The Real Hero and Heroine of the Garden of Eden Story

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,728
I never cared for Paul of Tarsus. He tried to make a man into a god.

"Don't get attached to what I say, don't get attached to any doctrine, to what I preach; don't get attached to my personality. These are all just fingers pointing to the moon. Forget me, don't start worshiping me; just look at the moon. And once you have looked at the moon, I don't matter at all." -- Buddha
I don’t think it was a mere man he met on the road to Damascus ;-)
 






Drifter

Established
Joined
Apr 15, 2021
Messages
136
A deceiver, offering to introduce an innocent to pleasures they have not experienced, and pitching a narrative to them where the evil adult becomes the conduit to the real world.

The only difference with a no*ce is that they simply steal innocence. Satan set out to steal both the innocence of our ancestors and their eternal inheritance, putting them under the same judgement* as he will face.

*That’s why God sent Jesus, the perfect sacrifice for our sin btw.

When you approve the actions of the Father of Lies, you are truly lost.
Question: what was the point of allowing this deceiver to not only live but to initiate a plan that would lead to the downfall of humanity and create a scenario in which many humans will eventually spend an eternity of torment in penance for a life of sin they did not choose to be born into? What was the game plan exactly?
 






shankara

Star
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
1,305
1.) If you really follow Eastern traditions (and not the appropriated Hippie tropes of Hinduism) than supporting gnosticism would be highly illogical due to the intense dualistic nature of Greco-Persian gnostic teachings. Dharmic religions are monistic/pan-theistic.

2.) The Eastern traditions you claim to follow are just as "patriarchal" if not more so given the history of widow-burning and r*pe culture within India. I'm assuming your gravitation towards those traditions is more drawn from a socio-political frustration than some ancient philosophy passed down through millenia, not so different from tween Wicca.
Yeah sure, there are elements of traditional Hinduism which are pretty messed up, no doubt. However the core of the Dharmic religions is more sane than that of the Abrahmic ones, allowing the resolutions of various problems like the "problem of evil" which the Abrahamic things have no solid answer to. Also there is at least some acceptance of a feminine Divinity, which is a better starting point than a wholly masculine deity (which is like saying that women exist only relatively, and not absolutely).

As for Gnosticism, I find some of it interesting. It's a good kind of counterbalance to the dogmatic positions of the churches at least. And I just really like the "Gnostic" version of that story, it's extremely subversive. Sometimes it is good to look at a thing backwards, we see things which are invisible from the front side.

I have other arguments against reincarnation which I will post when I can, but that was a simple one (based on Pascal's wager) that I added as an afterthought to the primary point about whether multiple lives or a single life can be described as being more meaningful. A single life is evidently more meaningful. Do you agree?


I disagree about the fear and threats part. Life is to be taken seriously, it is no mere trifle. If you think its about fear, that's sort of missing the point because life is a zero sum game in the end anyway - death awaits at the end, so you must make up your mind whether you like it or not. Fear is a powerful and useful motivator, and death is an inescapable condition of life that we are all subject to. Ironically, it is the very fear of knowing that life will end, and that time is limited, that has caused you to even consider these existential questions in the first place!

As for salvific exclusionism, you can read the quote attached. "The nature of truth is that it is absolute and not relative... perennialism violates the law of non-contradiction." There is one reality, and so, one path to seeking the purpose of our existence, and one answer to the question "what is the meaning of life."
I don't think that there is anything more inherently meaningful in a single life than in many. Human existence is full of richness and meaning, everything we are experiencing is unique and never experienced before, and it is all a karmic lesson. I also can't accept that there is a deity who predestins everything, which is the only way you can attempt (and ultimately fail) to justify things like children dying in air raids and people living lives of brutality and starvation without any spiritual solace.

As for perrenialism, I can't really be bothered to discuss it, my personal position is that the Abrahamic religions were revealed for various essentially temporal purposes, excepting a few mystics who get the point a little more, whilst the Dharmic ones are more complete revelations.

Anyway, none of this is particularly relevant to the original story posted.

@shankara

You said “I refuse to put a wager on things, and to act based upon fear. That is the foundation of all the ugly fanaticism which is the cause of so much suffering in the world.”

I do have sympathy for your position, and I think from where you stand it must look like the right diagnosis of the human condition.

I didn’t reply to your last response because it would have been a knee jerk and not a considered point.

Picture a plane full of passengers running into difficulties over the Pacific. There is no alternative, after a bumpy emergency sea landing than to abandon the sinking aircraft and, complete with life-jacket, tread water and decide what to do next.

Valley of decision time, the strong ones try to swim for land, the naive imagine their life jackets will keep them afloat indefinitely. The weak and the wise know they have a serious problem.

A vessel displaying the flag of an enemy nation appears, first on the horizon, then closer. When it reaches the floating survivors, a rope is thrown down and those who are willing to trust these strangers are pulled up on board.

Some stay in the water.

One man believes (and tells all who care to listen) that they will be sold as slaves, or worse, and that it is more dignified to wait for better rescuers.

Another rejects rescue on the grounds that fear of drowning can never be a good motivator for accepting the charity of a nation so much news print has condemned.

Several more come to the view that the ship itself shot down the plane and those on board are taking a sick pleasure in toying with their victims.

Eventually, the sun sinks over the horizon, the ship departs and the little group who would have nothing to do with the ship die, holding firmly to their views to the end. The strong swimmers last a bit longer, but all the strength in the world will not get them the thousand miles to the nearest land.

As mentioned previously, “valley of decision”

You can accept or reject the idea that you are a sinner (and therefore in deep water).

You can accept or reject the idea that God is holy (and therefore, land is unreachably far off).

You can accept or reject the idea that you need a saviour (and that it would take a boat to rescue you).

Finally, you MUST consider seriously if you trust the boat that has been provided, or wish to try something yourself. Your position in the water is a temporary one, whichever you choose.
Well that seems to me a very bleak and horrible interpretation of human existence. I don't think we are "lost at sea" at all, we are lost in various ways, but they are all ways in which we need to be lost, part of the learning. Sure I can see your point that from a certain perspective, all of this is utter tragedy and its a natural human impulse to place hope in some kind of messianic figure offering "eternal life" free from all of the horrors of life in the world. But at the same time, this is fear. I try to rather simply accept it all for what it is, though of course I am not free from fear either.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,728
John 3

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

 






Last edited:

Alanantic

Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
541
John 3

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

"When goodness grows weak,
When evil increases,
I make myself a body.
In every age I come back
To deliver the holy,
To destroy the sin of the sinner,
To establish righteousness."
Krishna, Bhagavad Gita

So, what's your point?
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,728
"When goodness grows weak,
When evil increases,
I make myself a body.
In every age I come back
To deliver the holy,
To destroy the sin of the sinner,
To establish righteousness."
Krishna, Bhagavad Gita

So, what's your point?
Perhaps you might pick up on the point in the lyrics of the song I attached.

“Is a rich man worth more than a poor man?
A stranger worth less than a friend?
Is a baby worth more than an old man?
Your beginning worth more than your end?

Is a president worth more than his assassin?
Does your value decrease with your crime?
Like when Christ took the place of Barabbas
Would you say he was wasting his time?

Well, how much do you think you are worth, boy?
Will anyone stand up and say?
Would you say that a man is worth nothing
Until someone is willing to pay?

I suppose that you think you matter
Well, how much do you matter to whom?
It's much easier at night when with friends and bright lights
Than much later alone in your room

Do you think they'll miss one in a billion
When you finish this old human race?
Does it really make much of a difference
When your friends have forgotten your face?

If you heard that your life had been valued
That a price had been paid on the nail
Would you ask what was traded,
How much and who paid it
Who was He and what was His name?

If you heard that His name was called Jesus
Would you say that the price was too dear?
Held to the cross not by nails but by love
It was you broke His heart, not the spear!

Would you say you are worth what it cost Him?
You say 'no', but the price stays the same.
If it don't make you cry, laugh it off, pass Him by,
But just remember the day when you throw it away
That He paid what He thought you were worth.

How much do you think He is worth, boy?
Will anyone stand up and say?
Tell me, what are you willing to give Him
In return for the price that He paid?”

Graham Kendrick & Peter Rowe, 1972
 






Alanantic

Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
541
Perhaps you might pick up on the point in the lyrics of the song I attached.

“Is a rich man worth more than a poor man?
A stranger worth less than a friend?
Is a baby worth more than an old man?
Your beginning worth more than your end?

Is a president worth more than his assassin?
Does your value decrease with your crime?
Like when Christ took the place of Barabbas
Would you say he was wasting his time?

Well, how much do you think you are worth, boy?
Will anyone stand up and say?
Would you say that a man is worth nothing
Until someone is willing to pay?

I suppose that you think you matter
Well, how much do you matter to whom?
It's much easier at night when with friends and bright lights
Than much later alone in your room

Do you think they'll miss one in a billion
When you finish this old human race?
Does it really make much of a difference
When your friends have forgotten your face?

If you heard that your life had been valued
That a price had been paid on the nail
Would you ask what was traded,
How much and who paid it
Who was He and what was His name?

If you heard that His name was called Jesus
Would you say that the price was too dear?
Held to the cross not by nails but by love
It was you broke His heart, not the spear!

Would you say you are worth what it cost Him?
You say 'no', but the price stays the same.
If it don't make you cry, laugh it off, pass Him by,
But just remember the day when you throw it away
That He paid what He thought you were worth.

How much do you think He is worth, boy?
Will anyone stand up and say?
Tell me, what are you willing to give Him
In return for the price that He paid?”

Graham Kendrick & Peter Rowe, 1972
Okay, "Ra Ra Jesus!" There, ya happy?

You have to admit Jesus had a rather strong messianic urge. He wasn't going to come right out and say it, but he was trying to fulfill that prophecy. Krishna, on the other hand, always expressed himself as an incarnation of God. Buddha was just the opposite and always denied being any sort of divinity. Yet they all possess the same consciousness of God.

"The difference between the enlightened and the unenlightened is the unenlightened see a difference.” -- Ramana Maharshi
 






Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,611
The sink or swim type of arguments are fine on an interpersonal level. In essence, those arguments boil down to responsibility, but responsibility doesn't scale to the bigger picture.

A better analogy is we are all caught up in a strong current and smashing into each other and everything else. So swimming would be just as good as sinking because you aren't going to get out of the current.

The best choice is to ride with the current. It's far less violent, and the people around you will suffer less. Plus, I could draw a parallel to Eve and say she surrendered to the current. She chooses something unknown over obedience, and it makes perfect sense because obedience originates from violence.
 






Alanantic

Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
541
The sink or swim type of arguments are fine on an interpersonal level. In essence, those arguments boil down to responsibility, but responsibility doesn't scale to the bigger picture.

A better analogy is we are all caught up in a strong current and smashing into each other and everything else. So swimming would be just as good as sinking because you aren't going to get out of the current.

The best choice is to ride with the current. It's far less violent, and the people around you will suffer less. Plus, I could draw a parallel to Eve and say she surrendered to the current. She chooses something unknown over obedience, and it makes perfect sense because obedience originates from violence.
This current, I believe, is simply gravity. There's a gigantic black hole at the center of the galaxy. That very well could be the center of galactic consciousness. We're all becoming One, whether we like it our not. We should work on getting rid of our differences...
 






Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,611
This current, I believe, is simply gravity. There's a gigantic black hole at the center of the galaxy. That very well could be the center of galactic consciousness. We're all becoming One, whether we like it our not. We should work on getting rid of our differences...
Fair enough.

Our bodies all have one destination, in that we are all going to turn to dust. But yes, we shouldn't be focused on petty things. The goal should be to minimize suffering. And that takes bravery like what Eve showed in the garden of Eden. Because a great many people want to watch each other suffer.
 






Alanantic

Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
541
Fair enough.

Our bodies all have one destination, in that we are all going to turn to dust. But yes, we shouldn't be focused on petty things. The goal should be to minimize suffering. And that takes bravery like what Eve showed in the garden of Eden. Because a great many people want to watch each other suffer.
Our bodies are just a way for our immortal souls to express our interconnectedness. All suffering is caused by not seeing that.
 






Aero

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
5,611
Our bodies are just a way for our immortal souls to express our interconnectedness. All suffering is caused by not seeing that.
Your tone is revealing in a way that makes me believe you more than your statements.

Allow me to inject some confidence into these lines. It would be best if you considered the costs of such a philosophy. Clearly, the costs are going to be too great because people need their individuality, even if it's illusionary. But Idk if I would sign off on all of that.

I would say we are interconnected in our lower brains. I might also argue that's where all our suffering comes from. Or at least the majority of it. In other words, less evolved people still suffered, probably more than any of us ever will. Individuality gave us so much variety in so many different fields.
 






Drifter

Established
Joined
Apr 15, 2021
Messages
136
John 3

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Ok but like . . . This still doesnt answer the question. How are we supposed to be grateful for a redemption that wasnt even necessary? It's like God weeping over the evil of the world in Noah's story. He regretted making humanity despite knowing where they would end up and even facilitating that future by allowing the devil or snake or whoever to deceive the first two people. For an omniscient being that doesnt make much sense imo.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
2,835
Question: what was the point of allowing this deceiver to not only live but to initiate a plan that would lead to the downfall of humanity and create a scenario in which many humans will eventually spend an eternity of torment in penance for a life of sin they did not choose to be born into? What was the game plan exactly?
Do you really want the answer to that question? Or would you prefer to continue assuming the creature knows more than its Creator?
 






Drifter

Established
Joined
Apr 15, 2021
Messages
136
Do you really want the answer to that question? Or would you prefer to continue assuming the creature knows more than its Creator?
I dont recall asking you the question unless I missed something?
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,728
Ok but like . . . This still doesnt answer the question. How are we supposed to be grateful for a redemption that wasnt even necessary?
If redemption was unnecessary, then Jesus’s death was like giving a three year old a concrete mixer. What you have to ask before you decide that is “is there a God” and if so, what is he / her / it / them / “all” etc like.

If you come to the conclusion that the real God is the one revealed in the Judeo Christian line (as C.S. Lewis did), certain conclusions are inescapable...
“"You must picture me alone in that room at Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England" (Surprised By Joy,ch. 14, p. 266).​



It's like God weeping over the evil of the world in Noah's story. He regretted making humanity despite knowing where they would end up and even facilitating that future by allowing the devil or snake or whoever to deceive the first two people. For an omniscient being that doesnt make much sense imo.

This might help?

Why Does It Say, “It Repented the Lord”?
“Why does Genesis 6:6 say ‘it repented the LORD that He had made man’ if He knew in advance how sinful man would get?”
You may be thinking that the word “repent” there means God regretted He made man, and my dictionary says “regret” can mean “a looking back with dissatisfaction.” This cannot be the meaning here, however, for it is not possible that God would be dissatisfied with anything He has done.

Like all words, repent can have different meanings. My dictionary defines it as “to feel pain, sorrow, or regret for something one has done.” The word “or” here suggests that God didn’t regret making man, He rather felt pain and sorrow for having done so. The way the verse is worded makes this clear. It doesn’t say the Lord repented making man, as it would if He regretted it. It says it repented the Lord, it pained Him, for their sin caused Him sorrow. The rest of the verse verifies this interpretation when it explains, “and it grieved Him at His heart.”

Sin still grieves the Lord, even after we are saved, so “grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30).

Source
 






Last edited:

Drifter

Established
Joined
Apr 15, 2021
Messages
136
If redemption was unnecessary, then Jesus’s death was like giving a three year old a concrete mixer. What you have to ask before you decide that is “is there a God” and if so, what is he / her / it / them / “all” etc like.

If you come to the conclusion that the real God is the one revealed in the Judeo Christian line (as C.S. Lewis did), certain conclusions are inescapable...
“"You must picture me alone in that room at Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England" (Surprised By Joy,ch. 14, p. 266).​
Ah, you're a C.S. Lewis apologist. I fear then that we'd probably not be able to converse much if that's the case. If Lewis' God is The God, then he is most certainly not one I want to serve.

This might help?

Why Does It Say, “It Repented the Lord”?


You may be thinking that the word “repent” there means God regretted He made man, and my dictionary says “regret” can mean “a looking back with dissatisfaction.” This cannot be the meaning here, however, for it is not possible that God would be dissatisfied with anything He has done.

Like all words, repent can have different meanings. My dictionary defines it as “to feel pain, sorrow, or regret for something one has done.” The word “or” here suggests that God didn’t regret making man, He rather felt pain and sorrow for having done so. The way the verse is worded makes this clear. It doesn’t say the Lord repented making man, as it would if He regretted it. It says it repented the Lord, it pained Him, for their sin caused Him sorrow. The rest of the verse verifies this interpretation when it explains, “and it grieved Him at His heart.”

Sin still grieves the Lord, even after we are saved, so “grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption” (Eph. 4:30).

Source
It does in a way. I still cant see why humans even needed to be created anyway. Just seems sort of sadistic to me.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
2,835
I dont recall asking you the question unless I missed something?
Yes, you missed something. You were specifically asked if you want an answer to the question you asked. From your response it appears you don't, and wish to simply continue feeding your ego.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,728
Ah, you're a C.S. Lewis apologist. I fear then that we'd probably not be able to converse much if that's the case. If Lewis' God is The God, then he is most certainly not one I want to serve.
Not many do

53ED6642-D826-4630-801D-412FC638E14B.jpeg

As for a “C.S. Lewis apologist”, that’s the first time I have been called that! Where would the art of conversation be if I said to @shankara - “a gnostic - better not to talk with you” ;-)
 






Last edited:

Drifter

Established
Joined
Apr 15, 2021
Messages
136
Yes, you missed something. You were specifically asked if you want an answer to the question you asked. From your response it appears you don't, and wish to simply continue feeding your ego.
Lmao ok bro.
 






Top