portioned aspects retain the attribute of being eternal, so cannot be erased.

Maybe it's trying to rid itself of its evil impulses and become perfect, so any of these portions that are evil, it splits off from itself to let them grow on their own, let them do evil, and then destroy them as just punishment for evil and cruel actions. Because what's left is perfect, it cannot commit injustice, so it may only punish for actions, not inclinations. So it has to let the evil bits grow separately and actually commit wrongs, even though that's more cruel, because it's the only thing that's right.

This implies that The Mind – again – is at fault.
Notions of good and evil come about through the process of growing personalities and through human-based actions.
There is nothing I can identify as being “evil” re the process of creation of form through the means of a planet.
Nor can “evil” be identified in the natural activities of the life-forms, even that many have teeth, claws and other appendages which they use to hunt with in order to eat in order to survive and multiply. That is the nature of Nature and should not be confused with or labelled as being evil.

The growth and evolution of personalities and life forms is a natural process, and while there may be aspects that are seen as negative or harmful, it does not necessarily mean that they are inherently evil. It is important to approach the idea of good and evil with a critical and nuanced perspective.

[Revelations won]

Dear William,

You asked: "By all means, please explain why this Garden story doesn't start at the actual beginning, and why that information was hidden from humans."

In response to the first part of your huge question I would ask: please explain exactly what do you mean by the term "actual beginning"?

In response to the second part of your question "and why that information was hidden from humans." I would respond that it was given bay revelation from God and was not hidden by God. That information was
lost or removed by man. Man has as a vast majority have placed themselves above God and have elected to reject revelation from God.

The scriptures are given by revelation from God. God is unchanging. So wherein does man have any right to snow reject this long standing process of revelation? Not only that, but the vast majority have by their man made creeds have limited themselves to "private interpretations" of holy writ. Should we be willing to accept "All that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal and all that he will yet reveal"?

Kind regards,
RW