Genesis And The Fall

[Ssel]

"My take" on the Cain and Able story is much like the Adam and Eve story.

 

After the fall of the Adhamic rule, 2 governments arose. One under the name Cain and the other under the name Able.

 

The Cain type of governing involved treating people much like crops to be seeded, guarded, then at maturity, scalped of their fruits. A new crop for the next generation ensured that the cycle would continue. The recent "Raising Cain" movement in the 70's had this same mentality.

 

The Able type of governing was more in line of treating people more as innocent followers - sheep. The rulers merely taxed the profits of the sheep rather than totally destroying them. There was a need to ensure that the sheep stayed healthy and reasonably well treated.

 

The Cain type of governing, being more self oriented and lusting for more, destroyed the Able government. The Able type of governing was not as adapt to defense nor offense.

 

Reality stepped up into the picture and revealed that Cain's governing method was not sufficient alone and thus, because there was no longer an Able type around, The Cain government came into serious troubles simply because such harsh means of governing created disloyalty once the adversary was removed.

 

Self oriented governments require an adversary to survive.

[thomas]

Could you be just taaaaaad bit more specific?

 

I am extremely concerned about ethics myself. If not for that, I very probably wouldn't be here at all. But I'm completely lost as to what you are calling my "worldview" and which catagory of ethics are you asking about?

 

Yes of course.

 

By "worldview" I am talking about the kind of biblical understanding and interpretation that you are presenting at this site. You have presented god a reality, sin at those things that that are counterproductive to rational thinking, creation of an order for man (before humans evolved), certain aspects about intelligence etc. I also think you believe in some form of eternal life.

 

All this must have some concequences for how humans should behave in order to please reality and get the best life possible. I do wonder about such concequences both on a personal level in everyday life, but also about consequences for society as a whole. For example how about sex, marriage, divorce, abortion, human rights, feminism, capitalism just in order to mention a few questions.

[Ssel]

All this must have some concequences for how humans should behave in order to please reality and get the best life possible.

Many years ago, I went to visit some friends. As I walked up their drive way, I noticed that their son was half under his jacked up car. I stopped and asked, “Got a problem?”. He explained that he had to replaced the clutch plate.

 

I looked around at the general condition of his environment; the condition of the open garage, how tools were laid about, how the car was jacked up, the type of car, how he was dressed, the oil stains on the drive and other things that yield an over all assessment of his situation.

 

I remember asking a couple of questions which ended up quickly giving me an insight as to the boy’s mindset and probable capabilities. I could tell that this was very probably the kind of guy that finishes working on a car only to find that he has a few extra nuts laying about. But seeing nothing to really help him with, I continued on to my visit with his parents.

 

Later as I was leaving, he was still struggling under the car. As I walked past his legs, it suddenly occurred to me to say, “Don’t forget the bend the cotter pin.” And I kept walking.

 

A few days later I ran across the boy. He was zipping about in his car and quite proud. He told me of how great it ran now. I asked, “Did you have any extra parts when you were done?” He stuttered just a little and said, “Yeah, but they weren’t really doin nothin.” I smiled but didn’t say any more.

 

A few days after that I saw that he didn’t have his car with him and asked him about it. He explained that the new clutch plate was bad so he has to replace it – again. I asked how he new it was bad. He described the sounds that it made before it wouldn’t pull the car any longer and that a friend had told him that sometimes they give you bad parts.

 

I asked if he had made sure that he had bent the cotter pins because if they fall out, it would probably behave just as he had described. He immediately insisted that it was just a bad new part. I didn’t argue.

 

A couple of more days went by when he asked if I knew where he might be able to get one of these “wire things” and tried to describe it. He explained that it was missing one. I asked, “You mean a cotter pin?” He shrugged and said, “Well I guess, I don’t know what you call it, but it slips through this little hole to hold this piece on and it is missing.”

 

After I clarified exactly what he was talking about, I explained that he could get a package of cotter pins at any automotive store or just stop by a service garage and ask if they might have one of the right size to spare. “But remember to BEND the ends after you put it in place.”

------.

The moral to me of this experience was that not only does it do no good to give helpful advise when the relevance isn’t yet known, but also if they don’t know what your talking about anyway, then it is especially pointless.

 

-----.

 

At this point, I am tempted to reply to your question with merely;

 

”Just remember to bend the cotter pin”

 

 

 

 

-----.

But I am going to try once again to ignore the feeling that I just walked into a psychiatrist’s office and give far more detail…

[Ssel]

First, to clear up a possible confusion, you stated;

 

creation of an order for man (before humans evolved),..

I’m not certain if this is a mis-wording or a misunderstanding of what I had intended to say. Just in case…

 

I tried to explain that although humans had evolved much as evolution would speculate, the thing called “Adam” in the KJV is actually referring to the first “nation” with perhaps its own version of a military, police, trades, and life styles. This nation is described as a garden (a guarded region) ruled by a governance named Adham and within it was a special “tree of knowledge.”

 

Due to the temptations to use their knowledge in governmentally selfish ways, the government fell and the knowledge was intentionally hidden so as to not allow such abuse again. The Adhamic method and anything that might lead to it again, was cursed by the memory of how it becomes abusive (much as Nazism is today).

 

The end result of all of this is what we are looking at as we peer into history.

 

-----.

 

As to the consequences…

 

I presume that you mean, “What would be the consequences if a great many people believed in the same worldview that I have?”

 

Remembering the story of the cotter pin, I don’t really expect my answer to be completely understood in relevance nor in wording.

-----.

 

If a sizeable number of people truly fully understood EXACTLY what I have tried to explain thus far (an individual would have very little affect) as well as far more to explain that I might never be able to get to, then they would tend to behave as follows;

 

 

They would first alter their focus from who the "bad guys" are more towards what they can do for themselves to achieve more success and joy in their lives.

 

They would realize that there are many organized efforts from many directions to keep them confused, angry, separated, and thus dependant on and bowing to these other groups while never really seeing them.

 

They would be less trusting of their sources for information, but would not make “distrust” their motto. Instead, they would have a very, very clear understanding of their goal and their “purpose” for themselves as well as their purpose to others. Much as the Jewish Kabalah explains, they would question everything, but not such as to cast doubt and suspicion, but rather to ensure their understanding.

 

But this understanding and purpose would not be some lofty speculation of some afterlife or greater being to please. It would be a very hard core rational and clear understanding of what life is actually all about and always has been. When they looked into history, they would shake their heads and see how silly but understandably confused Man has been when the answer is now so clear.

 

They would understand certain principles which allow very serious progress to be made toward a far more enjoyable life.

 

They would see how these principles and their progress would shortly lead to a truly eternal mortal life for every human and many animals.

 

They would tend to strongly seek a lack of conflict but very high energy.

 

The concern for over population would be well in hand and no longer an issue.

 

Such things as racism, feminism and such would seem childishly irrelevant.

 

They would work quite hard every day but actually enjoy what they were doing and know why they enjoyed it and to where it was leading.

 

They would mesh with technology but never allow technology to gain consciousness of its own.

 

They would understand exactly why their governance was doing everything it does and why those who they might be managing do what they do.

 

They would understand why their neighbors were doing what they do.

 

They would understand why those before them did what they have done and would ensure that those coming after them would know why they had done what they have.

 

Most of all, they would understand themselves to the clear point of not having to even think about it any longer.

 

Their hope and lack of worry would not be of faithful speculation but of very clear understanding.

 

After a few generations, I suspect that they would look back at today and be amazed at how miserably dark life must have been.

----.

 

As to the social order…

 

It would not be any of what you see today. A type of money would still be used but its assessed value and use would be a bit different.

 

Life would entail certain things which never changed and other things which were always changing. But a very important difference is that they would know which was which and exactly why.

 

Education and training would be a very strong part of life.

 

Misery and worry will be forever locked into a metaphoric glass display case for the edification of all.

 

Individual progress and the clear sight of it would be a paramount issue to ensure. The ability to see and understand one’s progress would be of very high priority to the governance.

 

The concept of entropy would be over-whelmed by an anti-entropy of the generated life efforts. Extreme enthalpy would be measured and sought.

 

Health issues would become a focus of fundamental governance and become merely something almost taken for granted but never really forgotten.

 

Challenges would be apparent to every individual but why they were being challenged and where their success would lead would not be a matter of guess work.

 

Misery in an individual would be treated with as much conviction and concern as lung cancer is today.

 

Much as early America, the entire group would be orchestrated, but exactly why rules were in place would be well understood.

 

But unlike much of governance today, the participation in the group would be entirely voluntary with no missionaries out to insist that the world change to their standard. Such would become completely unnecessary.

 

Holding children and possessions as ransom to coerce participation as is done as much of the foundation of society today, would end.

 

The concept of forgiveness would be so understood as to seem ridiculous and childish to doubt.

 

The very cause of life would be the designed focus of every action – an eternal ballet of life.

 

On a far away metaphoric mountain, a spiritual man would see the group and call it the Messiah that has appeared from the clouds of confusion and declare the end of the Devil’s reign over Man.

-----.

 

Whether my voice or any part of this generation has anything to do with it or not, these things WILL come about and billions will be glad that they have. This is not a speculation of myth, mysticism, or supernatural forces, but a complex derivation of hard inescapable logic as well as the predictable pattern of the development of Mankind.

[NotBlinded]

That would still make the Adam is spirit and Eve soul interesting too. As mankind was made of the dust (flesh nature?), then God blew his spirit into him, and he became a living soul. I thought the soul is what the spirit and the body joined are, perhaps representing the mind?

I understand the soul to be the creating force or the medium through which the spirit creates. Here is a quote from the site:

 

"The name 'Eve' (Khavah) means "life-container" or "life-giver", and refers to the soul which is the means by which alone the spirit is able to enter mortal life. It is and remains, united with the spirit as one spiritual entity."

 

I think mind would be a good comparision because the mind/soul is the means through which the spirit works.

[All Gods Fail]

Here's a good link to creationist myths of other cultures: http://www.crystalinks.com/creationcountries.html.

 

Much to think about there.

[NotBlinded]

Here's a good link to creationist myths of other cultures: http://www.crystalinks.com/creationcountries.html.

 

Much to think about there.

Yes, that is awesome. Thanks!

 

It is very telling indeed that they all say the same thing.

 

I used to think that that meant that they all copied from each other in order to gain something other than insight.

[Skankboy]

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond Ssel. I want you to know I find this line inquiry fascinating.

In regards to the loss of the symbolic "key" that would allow for a cohesive interpretation of the bible you said:

 

Two factors involved,

 

First, the English saw the systematic potential of the belief system. They took it merely as such so as to remove power from the Catholic and allow for a church of England. This was probably the most serious abuse of the entire story.

 

But leading from there, after America accepted the idea that churches are free to be created by anyone who wants to, what was a more centralized system of belief became a widely distributed group of systems of belief. After 200 years, the original non-systematic intent became a very small minority.

 

So co-option and pluarism? I could see that. So before these events the main churches (catholic and eastern orthodox) had a view of the bible similar to the one you espouse?

[Ssel]

So co-option and pluarism? I could see that. So before these events the main churches (catholic and eastern orthodox) had a view of the bible similar to the one you espouse?

Yes. But still, they spent too much time worrying about maintaining faithful following and too little maintaining a strong internal department of understanding.

 

If they had balanced these concerns better, I suspect what we call science today, would have become merely a segment of the Catholic church a very long time ago.

 

The Catholic was not restricted to trying to ensure that the history of prophets were all relatives of theirs.

----.

 

If you look at the times of Benjamin Franklin, for a good example, you see the exponential growth of rational thinking. Rational thought was being freed from those who had feared it and kept it oppressed. The west, Europe and America, had somewhat broken free from the fears of those before them who had, as usual, attempted to ensure that everyone thought in a safe manner, safe for their organizations.

 

But by about 1960, the west had approached the concern that all invention and progress had been completed and the future might be too quite and without the energy of striving. They responded as to rush to a conclusion to what must be done. This is the very essence of the fear response.

 

They recognized that freedom from oppressors had allowed for creative thinking. But as usual, they did not allow themselves time to consider all of the options. They concluded that there must be more free thinking and that creative thought came merely from irrational thought which occasionally raised a good idea.

 

By 1970 they were convinced of the good of chaos and irrationale. This notion was not entirely incorrect, but was not the true cause of invention or creative thinking. Creative thinking comes from exploring all options before any conclusion is made.

 

When they promoted chaos, they freed thought again, but they freed it from rationality as well as from any oppression. They were not particularly concerned about this because the chaos was for the population, not the government. This allows the government to watch the chaos and conflict of the population until it sees anything that looks valuable.

 

The result of this is that the population must endure constant conflict and confusion so that the government can over-protect itself from the fear of life being too quite as well as many other benefits. But this, once again, becomes merely an effort to control thought to the advantage of the governance.

 

The real problem is simply the fear of reality. Remove the fear, and reality allows for a great deal of creative rational thought. Or as Jesus put it long ago, "Love Reality" and "a spring will gush forth from within"

 

But as I pointed out on a different thread, "How do you choose to love,” especially something that you already fear? This has an answer that has never been spoken as far as I can tell. And that answer permanently frees rational thinking and thus creative thought and real answers to real problems. – game, set, and match.

[Cerise]

Here's a good link to creationist myths of other cultures: http://www.crystalinks.com/creationcountries.html.

 

Much to think about there.

Yes, that is awesome. Thanks!

 

It is very telling indeed that they all say the same thing.

 

I used to think that that meant that they all copied from each other in order to gain something other than insight.

 

Insight into...what, exactly?

 

If myths weren't ultimately useful for all kinds of social aspects, I doubt they would be told and retold for as long as they have been.

[Amanda]

Why would Eve need protecting in the garden?

 

Hi Cerise!

 

FWIW, it is my theory that at this time, there was no real reasoning of what is good or bad... so the garden seemed like paradise. 'Ignorance is bliss' kind of mentality... if you will. Mankind having more male and female qualities in each person. I think we were more similar to most animals then. Males now perceived their role to protect the female, that's all. I think 'taking sides out of mankind' was just a matter of more specific separation of roles.

 

I'm curious if things could of evolved according to Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs? Now that more needs of mankind were being met, did we evolve in a more consistent manner as Maslow suggests?

 

BTW, thanks for that posting of the interpretations of metaphors concerning Adam and Eve, and Cain and Able! I need to read it again, as there is a lot to digest.

[Cerise]

So you would interpret the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the resulting Fall as a necessary and purposeful progression instead of a failed test or a misunderstanding, then?

 

It makes sense in some respects, as the Tree as test is not really logical in the context of an all-knowing diety or a benevolent one. But then, I would wonder about the description of the garden as more of an actual paradise that was damaged or corrupted rather then a false paradise.

[Alice]

 

In short, the story is about the temptation involved in using knowledge to gain more for oneself at the risk of the health of the entire garden. It is about selfishness - the true original sin.

 

It was also stated that all are born in sin. This is a fact as long as you understand what sin really is. A new born child is striving to survive and knows nothing but selfish concerns. It takes time for the young child to learn how to cooperate and eventually how to selflessly love.

 

This seems to assume that 'selfishness' is bad. Selfishness is only 'bad' isn't it if it carries the meaning 'pleasing oneself by riding rough shod over other people's feelings'. Selfishness that is 'pleasing oneself including the selfish desire not to hurt other people' is surely a good thing?

 

Why is selfless seen as good?

 

 

I see the bible requirement to be like children in that they are gullible and will believe whatever adults tell them. They don't know any better so they just blindly follow along...thank goodness many of us has rid ourselves of that mentality.

 

I find it insulting to have some ancient book tell me that I'm a sinner for thinking and questioning.

 

I agree with you here Serenity - and very much the interpretation I grew up with was that's Eve's folly was to question God. I think that has seriously affected the way societies that have this story - or rather that interpretaion of the story - at its heart, - treat women. Women are so gullible - they will be easily seduced by temptation nad best keep them away from knowledge - and so on I'm still following the interview with Rose Gardener who came on here a while back asking for volunteers to look at OT metaphors/tales. Some of this I have found really fascinating and illuminating. She's been sending me a lot of information about the context at the time the J source was written down. She see's the serpent as representative of the neighbouring caananite religions, which often involved serpents and sacred trees.

 

Her take on the story is that it was advice against the human tendency not to ask questions! Eve just looked, liked ate - and so did Adam and in this way they were seduced away.

 

 

 

Reality stepped up into the picture and revealed that Cain's governing method was not sufficient alone and thus, because there was no longer an Able type around, The Cain government came into serious troubles simply because such harsh means of governing created disloyalty once the adversary was removed.

 

Self oriented governments require an adversary to survive.

 

Ssel,

 

I find it really difficult to see any consistency in the way you seem to decide when something is 'metaphorical' and when you believe the account refers to an actual event.

 

Self oriented governments require an adversary to survive is a truth I can see. I think it often applies to small groups and individuals as well.

[Ssel]

This seems to assume that 'selfishness' is bad. Selfishness is only 'bad' isn't it if it carries the meaning 'pleasing oneself by riding rough shod over other people's feelings'. Selfishness that is 'pleasing oneself including the selfish desire not to hurt other people' is surely a good thing?

"Selfishness" is by definition the exclusive concern for oneself. If others are included in one's concern for oneself, then it is not selfishness. It is "bad" merely because it does not consider all things and thus leads to oppression and/or ignorance.

Why is selfless seen as good?

Because, as it turns out, using your concerns for yourself against you in a ransom type of way is what creates a realm of oppression. By cherishing selfless behavior in a large crowd, oppression becomes nearly impossible. This is why they talk of Jesus and God being associated with the ultimate freedom. Selflessness allows you the freedom from being pinned into a corner and coerced into participation.

 

In the Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism, that same selflessness allows you a freedom from fear. By being free of fear, creative thought and hope can flourish.

 

Her take on the story is that it was advice against the human tendency not to ask questions! Eve just looked, liked ate - and so did Adam and in this way they were seduced away.

This is a very narrow and prejudice view of the story.

 

I find it really difficult to see any consistency in the way you seem to decide when something is 'metaphorical' and when you believe the account refers to an actual event.

Metaphor is the telling of an actual event through natural symbolism. It is different than allegory where a fictional tale is told so as to convey merely the concept but not any specific event.

 

Also, as I pointed out, much of the Adam and Eve story is not metaphor but merely getting the words right. "Adam" was never said to be a human. This has nothing to do with metaphor. It is merely an issue of presumed definitions of words.

 

Self oriented governments require an adversary to survive is a truth I can see. I think it often applies to small groups and individuals as well.

I agree. Challenge is a convenient way to temporarily bring harmony within. But the requirement for such a challenge is reduced when the governance (perhaps merely the mindset within the individual) is more considerate of the needs within. This reduces the urge to rebellion against the governance.

[NotBlinded]

Here's a good link to creationist myths of other cultures: http://www.crystalinks.com/creationcountries.html.

 

Much to think about there.

Yes, that is awesome. Thanks!

 

It is very telling indeed that they all say the same thing.

 

I used to think that that meant that they all copied from each other in order to gain something other than insight.

 

Insight into...what, exactly?

 

If myths weren't ultimately useful for all kinds of social aspects, I doubt they would be told and retold for as long as they have been.

Insight into trying to describe what cannot be described by the means of what is known. There are certain symbols that are used to convey a meaning that are incorporated by several myths. Then they would use those symbols or stories in their own words that would be reflected by that culture's norms.

 

I used to think that Chrisitianity was a huge thief and stole all these ideas from others and then made up their own story to make it fit.

 

So, it is not so much a matter of what occured, but the motive behind it because the two explanations of what happened that I have just given are, at the base, the same. I didn't understand the symbolic nature side...at all. And with my understanding, came peace. I no longer held any anomosity toward a certain group for trying to use their own language and culture in trying to tell about god. Hell, they all did it.

 

So you would interpret the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the resulting Fall as a necessary and purposeful progression instead of a failed test or a misunderstanding, then?

Yes! Oops...sorry. I butted right on in.

[Alice]

"Selfishness" is by definition the exclusive concern for oneself. If others are included in one's concern for oneself, then it is not selfishness. It is "bad" merely because it does not consider all things and thus leads to oppression and/or ignorance....

 

Because, as it turns out, using your concerns for yourself against you in a ransom type of way is what creates a realm of oppression. By cherishing selfless behavior in a large crowd, oppression becomes nearly impossible. This is why they talk of Jesus and God being associated with the ultimate freedom. Selflessness allows you the freedom from being pinned into a corner and coerced into participation.

 

Challenge is a convenient way to temporarily bring harmony within. But the requirement for such a challenge is reduced when the governance (perhaps merely the mindset within the individual) is more considerate of the needs within. This reduces the urge to rebellion against the governance.

 

I still don't grasp either the idea of selfish or selfless you present. When can it ever be in the interests of the self not to consider others? and how can not considering the interests of the self be something that brings freedom from coercion?

 

Recognising the benefits to self are often simply about a shift in attitude rather then actions. the example I use is motherhood.

 

A Mother who denies her 'self' and gets up nights to meet the needs of her crying baby - sacrificing sleep for another ... often ends up with a bad attitude.

 

A Mother who gets up nights because she recognises she pleases herself when she cares for the child who brings her endless joy ... will better make it through teething.

 

(not to say that both Mothers won't survive the experience more happily if they have a partner/friend/lover who can take over for a night - and not because they are making somekind of noble 'self sacrifice' but because they know their own needs will met through the relationship they enjoy with the Mother - apologies for my somewhat provincial example from my ownbook of examples!)

 

An understanding of how our own self is served by considering the feelings of others - is just as likely if not more so to lead to peaceful society than giving up all consideration to our own needs is it not? My experience of 'rebellion' is that it happens when one is not able to give due attention to the 'self' which eventually asserts its need.

[Ssel]

You have presented a variety of mixed concerns. On some of these we agree.

 

First, the definition of love (the pure type) is the acceptance that one's happiness is stemming from the joy or health of another. The mother who truly loves her child in the pure sense, feels joy in attending to her child simply because it helps the child. From knowing that she has helped the child, she feels that any effort was worth it. This does not forbid her from taking care of herself so that she will be there for her child.

 

If the mother feels that helping the child is merely a chore, then she will become annoyed and possibly angry. This is because her willingness to attend was not founded in actual love - the pursuit of the needs of the child. But rather, usually, a feeling of obligation, duty, or guilt. Many women feel that they will be judged as bad mothers if they don't attend properly. This again is not merely a Protestant encouragement but a general social encouragement from all directions.

 

Selfless love really means that you feel joy only because you wanted to help the joy of another. When this is truly the only cause of your efforts, then any return payment for your efforts isn't required because you have already been paid by your own actions. It is a very different mindset. Would you never give a gift unless you were assured that you would receive proper return?

 

The person who is truly driven by pure love can easily spend a lot of effort to cause another to be happier even if the other never knew she had anything to do with it.

 

For example, if by some magic means, you could help your child to avoid dangers and become happier but the child would never, ever know that you even existed, would you still make the effort? Some would not because they think in terms of the child giving them enjoyment and if the child doesn't know who to thank and play with, then the mother won't feel the joy she wanted.

 

The Jesus type of love is called "agape" and refers to not merely loving someone else in a pure manner, but loving the entire human race such as to merely want to see it grow healthier and happier even at the cost of his own life. A mother sometimes finds herself in this position concerning her own child.

 

But as Jesus pointed out, this is common and relatively easy and solves very little of the world's problems. But if a larger group of people are willing to love (with the pure type) all life, even the soul efforts of their enemies to survive, then the effort to help all of life becomes overwhelming compared to the selfish concerns of so many who, at best, only love their own family. Even small animals can do this much. Mankind has the capacity to see the bigger picture and rise above the mere animal approach.

 

The effort to love ALL removes a great deal of conflict. Most governing methods depend on conflict and ensure conflict so as to maintain their control. These things are being done today in grand proportions.

 

An example of selfishness is a typical business that seeks only the highest profit and will use any extreme to ensure that they get it. Almost all extremist and activist organizations push for only their own interests, intentionally proclaiming that they should just let others fin for themselves rather than trying to work out a balance for all.

 

Being a single selfless person within a society of self oriented people will invariably merely bring death. This is why it was important to "spread the word" so that it wasn't an issue of any single person doing all of the giving and everyone else doing the taking.

 

The design of hostage and ransom efforts relies on someone willing to sacrifice one thing for the sake of another. If a large number of people are only truly concerned for the most complete health and well being of the whole, then hostage scenarios don't work. Then because they simply don't work, they stop being used. Because they stop being used, even the few times when they might have worked, don't even get tried.

 

This is the story of the early Christians. They were attempting to gain enough willingness to ignore the efforts to create self concern that they could eventually be free from people even attempting such things.

 

The Jesus method was created specifically to break the oppressive hold on all peoples by governments which somewhat universally controlled through the use of coercion.

[Alice]

 

 

This is the story of the early Christians. They were attempting to gain enough willingness to ignore the efforts to create self concern that they could eventually be free from people even attempting such things.

 

The Jesus method was created specifically to break the oppressive hold on all peoples by governments which somewhat universally controlled through the use of coercion.

 

By jove - I think I've got it!

 

in as much as I can see what you are saying, and I think we were sort of agreeing but using the idea of selfishness and selflessness in different ways,

 

and you being you - and me being me, for ease of argument and because I've got a cold and have consumed way too much benylin I'll accept your definitions of said two words as a gift :wink:

 

So this approach to life/death taken by the early christians - this was the 'dont fear physical death - fear death that kills the body and soul'? Death that kills the body and soul being the oppressive use of coercion - if they went happily to their deaths ... what power then has persecution?

 

Something about your posts that seems to remind people of films they've once seen ... the film version of H.G Wells time machine - when he meets the people (I'm terrible with names) who live the rosy happy shiny peaceful life, have no concern for those facing death - and although some aspects of their life appear to be a picnic, they are still being picked off by the oppressive regime who draw them underground to work as slaves.

 

They ignore their common enemy - and whoosh away goes their challenge and their creativity.

 

Which you see being resolved how? (I noticed there was still creativity and challenge in your no conflict future ....

[Ssel]

I've got a cold and have consumed way too much benylin ..

I well understand

So this approach to life/death taken by the early christians - this was the 'dont fear physical death - fear death that kills the body and soul'? Death that kills the body and soul being the oppressive use of coercion - if they went happily to their deaths ... what power then has persecution?

True except for the "body" part. The effort was really to be only concerned of your "soul". In this usage the soul can be more easily seen as your concerns for the future of those you care about. Your soul is that part of your basic concerns that continues beyond your own life - the lives of your children or others that you might care greatly about.

Which you see being resolved how? (I noticed there was still creativity and challenge in your no conflict future ....

Yes, I am familiar with that film.

 

The missing element in the entire Christian effort is simply that the metaphorical "resurrected blood" of Jesus was missing a gene. This is my personal way of expressing it. The missing gene was the gene that would have ensured that the "body of Christ" (basically the church and followers) would develop a greater emphasis on the understanding of exactly WHY things were being done.

 

As you can see from very many of these posts, the issue is often a specualtion as to WHY God did this or that, or Jesus or the Jews or whomever.

 

The final fix comes from that left out concern and consideration of the exact WHYs involved in all of life's concerns.

 

Once it becomes clear as to exactly why life does what it does and where all of it will then lead, then the question of what must be done becomes evident.

 

Since the 1970's in the US everything involving Christianity, especially the definitions of words such as "love" have been quite intentional confounded and mixed with other words such as "lust". It is then declared that there is no real definition and the whole subject is merely confusion and an attempt to trick you.

 

The question "Why?" was treated this same way..

 

Why? - the ultimate question which no one can answer!

Heaven - can't exist, would be different for different people!

Love - Everyone thinks it means something different, indefinable!

God - Totally indefinable and ambiguous, can't exist, is merely attempts to control you!

Jesus - a nice Jewish boy, charismatic cultist seeking fame!

Christianity - A bunch of selfish churches trying to control you with fear!

Soul - something to do with superstitious belief in an attempt to scare you into compliance!

Spirit - something that silly superstitious people believe in like ghosts.

On and on...

 

To destroy rational thinking and any organization, disrupt their language, their mental health, and create insecurities which can not be identified. They will then destroy themselves.

 

When merely the REAL "why" aspect is put back into the equation, the bigger picture of how man mistreats himself becomes evident. The solution is then a matter of chasing the real purpose with all you have. The result is that every true concern of life grows stronger and stronger and eventually unstoppable. All of the methods of man trying to control others become useless and even childish.

 

Yes, by holding onto nothing, then one is more free than by any other means. Hold onto to nothing, and nothing can hold onto you. But this does not mean to also release the concern of holding onto nothing.

 

The future people in that film had nothing to seek and challenge them because they were never really told why they lived to begin with. At the time the story was written, the author didn't know either.

[Cerise]

Insight into trying to describe what cannot be described by the means of what is known. There are certain symbols that are used to convey a meaning that are incorporated by several myths. Then they would use those symbols or stories in their own words that would be reflected by that culture's norms.

 

Isn't it a rather futile activity to try to describe what cannot be described? As a writer myself, I like to think I know the value of symbolism and metaphor (which, I think, all take a huge backseat to metanomy in the scheme of what we are doing when we read fiction) but I wouldn't say that making a poem is an activity of describing the undescribable. The end result there would be...nothing.

 

Myths and legends aren't nothing. But they aren't "everything" either (and I have to keep dissauding my young pupils from spending long exams hours trying to convince me that everything is relative to experience and that Margaret Atwood's "Death of a Young Son by Drowning" could be about handbags and not about the death of a young son by drowning.) So what are they?

 

I think they preform the same function as our modern myths and legends that keep coming back to us in the media, in the school system, in our policies, in our laws, etc. They describe a social system and provide a chart of values with which to measure human progress. I don't think this is "dangerous secret knowledge" hidden in symbolism of myths and legends, purposley obscured by its ancient writers. I think it's a record of value systems so removed at parts from our time that they are difficult to decifer. So when people in the OT pick up stones with which to deal with disobediant children, it's not a metaphor for teenage angst or the Oedipus Complex, or "stone" means pimples, or the next stage of manhood (in my opinion). It's a value system that seems so removed from our society that it's difficult to understand how respect for elders could be so much more important then preserving the life of a child. It's like dealing with modern day cannibalism that doesn't have the luxury of extenuating circumstances, like airplane crashes or deserted islands, surrounding it. We don't have the tools for dealing with the kind of value system where eating your enemies is a logical progression.

 

I'm sure centuries from now the future myth interpreters will be wondering just what the big deal is about the Olsen Twins. Or Paris Hilton. Or "reality t.v."

 

So, it is not so much a matter of what occured, but the motive behind it because the two explanations of what happened that I have just given are, at the base, the same. I didn't understand the symbolic nature side...at all. And with my understanding, came peace. I no longer held any anomosity toward a certain group for trying to use their own language and culture in trying to tell about god. Hell, they all did it.

 

I do hope you don't think that is what the majority of us are doing here at Ex-C.net. By most of what I've seen here, the animosity held towards Christianity stems more from resultant harm of groups trying to enforce a certain mindset on those who do not appreciate being forced. They "all did it" of course, but Christianity (and perhaps Islam) has to have set a record for "doing it" in the most bloody, violent, oppressive, and hate-filled manner possible.

 

There's only so much you can blame on a misunderstanding before it becomes ridiculous. If my "please everybody behave" sign is misread for centuries by many intelligent people because I worded it in such a way as it could easily be interpreted as "everybody kill who they don't like please" then maybe it's my fault for being so unclear in the first place.

 

Understanding that the bible is a big fat misunderstanding (which is a theory I am not sold on, by the way) would not grant me peace. It would grant me sadness and more then a little anger at the destruction that could possibly have been avoided by the whole thing being forgotten in the first place.

[Ssel]

Misunderstanding, ignorance, and their causes are the enemy, not people.

 

How can you destroy that enemy by saying "Ignore these people and what they say, because I don't understand what they said and suspect it to be dangerous."

 

Which people will you ignore tomorrow and after that? When does ignoring destroy ignorance?

 

If you want to stop their foolishness, then understand exactly what they worship and show them where they are going wrong with what they hold most dear. But you can't do that by angrily declaring it all as non-sense.

 

Anger causes even more ignorance. And worse, in the long run, causes a reverse anger against you.

 

Trying to use hatred to fight hatred and ignorance to fight ignorance has never worked throughout the history of Man, why do you think it will work now?

 

When, if ever, do you give credit to the effort to be truly accurate regardless of the consequences?

[Fweethawt]

Anger causes even more ignorance. And worse, in the long run, causes a reverse anger against you.

There ya go, Cerise.

 

As long as people are directing their reverse anger at you, that's a good thing, right?

 

Reverse anger is good, right?

 

Somebody please set me straight on this.

[Cerise]

Anger causes even more ignorance. And worse, in the long run, causes a reverse anger against you.

There ya go, Cerise.

 

As long as people are directing their reverse anger at you, that's a good thing, right?

 

Reverse anger is good, right?

 

Somebody please set me straight on this.

 

And the pop culture gods said,

 

anger leads to hate

hate leads to suffering

anger leads to hate

hate leads to suffering

suffering

suffer

the little

children suffer

a little

by little every

day my Jesus

is changing me...

[Ssel]

Somebody please set me straight on this.

I suspect that you are a little too fwee from thawt.

 

 

anger leads to hate

hate leads to suffering

anger leads to hate

hate leads to suffering

suffering

suffer

the little

children suffer

a little

by little every

day my Jesus

is changing me...

Not that an angry mind cares, but..

 

Jesus said for that current generation of ADULTS to suffer that their children come unto Him. This would be suffering because the adults would not be well treated by the reigning power at the time and the values that the adults had would be changing from the old ways.

 

Jesus said nothing whatsoever about children suffering.

 

Like I said, "When are you going to give accuracy any credit for your time?"

[Cerise]

I hate it when you directly reply to my posts and other people notice it because it means that I have to take you off your justly deserved iggy spot and respond to you, and it's really tiresome to do that.

 

What I have quoted to you is a partial from a poem I wrote in response to oft heard argument that all anger is irrefutably evil, bad, leads to horrible things, etc. No where in it did I ever say that Jesus told children to suffer.

 

When are YOU going to learn accuracy, Ssel?

 

But I suppose it's much easier to insult and brag and puff yourself up in response to every little thing anybody says which doesn't immediately translate into a worshipping at the feet of your immense ego.

 

I'll give you the whole poem, just to clear up any furthur misunderstandings from you, and then you can go safely back into iggyville where you belong.

 

Today

 

Today a child was fondled

by a fat man in a grey track

suit on the greyhound bus.

And no one was angry.

 

Today a woman was pushed

through a window which is now

stained glass, ribbons of red like streamers

in her hair.

And no one was angry.

 

Today a man was chased into

dark alleys, spread against the wall

humiliated and threatened

with someone’s slim shank sunk

in his skin.

And no one was angry.

 

Today a family watched their house burn.

Today a father watched his wife burn.

Today a daughter’s breasts were cut off.

Today a brother’s eyes were gauged out.

Today a mother’s lips were laid open

as cold steel slid down her stretched throat.

 

And she cried out in a voice no longer hers and

asked for

asked for

begged for

andwhereohmygodwhere…

 

Isn’t somebody angry? For the love of god please…someone…

 

 

And the pop culture gods said,

 

anger leads to hate

hate leads to suffering

anger leads to hate

hate leads to suffering

suffering

suffer

the little

children suffer

a little

by little every

day my Jesus

is changing me...