I can appreciate you sharing your wisdom about half truth's.

To this end, I will take the challenge and ask you: What I'm about to say is a false. Is that a true statement?

Or more specifically, the belief in Jesus is both a Subjective and Objective truth. Is that a true statement?

Or how about this (phenomenology); I had a religious experience yesterday. Is that a true or false statement?

What do you think about our belief systems? And please save us from a bunch of political double speak. This is simple logic LOL!

"No.
Jesus said, "Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war."

LOL, man you got to give me something harder than this LOL!

What were the conflicts largely based upon? Self inflicted? Here's a clue: Human volitional existence.

Mmmm and throw in a little bit of human Ego, and there you have it!!!!

belief — 3017amen

Yes, I am suggesting that one admits up front that it is a belief for one's self rather than to proclaim it as as so as a truth for all. It's fine and honest to just say, "I don't know", as you suggested previously.

Or more specifically, the belief in Jesus is both a Subjective and Objective truth. Is that a true statement?

Or how about this (phenomenology); I had a religious experience yesterday. Is that a true or false statement? — 3017amen

No one knows. Saying true or false to unknowable unshowables is not honest.

How do you understand the fall of man in a different way? — TheMadFool

The story is an attempt to explain why life is a bitch, and then we die. It would not have escaped the notice of the biblical authors that some, many, most, or all of our problems (depending on the situation) are a result of our own unwillingness to a) follow the rules, whoever announces and enforces them, b) take responsible courses of action, c) reject the seductions of various snakes in the grass who have agendas which are not in our interest, d) avoid really stupid policy and practice, and more.

For the biblical writers who believed in a just God, there had to be a monumental cause to justify/explain the enduring disagreeableness of life. Their artistic solution to the problem of the difficulty of life was to place in the story of Eden, where Adam and Eve sacrificed their innocence to the seductions of the snake/evil tempter. the cause of our daily suffering.

The faithlessness of the descendants of Abraham, is a recurrent theme in the Bible. Again and again they display ingratitude, disobedience, wanton disregard toward God. Gross negligence followed by unpleasant consequences. It's a pattern that needed a symbolic explanation which the biblical writers placed in the story of Eden.

The ancient biblical authors weren't the only writers/compilers of myths to explain the problems of the world through various kinds of divine action. Some parts of the Bible are straightforward (if biased) history. Some parts are liturgy (the Psalms). Some parts are law. And some parts are literary. The stories in Genesis are literary, mythic. They aren't intended to be literal explanations. Take the story of the flood that ends with the promise of the rainbow. It's a second creation story with a happier ending. We don't have to go hunting for evidence that there was once a flood that covered up the whole earth. Noah and the flood is another nice story that explains our being here.

If you read Job, you would not go looking for evidence that somebody named Job actually existed. Job is another story about the evil one and suffering. It is literary material, not historical. Don't take it literally.

In the New Testament, the lovely story of Jesus born in the town of Bethlehem--stars, angels, shepherds, kings, etc. is clearly LITERARY not historical. The authors who wrote that story were separated in time and place from Israel. The Temple in Jerusalem had long since been turned into a temple for the worship of Roman (pagan) gods [referenced in Jewish literature as "the abomination of desolation"]. A good share of the Jews had been deported. It wasn't a few years of separation -- it was centuries. The authors had probably never been to the former nation of Israel, now a province of the Roman Empire.

The Christmas story places the messiah in the right place and time (per literary requirements). We don't have to take that part of the story of Jesus literally.

PU, this is what I previously said and I quote:

"I can unequivocally state, but not prove to you, that transformation and revelation exists in consciousness."

Please share what is true or false with that statement? Really !

You said "Saying true or false to unknowable unshowables is not honest."

So are you saying my experiences are simply that, my experiences? And if so, why is that "dishonest'?

And please save us from a bunch of political double speak. — 3017amen

Not a useful leading supposition that well promotes continuing communication, but demotes.

Not a useful leading supposition that well promotes continuing communication, but demotes. "

I agree, but too many philosophers engage in extraneous double speak. They figure the more words one uses, the more important they may look & feel. Hey, would that happen to be one interpretation known as original sin ?

Note that the Jews see our elevation which Christianity sees a fall. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

good point

Or more specifically, the belief in Jesus is both a Subjective and Objective truth. Is that a true statement? — 3017amen

Not according to the dictionaries I use.

In some senses, their is a bit of truth in both statements.

Jesus can only be a subjective entity, as we all have our own view of what he represents in our minds.

Gnostic Christians say you read white while I read black.

A miracle working Jesus, to be an objective reality, would have to return to show that he is as objective as written up to be.

The subjective is a truth while the objective remains a myth.

Logos and mythos are being mixed and that sort of makes it all speculative nonsense, as must be when the supernatural is in play.

Jesus used logos, not mythos.

Regards
DL

unequivocally — 3017amen

def: in a way that leaves no doubt

So, it is still slipping in that it is true for sure.

It is that for yourself only there is no doubt and it is 100% for sure, as your own experience, which is fine, as then you are not being even close to being mistaken by any listeners as you teaching truth and fact for all.

Yes, preachers always having to say 'maybe' won't make as many converts.

LOL, man you got to give me something harder than this LOL!

What were the conflicts largely based upon? Self inflicted? Here's a clue: Human volitional existence.

Mmmm and throw in a little bit of human Ego, and there you have it!!!! — 3017amen

You were too busy laughing.
Do try to make sense next time.
Regards
DL

good point — Bitter Crank

It makes a huge difference in how scriptures are to be understood.

Regards
DL

"I can unequivocally state, but not prove to you, that transformation and revelation exists in consciousness." — 3017amen

I fail to see the problem as our friend is quite good at analogical thinking.

Regards
DL

I agree, but too many philosophers engage in extraneous double speak. They figure the more words one uses, the more important they may look & feel. — 3017amen

We can leave 'they' to be 'them'. In my posts of prose or poems, I aim to be concise and precise, trying to fill every vein with ore, putting some meat into them.

Hey, would that happen to be one interpretation known as original sin ? — 3017amen

Original sin is more like an innate tendency in human design rather than useless philosophical babbling due to poor definitions or whatnot.

Original sin is more like an innate tendency in human design rather than useless philosophical babbling due to poor definitions or whatnot. — PoeticUniverse

Indeed.

Let us all thank Gaia and nature for giving us the ability to compete and sin when we are not cooperating, which is what we mostly do.

Without sin, our evolution would end and we would go extinct.

The mistake Christianity did was make the Jewish Original Virtue into a sin and the success of Eden into a failure.

Stupid is as stupid thinks.

Regards
DL

Without sin, our evolution would end and we would go extinct. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Yes, and although it's not pretty, we survived not in spite of our violence but because of it!

Even some of our cooperation became due to its necessity to help in the hunt, whether of animals or enemy tribes.

So I say quit waving the Fundy flag judging mankind and make an educated renewed paradigm. Isn't it simpler to say something along the lines of " the interpretation of the allegory is that we are not perfect beings". — 3017amen

Sorry, I’m confused - who’s waving the Fundy flag? If you’re saying it’s me, then that’d be a first...

Their artistic solution to the problem of the difficulty of life was to place in the story of Eden, where Adam and Eve sacrificed their innocence to the seductions of the snake/evil tempter. the cause of our daily suffering. — Bitter Crank

The snake/serpent in Genesis is not an ‘evil tempter’. You’re dipping into doctrine here. The association between serpents and ‘Satan’/evil comes from Revelations - a much later piece of writing.

Human animosity towards the snake is given ‘justification’ through this story. But the serpent simply invited Eve to doubt what she doesn't understand or cannot see, and to trust only what she sees and feels instead. This is not evil - it’s what we do ‘naturally’, the basis of human reason.

I certainly didn't mean to offend those who advocate for the interests of various snakes. It was not I who put the snake in the story.

I will have to take your objection to the identification of snake/evil tempter under advisement for now. You may be right, that the snake was not yet identified with Satan when the Eden story was composed, and I may have dipped into doctrine.

What was going on in the story is more portentous than Snake merely inviting Eve to doubt what she doesn't understand. What interest did Snake have in Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit? What was his agenda (or her agenda -- the snake could have been female; in fact, I have the distinct feeling just now that the Snake in Eden was definitely female).

Revelations is certainly later than Genesis, but where did the Revelation author get the basic idea of snakes not being reliable advisors (I don't know, I'm asking).

Revelations is certainly later than Genesis, but where did the Revelation author get the basic idea of snakes not being reliable advisors (I don't know, I'm asking). — Bitter Crank

St. John the Divine had a kind of a pipe-dream while in prison. Not all religions accept the Book of Revelation. 666ers so marked couldn't merely be killed right away, as that was too easy on them; they had to be tortured for a long time.

What was going on in the story is more portentous than Snake merely inviting Eve to doubt what she doesn't understand. What interest did Snake have in Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit? What was his agenda (or her agenda -- the snake could have been female; in fact, I have the distinct feeling just now that the Snake in Eden was definitely female). — Bitter Crank

The serpent in Eden is referred to as ‘he’ in every translation I’ve read - so NOT female. And who knows what drugs the author of Revelations was on when it was written. But the reference to Satan as a ‘serpent’ occurs only in Revelations (from memory only once), and nowhere else in the Bible. Isn’t it interesting how doctrine drums up significance for such trivial associations? What was the church’s agenda in this connection?

Back to the story, though - why does a serpent need an agenda in order to interact with Eve? Must we assume agency because it speaks? Or is it because without an agenda it is A&E who are responsible for their own removal from Eden? (and by ‘responsible’, I’m not suggesting a ‘fall’ of any kind, so don’t read too much into it - Eden only represents the situation we wish we could be in, not necessarily where we once were)

Perhaps the words of the serpent simply represent the dynamic of humanity’s relationship with the rest of biological nature. We understand now that our connection to nature is more extensive than this, but for much of our history we saw humanity as something ‘other’ than nature, so it stands to reason that the relationship here is portrayed as a dialogue between two characters.

Portentous? Perhaps. It cannot be deduced from the text whether Eve received instruction regarding the tree directly from God or indirectly from Adam, as she was not yet created when Adam was told. Still, it was clear that she did have the instruction. Then Eve put together the information received from the serpent (which, by the way, was not a deception, but an interpretation of God’s instruction from the POV of a serpent) with what she saw and how she felt, and then acted freely - but without taking into account any relationship with ‘God’ (whatever ‘God’ happens to be).

To call Eve’s action ‘disobedience’ is a stretch, because there is still no indication that Eve had any direct relationship with God, whose command was specifically to Adam. Interestingly, throughout the rest of Genesis it is often the wife who represents man’s relationship with the biological nature of humanity, and acts/speaks on its behalf.

This story illustrates a naive understanding of the initial dynamics of man’s key relationships: to God, to woman (Eve) and to the rest of biological nature (the serpent). It also explores how those relationships interact with each other in a way that then impacts on man. Man is the centre of his own universe in this story. Whatever the portent, there is no objectivity to be found in its telling.

For the biblical writers who believed in a just God, there had to be a monumental cause to justify/explain the enduring disagreeableness of life. Their artistic solution to the problem of the difficulty of life was to place in the story of Eden, where Adam and Eve sacrificed their innocence to the seductions of the snake/evil tempter. the cause of our daily suffering — Bitter Crank

:ok:

If, as you suggest, we're to take the fall of man as a metaphor why didn't the weavers' of this tale use something else for the cause of the problem? Why the the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Why?

Is knowledge a problem? Why is innocence better than everything else? I'm not asking this because I have an answer or because I think there's an answer. I only want to understand, if possible, the direction this thought, innocence placed above all, is coming from.

I mean the narrative could've been about the tree of knowledge of evil. That would've made a lot of sense. Why was good included? What's bad about good?

Nope, you're good! It was simply more of an emphatic declaration!!

Will certainly wait for Bitter Crank's answer to your concerns. There is one item where I share your concern. Accordingly I had a similar issue that I posed to Gnostic Bishop but didn't really get his take on it.

The notion of 'ignorance is bliss' is the starting point I think, then we might could parse it from there... .

For example we do know that in our every-dayness/tension of existence we encounter thoughts of say worry or fear so that we can in turn resolve them. In those instances, would it be better for us not to have that type of awareness, is the question.

The answer is probably more no than yes. Which simply implies that the tree of knowledge could be yet another metaphor that makes the distinction between higher forms of intelligence versus lower forms/other animals. Nothing more nothing less. Nothing else to read into it.

What's bad about good? — TheMadFool

Too much good is no good.

Even some of our cooperation became due to its necessity to help in the hunt, whether of animals or enemy tribes. — PoeticUniverse

Indeed, and it was mostly by fighting that wives were found and that pattern was quite long until people found that a trade war killed a lot fewer than a fighting war.

Regards
DL

the snake could have been female; in fact, I have the distinct feeling just now that the Snake in Eden was definitely female). — Bitter Crank

If you look at the Vatican's expulsion painting you will see that Satan is definitely portrayed as a female.

If you read what the church fathers had to say of women, you will understand why that was done.

If you read of all the many serpent using mystery schools, you will see why Christianity was against those as well.

Regards
DL

Accordingly I had a similar issue that I posed to Gnostic Bishop but didn't really get his take on it. — 3017amen

Let me give it as a response here.
Ignorance is bliss has a benefit for believers. It makes them a tad happier than non-religious, believers live longer although generally fatter lives. Not longer by much and non-believers would rather die a couple of days earlier if it means doing as sheeple do and put their minds into intellectual and moral dissonance.

That ignorant bliss shows the least fit in society as compared to the more mentally fit non-religious who will protect their more sound thinking.

Regards
DL

Too much good is no good. — Shamshir

Why?

Regards
DL

Hi , that's quite a name you have chosen! .. thanks for reaching out, I'm sure you've argued these points well and truly to your heart's content with others over the years so I'll just give you some feedback and see what you think.

What I can see in your view, is something very strong within you that has been turned sour against what you think the bible teaches. It comes as a result of having seen the bible as teaching a view that is objectionable. It is in fact a spirit that you are opposing. A spirit is what puts it's ideas to us, whether through words or music or pictures etc. So it is a spirit that you are seeing come through the scriptures, that you are opposing. Yet, what you are seeing through the scriptures is of a different spirit than what I am seeing through the scriptures, and it is drawing a different picture in your mind than what the scriptures do for me. I know there are people believing themselves to be Christian who are of a different spirit than the one whom I follow (John 10:14,4-5, Ephesians 2:2, 1 John 4:4b-c).

I will try to share with you the way I see the scriptures, but of course, if you would rather see the other spirit it is your choice and I can't force you to break free from it.

A second class and immoral solution to a self-created problem.

A human man would do the opposite and step up himself instead of sending a son to die.

Right? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You still need to understand the nature of God from the Christian perspective. God is spirit. (John 4:24)

How do you suppose your question fits with the doctrine in John 14:10?

"Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own; but the Father dwelling in Me does His works."

What is bad about following an immoral command to stay stupid and too dumb to even know they were naked. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

This shows that you have gone to quite an extent to oppose me. I understand morality as "do unto others as you would have them do to you". So, for example, if you are a parent and you know that the child doesn't understand how dangerous the road is, would you say it is immoral to warn them to not go there?

You have ejected the founding facts from the story in order to express that view. The world was paradise in absence of sin (Genesis 1:31), and it becomes the opposite through it (Genesis 6:5-7).

Until you bring your views to align with the facts, you will keep making errors of the same vein, and the further we push it, the more severe they will become.

Love is not a genocidal god and to say that Yahweh knows how to love is not demonstrated. The opposite is in fact shown. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

How does it happen that you don't see it? 1 Corinthians 13 is a popular definition of love, including:

Love is patient,
love is kind,
it does not envy,
it does not brag,
it is not puffed up,
it does not behave inappropriately,
it does not seek its own way,
it is not provoked,
it keeps no account of wrong,
it does not rejoice over injustice
but rejoices in the truth;
it bears all things,
it believes all things,
it hopes all things,
it endures all things.

Every point of that list is found to vindicate Jesus, and that is the Christian view of what the bible teaches: that Messiah is the perfect man, the very image of God (Colossians 2:9, John 15:22).

It certainly does if you can see that little bit of evil as compared to the real evil that would be if man stopped his evolution. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

That's a strawman fallacy. There is no indication that mankind's evolution would have stopped if they had have not brought forth sin. In fact, believers have faith because of the hope in the truth to the contrary (Genesis 3:22, Revelation 2:7, Romans 8:21, 1 Corinthians 2:9).

We must compete to survive and thrive and that competition is the cause of all human against human evil. It creates a victim or loser to the competition. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I don't live that way though, and the world wasn't like that to begin with (Genesis 2:16, Genesis 13:8-9, Matthew 5:38-48). That way is the way of the world that we become when we choose to do and defend sin (Genesis 3:19, John 8:44, James 1:14-15, 2 Peter 2:1-3, Matthew 12:43-45).

.