Genesis And The Fall

[Fweethawt]

Somebody please set me straight on this.

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

Hardly.

 

Nice shot anyway.

[Ssel]

Justified anger is just anger justified.

The results are the same.

Hatred is the name.

Justice is the claim.

But they are always to blame.

[Amanda]

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.

Cerise...

 

Yes, I think the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil' was for a purpose! IMO, the fruit of this tree is judgement, the forbidden judgement is condemnation. Judgement unto victory is the 'tree of life'. Eating of this tree seems to suggest/mark a more mature mankind.

 

Their eyes were opened and they knew they were naked. The prime root meaning of 'naked', is they knew (judged) they were 'subtle, crafty, and came from an animal-like nature.' Judgement was the spark of civilization, a realization of being civilized as 'good' and uncivilized is 'evil'! Stable establishments being a new concept, brought new needs and regards for each other. New possiblilities and owning things became more important, hence the necessity of laws. How could civilization have initiated without this judgement?

[Fweethawt]

Justified anger is just anger justified.

The results are the same.

Hatred is the name.

Justice is the claim.

But they are always to blame.

 

Roses are red

Violets are blue

Cerise's poetry

Will always pwn you.

[Cerise]

Depends on what you want to call "civilization" I guess.

 

Personally I don't think it's gotten us very far, being civil, I mean.

 

Couldn't "naked" mean vulnerable? I know Jesus wrote a whole lot about not worrying about the future, and trusting that God would take care of the essential needs. I think it was Victorian discourse that tried to make the covering of Adam and Eve's nakedness all about the sexual shame part (Focault talks about about Victorian obsessiveness with sex) but back when I was trying to interpret genesis as a cultural myth, I always thought that the sudden needing for clothing showed an Adam and Eve that were no longer trusting in God's ability to provide the essentials. They had eaten fruit that screamed at them to prepare for future hardships, cover their vulnerability, and try to control their own environment in order to stave off death.

[Ssel]

The metaphoric translation for being naked is "being exposed" as in embarrassed. The same usage applies to the story of Ham.

 

After they ate of the forbidden fruit, they realized that they had been exposed.

[Cerise]

Roses are red

Violets are blue

Cerise's poetry

Will always pwn you.

 

[Fweethawt]

:wub:  :grin:

I had to post it this way so I could get away with using all of the smileys that I did.

[Ssel]

Anywaaaaayyy.....

 

Once Adam and Eve had used their knowledge for their own gain, they feared being seen. Much like an innocent child who becomes nervous after telling his first lie. He fears reality. He tries to hide his embarrassment.

 

Because he now fears reality, the clear sight of reality is something he can no longer capture. The mind avoids looking toward what it fears. It speculates and makes presumptuous errors.

 

The temptation and desire that started the whole thing becomes an issue plaguing them. Much like a politician who got caught stealing once, as much as he tries to get past it, he is never allowed to forget it and it follows him everywhere.

 

He tries to hide his shame and beat down the temptation, but the truth of his past follows him, biting at his heels.

 

He is no longer trusted and must now struggle for himself alone. His suspicions distort his perceptions. Frustrations result from his misperceptions. He becomes lost in material struggles for gain without progress or hope. He never gains the ability to clearly see reality or be comfortable with it again.

 

The desires that lead to deception never leave the mind and begin to cloud it into "darkness" until the mind knows that it has been forgiven by those who might learn of the deception.

 

Btw, if it was just a myth, they did a pretty piss poor job of explaining where all of the wives came from for a people who could understand the mind so well and advocate questioning all things.

 

[thomas]

 

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

 

”Just remember to bend the cotter pin”

 

 

I am very well aware, that I am asking you to jump to the consequences before all of the relevant factors have been explaind and understood.

 

It is the same, if I see a book that looks interesting. Then I will browse a little around, read some here and some there in order to get a first impression of what it is all about. Then I may decide that the book is worth my time and if so, I will read it carefully in a systematic manner.

 

At the moment this is my relationship to your posts. I am trying to get a first impression about what it is all about.

[Alice]

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.

 

I mentioned body as well - because I also happen to be in a discussion elsewhere about Matthew 10 and the meaning of 'fearing the one who has the power to destroy the body and soul in hell'. You don't happen to have a hell thread running that I'm missing do you

 

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.... 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.

 

 

OK so I love 'why' questions - way more than the what, where and when. (I know which side of the mountain appeals to me most!)

 

I have my benylin, some pillows, a box of hankies and its only 'murder she wrote on the TV' ....

 

Whilst I think I grasp the essence of selflessness and pure love - I still see so many opportunites for this to turn into manipulation by those who would regard the reduced desire to rebel as a chance to control - the length of time before this would become 'childish or irrelevent' seems too wide.

 

The other problem I have is that I like the challenge that comes from the ebb and flow of human relationships (this has always been my complaint about the idea of perfected souls in a perfect heaven and to date your shiny happy future rings the same sort of alarm bells for me but I am trying to listen)

[NotBlinded]

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.

Cerise, I really don't disagree with you. I agree that what happened during the compilation of the bible bears a great deal of fault. I just don't know where that fault lies. Did the writers intentionally make it vague or was it vague because of misunderstanding. I tend to fall in the middle. I think they purposefully made it vague and I think that there was some misunderstanding that lead to vagueness because of not understanding the intended allegory. That is why I say that I think it is perfectly fine to pick and choose what parts are meaningful because I don't know where someone misintrepreted or where someone purposefully compounded it. I can only try to follow the theme and put aside what I don't think fits. That doesn't mean that it doesn't fit because it very well could be that I just don't understand it. I hope you don't find me ridiculous for trying to understand. I guess what brings me peace about it is knowing that, just maybe, it wasn't originally meant to be what it is now and being able to tell myself that people make mistakes that lead to harm. I don't know, maybe it's just me.

 

And no, I don't mean to say that anybody here was doing what I was doing. When I said, hell they all did it, I was referring to writing stories about god. I wasn't referring to them enforcing their mindsets on others because I don't know their motives initially and I don't know where human error came in. I try to focus on the writings themselves and see it in context with culture and how much in common it has with other writings and what those writings mean to other cultures. I don't focus on the outcome so much. My perception has changed.

 

You know I respect you Cerise, you helped me a great deal when I first came here and I thank you for that.

[Cerise]

Well we have differeing areas of concern I guess. Right now, I can't imagine dealing with anything except outcomes (as, perhaps, my signature quote displays). I tend to think that the effect words have on the world are more important then the words themselves.

 

Trying to understand in and of itself is not ridiculous. Trying to understand so much that one begins to make excuses for a text, and no longer looks at reading as a seeking mission for truth as much as an apologetics session for whatever ideology that has been latched onto, that is ridiculous. I don't think you are at that stage nbbtb, however I know many that started out just trying to understand the bible and then ended up making more amendments to it then the mormons in order to make it fit their worldview. And if you find yourself twisting a text in order to gain truth, it seems much more prudent to just dump the text and start writing your own. Skips the middleman that way.

[NotBlinded]

Well we have differeing areas of concern I guess. Right now, I can't imagine dealing with anything except outcomes (as, perhaps, my signature quote displays). I tend to think that the effect words have on the world are more important then the words themselves.

 

Trying to understand in and of itself is not ridiculous. Trying to understand so much that one begins to make excuses for a text, and no longer looks at reading as a seeking mission for truth as much as an apologetics session for whatever ideology that has been latched onto, that is ridiculous. I don't think you are at that stage nbbtb, however I know many that started out just trying to understand the bible and then ended up making more amendments to it then the mormons in order to make it fit their worldview. And if you find yourself twisting a text in order to gain truth, it seems much more prudent to just dump the text and start writing your own. Skips the middleman that way.

I gotcha! There is no way that I could ever take it as more than what I find it to be. It's not any more the word of god than any other writing. I think when viewed this way, it takes the pressure off to make it into something other than an insightful story. That way it doesn't matter if any of the stuff the bible refers to historically happened at all. I see it as a guide to personal understanding and nothing more.

 

I do worry about how it is used by people, but now I no longer blame the book for the errors of the people that promoted such atrocities. There are many books out there than can do damage if people base their entire life around a book as truth. The only way I can see to stop the deceit and acceptance would be to change the way we think. How long can one blame the original deceivers before responsibility becomes necessary in the people that is accepting the story as complete truth? I also don't want to blame the people that accept it as truth because they were deceived. Seems like a hopeless circle as it stands.

[Ssel]

I mentioned body as well - because I also happen to be in a discussion elsewhere about Matthew 10 and the meaning of 'fearing the one who has the power to destroy the body and soul in hell'.

Sometimes I have to wonder why the apostles didn't use their highlighters and colored ink more often to express emphasis, don't you?

In case there was any confusion about the Matthew quote, Jesus expressed that his disiples not worry about he that can kill the body, but rather he that can destroy BOTH body AND soul.

 

I still see so many opportunites for this to turn into manipulation by those who would regard the reduced desire to rebel as a chance to control - the length of time before this would become 'childish or irrelevent' seems too wide.

This is the reason women were supposed to be more careful of who they marry.

 

The exactly "proper Christian male" is supposed to be one who is attending to reality with the Jesus methodology. This would mean that he is totally 100% devoted to attending to the balance of all needs through as much of the world as he can perceive. The level of concern for near versus distant issues really works out to be an exponential type of thing where the greatest degree of concern starts near and spreads more thin as the issues grow more distant. But this thought can lead to some abuse if misunderstood.

 

If the husband actually has such a heart as that, then the wife certainly has no worries of being taken advantage of for being devoted to him.

 

But the subject of love is really independent of Christianity. Love is not exactly something a person chooses but rather something that chooses the person. Real love is the base mind (the heart) seeing a combination of things in another which registers as the "good" and worthy of giving to.

 

The real difference between “wanting” and “loving” can be expressed as;

Loving is wanting for the good to flourish in another, whereas wanting is for yourself.

 

The female has a genetic situation that the male doesn't have to bother about. I could go into all of the explanation of how this all came about, but not now.

 

The female has a genetically dictated split priority. She must be concerned for her security just as the male would, but she must also be concerned with the issue of love of both child and mate. This becomes a conflicting concern. But without her love issue, the survival issue is moot for all of mankind.

 

This split priority is why she seems so emotional and frustratingly unpredictable to the male. The male needs only to be concerned with "getting the job done" which seldom conflicts with survival. The female must be conquerable both by heart and by body else no child is born.

 

The problem of being torn between the 2 priorities can be settled by her very strongly deciding to choose which of the 2 she is going to totally devote to and then abandon any temptations to be concerned with the other. This only becomes a secure decision using certain principles to secure it in place.

 

Without a solid decision, the female is never completely comfortable and can jeopardize both priorities quite easily.

 

At a young age, the female indeed should be hard to "capture" by any male simply so she has time to see what's out there and test the real capabilities and deeper issues of any potential mate. Fore what good is it to give to one who will not take nor cherish.

 

The real problem with the Cinderella story wasn't that everyone can't have a prince. The real problem was that Cinderella was in love with a prince, not the man. And the readers were in love with the scenario regardless of who was standing in for the role of prince.

 

Real love requires far more attention to exactly who is involved. Lust blinds the details from consideration. Wanting anything very much tends to hide the realities of what is there. The wanting to get married can lead to very serious errors.

 

If the woman truly sees the "good" (by her own standards) then she will feel the urge to be devoted without having to encourage it. When the good is truly good enough, she will feel the need for nothing else.

 

If it were not for this tendency, mankind would at best still be in the jungle.

 

The other problem I have is that I like the challenge that comes from the ebb and flow of human relationships (this has always been my complaint about the idea of perfected souls in a perfect heaven and to date your shiny happy future rings the same sort of alarm bells for me but I am trying to listen)

Do you like to dance?

 

The REAL heaven is a never ending whirling waltz, causing joy for all of the right reasons, not a sleepy drift on a cloud.

[Alice]

Ok - hope you have your marker pen ready ....

 

The exactly "proper Christian male" is supposed to be one who is attending to reality with the Jesus methodology. This would mean that he is totally 100% devoted to attending to the balance of all needs through as much of the world as he can perceive. The level of concern for near versus distant issues really works out to be an exponential type of thing where the greatest degree of concern starts near and spreads more thin as the issues grow more distant. But this thought can lead to some abuse if misunderstood.

 

I have a residual problem with anything that sounds too much like something the conservative right use to promote family life that is only viewed as 'happy' and 'good' - if dad shoots reindeer at the weekend and Mum wears pretty gingham dresses and a starched apron whilst baking cookies ... but I'll read on ...

 

Real love is the base mind (the heart) seeing a combination of things in another which registers as the "good" and worthy of giving to. ... Loving is wanting for the good to flourish in another, whereas wanting is for yourself..

 

Well that sounds that a welcome death knell to those stifling stereotypes ...

 

Real love requires far more attention to exactly who is involved.

 

I agree with this. It amazes me how many people seem to form serious relationships and yet know so little about their chosen partner.

 

Wanting anything very much tends to hide the realities of what is there.

 

ahhh - 'its not the object of desire - its the desire'.

 

If the woman truly sees the "good" (by her own standards) then she will feel the urge to be devoted without having to encourage it. When the good is truly good enough, she will feel the need for nothing else.

 

It's easy to loose sight of the 'good' and forget what we've seen. If it were not for this tendency, mankind would spend less time in the divorce courts.

 

Do you like to dance?

 

Are you asking

[Amanda]

Hi Ssel! I usually agree with you on many aspects... yet we seem to significantly differ here, as well as the Cain and Able story.

Once Adam and Eve had used their knowledge for their own gain, they feared being seen. Much like an innocent child who becomes nervous after telling his first lie. He fears reality. He tries to hide his embarrassment.

Really? I guess interpretations are up to individual thinking... and I'm willing to change mine if convinced the new one is more appropriate. Yes, they did use the new knowledge for their own gain, IMO. Much of the fruit, judgement, was used for good... but the one fruit they used right away, condemnation is forbidden. Blaming God, someone else, and the devil. Have we changed? Where is accountability for self's responsibility in regards to ALL things? I agree with Cerise here.

 

BTW, the prime root meaning of naked is here. Using it for good is good, and for evil is evil. They chose to blame others with it... and this was the forbidden fruit, condemnation.

 

And also Cerise, Jesus said to be slow to anger... but anger can be a good thing! Jesus got angry many times! He also said to take away complacency so that we may have real peace. I think this is a mutual concept to which you are referring?

 

Because he now fears reality, the clear sight of reality is something he can no longer capture. The mind avoids looking toward what it fears. It speculates and makes presumptuous errors.

Really? I thought it mostly has to do with vanity. Putting one's self above reproach. Self elitist mentality to be condensending of others... even God. Eve 'judged' herself not good enough, not being like God... so she lost the knowledge of who she was, god herself already... but she brought us into a new level of reasoning. Adam, however, thought he was better than Eve and God, blaming them both! Lucifer, who is NOT satan, did the same thing.

Btw, if it was just a myth, they did a pretty piss poor job of explaining where all of the wives came from for a people who could understand the mind so well and advocate questioning all things.

Ssel, I think Adam doesn't represent the first 'man' but the first 'spiritual mankind'. To be carnally minded is death, and to be spiritually minded is life and peace. There are still a lot of males and females around... some of which could be wives.

[thomas]

 

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..

 

 

One short question. Who had the intention of mixing words?

[Ssel]

I have a residual problem with anything that sounds too much like something the conservative right use to promote family life that is only viewed as 'happy' and 'good' - if dad shoots reindeer at the weekend and Mum wears pretty gingham dresses and a starched apron whilst baking cookies ... but I'll read on ...

The conservative righteous had (and have) a certain set of axiomatical concepts which leads them to perfecting a structure. It is an error for them to presume that the structure totally fits all people at all times and it is an error to never fully examine the axioms for intent as well as words.

 

Well that sounds that a welcome death knell to those stifling stereotypes ...

Perfect devotion misplaced is like anything else, a shot in the dark likely to kill. The point is to not misplace your aim.

 

Real love requires far more attention to exactly who is involved.

 

It's easy to loose sight of the 'good' and forget what we've seen. If it were not for this tendency, mankind would spend less time in the divorce courts.

This is not only exactly correct, but is also one of the most prime concerns of maintaining any bond.

 

Are you asking

Just as I always leave a party with whom I came, I dance quite freely, but when I sit to rest, I rest alone.

 

To me, the Bible and a woman have certain similarities. Both appear on the surface as one thing, but deep within are far more complex and significant but neither are a mystery to me.

 

Just as a woman must learn to assess a male with less presumption. The male must learn to assess a female as to whether she can really be what she promises.

 

Shania Twain's "From this moment" (on DVD) is the promise.

 

I am the dance.

 

 

One short question. Who had the intention of mixing words?

How can Man be in the image of God if he is both seen and with name?

[Ssel]

One short question. Who had the intention of mixing words?

It is fairly well known that the Freemasons orchestrated the construct of America for about 200 years. But who was running the Masons?

 

As it unfortunately turns out, to run a very large population requires a degree of secrecy. The need of this today is actually far less than has always been used (and is still being used). You only know them by their shadow when the block the sun and their footprints when they leave deep impressions.

 

You only know the “who” in the same way that man really knows anything. He doesn’t see within everything so as to know it, but sees only its effect and then names it for his own use.

 

The Freemasons forbid blacks or women from being within their ranks. This was for a far greater reason than most presume. But today, both the blacks and the women have been given the formula for Masonry. Their ability to handle it is theirs to work out.

 

The end result of this is depicted in the film “2010”. They each, with others, form great stones which eventually all merge into a great new sun.

 

The film ends with 2 great suns shining upon Earth. But although this is the end of the film, it is not the end of the story.

 

Make no mistake, I have extreme regard for these organizations and their accumulated mountains of wisdom. But I had no need to fully understand every detail of their make. My concern wasn’t for who they were or how great or perfect they were. My concern was only for what they might have left out.

 

What that “new thing” I keep referring to is, is what has been left out and is also what that film left out. It is all related to what is metaphorically like a black hole out in space.

 

It is presumption that the black hole is formed by the greatly accumulated mass of a giant star collapsing into itself. But this is not so.

 

A black hole is actually formed between to great stars that have come too close. The black hole first consumes one, then the other. This is why you so frequently see the black hole still very near a star as well as the fact that once it has consumed both, it is hidden in darkness.

 

But think about what grand power and significance it is that can allow for something so small to engulf things so grand. It requires a certain quality, a quality of both purity and harmony. The result of which is an attraction beyond resistance.

 

After the 2 great suns form to shine upon Earth, the real beginning starts from between the two, first totally consuming one, then the other. It can not be stopped once it starts, and it can not be prevented from starting.

 

As Jesus once put it, “there is left no place for evil to enter.” Thus it finally resolves to have no adversary to fear fore all are not coerced into compliance, but welcomed when they come so close as to feel its extreme draw. Once in harmony within, there is absolutely no inspiration or temptation to leave.

 

The concept of “strong force” and “weak force” in nuclear physics is a false model caused by the false Bohr model of the atom and its associated particles.

 

The reason that protons do not repel within a nucleus is simply because they are in harmony as one and have nothing inspiring them to part. It takes a great deal of force to break them up into individuals again, just as it took a great deal of force so as to bring them into harmony.

 

These concepts are all related to both nature and the society of Man.

 

It is only Reality that governs the REAL Heaven, no famous names.

[Ssel]

Another issue on ethics...

 

Why wouldn't genetic engineering be something that helped the DNA? It could help the DNA be more proficient in surviving diseases, illnesses, and healing from physical wounds that now impede DNA propagation. Wouldn't it be nice if ALL our body parts regenerated, should the need be? I see it as part of the process of eventually being raised in 'glorified' bodies.

Would you think the same if the engineering was to replace all people within America with, let say, Chinese merely because they were more suited to fit the agenda of the American governance?

 

When replacement is the thought rather than repair, then betrayal is the heart, not assistance.

 

The current thought on how to handle cancer, is with death. Those who have succumbed to cancer are simply replaced but not such that they can see that is what is happening. But take an honest look at the entire picture of the show, not merely the advertisements.

 

To replace some things is indeed a necessity. But when do you know when replacing is better than repairing? And better for whom? If you have one child that misbehaves, do you cast that one away so that the family will get along better? "If your right hand offends thee, cut it off"?

 

Who decides when to cut it off? At what point is the offense great enough? Who has shown that they understand the right set of priorities? How would you know?

 

The mind of man begins with the presumption that only that mind has true priority and all else is merely there for his benefit. He learns eventually that there is far more to the story. He eventually learns that the mind was merely there by the request and efforts of others beneath him.

 

How many were replaced before he realized that they were, in fact, the only purpose for his creation?

 

Did the species begin the DNA? Or did the DNA begin the species? Who was created to serve whom? And when does the servant decide that replacing the master is the better option?

 

Yes, if you replace all DNA with something that is better suited to survive, then THEY will survive better than you. Is this the thinking that your devotion would be attracted to?

 

At what point is good enough determined? When does the governance decide that no more replacement is needed? The current thought is to keep changing everything so that there is plenty of social energy and issues. So no matter what changes and replacements are made, They will simply have to be replaced themselves again later.

 

The governance survives eternally by ensuring that the individual is never good enough.

 

Is this the governance that you would hold in high esteem and devote your life to, to fight in a war for, to raise your children into?

 

Heaven is not formed by eternally replacing those who could not conform, but by making every attempt to repair those already there.

 

Evolution is a fact of life, not a goal of life.

[Amanda]

 

 

Hey Ssel, my friend.... I think you got our threads mixed up, didn't you?

 

 

Aren't we discussing this somewhere else?

[Ssel]

Aren't we discussing this somewhere else?

I copied it here to address the ethics question raised earlier here.

 

 

And btw, I forgot to mention..

 

The "fig leaf" metaphor refers to hiding behind the issue of "its really only for the community" (or today, “its for your own protection”). When Adam and Eve realized that they were exposed, they tried to claim that what they were doing was "only for the good of the community".

 

This usage of the fig tree shows up in other stories as well. This reference comes from the notion a fig tree/bush usually produces more fruit than any one person would want and is thus used (in that area) as a community source for fruit. Also consider that the tree tends to hide its real fruit with its large leaves.

[thomas]

Ssel

 

I keep on asking questions.

 

 

One short question. Who had the intention of mixing words?

It is fairly well known that the Freemasons orchestrated the construct of America for about 200 years. But who was running the Masons?

 

As it unfortunately turns out, to run a very large population requires a degree of secrecy. The need of this today is actually far less than has always been used (and is still being used). You only know them by their shadow when the block the sun and their footprints when they leave deep impressions.

 

 

 

Are you only talking about the US, or are you saying that a small group of initiated people are running the whole world? Who is then the real force behind forming the State of Israel and the conflict in the Middle East? And who wanted the war in Iraq? I noticed that the Roman Catholic Church was againt it, while American radical protestants like the Southern State Baptists expresed their warm support.

 

And by the way. In another of your posts, I noticed that you mentioned earth, water, air and fire. Does this mean that you believe in the existence of and organization like Illuminati (as described by Dan Brown in Angels and Demons)?

[Alice]

Ssel,

 

although I think I can follow some of what you are saying - as soon as you get onto the freemasonary/secret knowledge deliberately hidden strands you lose me. What separates your thinking from the usual conspiracy theories?

 

I think it is human nature to suspect that anything they think is kept from them - must be for some deep dark reason. I see echoes in this from everything from the story of the Fall - to the death of Princess Diana to the recent controversy in the UK about Family Courts.

 

This latter is close to my heart becasue I work in this 'secret' organisation. There have been a number so sensationalist TV documentaries about the decision making process that goes on 'behind closed doors' and 'who are these so called experts and mystery people who make such terribly serious decisions and appear to be accountable to no one'

 

From behind those 'closed doors' what I know is that generally the experts are so called because they are (not that they are infallible mind you) and that everyone involved is accountable to the same due course of the law as in other courts in the land - the only difference is that the press and general public are excluded to protect children from having their personal trauma's dragged through the media and having people salivate over the salacious details.

 

However - whilst I believe in protecting the confidentiality of children - I do think that there might be several other processes at work here.

 

There is a huge amount of misunderstanding and misinformation 'out there' about child abuse and the work of social services. Whilst I would always want to be honest about mistakes that are made and keep reviewing my practice to make sure I am making my decisions on the best information available - whilst I try and dispel the misconceptions where ever I can - I have noticed that sometimes I keep information back from some kinds of people.

 

Experience has taught me that if I try and explain certain aspects of child protection policy to some kinds of people, they have so many misconceptions and gaps in their knowledge that they will not be able to process the new information in any valuable kind of way and often my telling them certain things - seems to make the cloud of confusion grow rather than disperse. This may have more to do with my lack of ability to communicate effectively than being in possession of knowledge that people are not equipped to handle (although sometimes it feels like it)

 

The misinformation that is 'out there' about child protection and social services certainly adds to the chaos and shortfalls in making better lives for children and sets the general public, social workers, foster carers, prospective adopters and the government all at war with each other.

 

I can see that multiplying this kind of situation up to national levels can result in ongoing chaos (sin) and systems and practices that are harmful to mankind. What I find difficult is imaging that there is any group of people deliberately manipulating systems into choas or 'darkness' in order to manipulate or control them.