If the bible is a fact, then I think 'Satan' may be the Knoweldge giver.

The way I see it you are taking one of two possible approaches from going from duality to singularity.

In my case, I'm trying to go from duality to singularity consciously, ie with full consciousness and understanding of the process.

If Satan is the "knowledge giver" and that's a bad thing in your eyes, then the way you are wanting to go back to singularity, as you put it, is to do it unconsciously and to revert back to a kind of subconscious state where you're not aware.


You can do what you want obviously, but I just want you to think about this: regardless of the way you perceive the past, the modern-day institution preaching this perspective is the church. It is a power-craving institution that is basically telling you that knowledge and thinking are bad. I'll just leave you with that.

Here's what I think; in the begining there was only one organization doing business .As time pass, the business grew bigger and bigger, so there was this major domestic disagreement between the president and his vice, the president followed a traditional, conservative, ad dictatorship way of management, which mean you have to be a professional @sskisser to claim the ladder. Contradictory to the president, the vice-president offer a more freedom and a new way in management for each and every sectors and branches. In the end they decided to split up and whomever wanted to stay with the president or follow the young charismatic vice-president could do so.
So now we are in the middle of a recession crisis one of which that will decide the fate of this company.Only time will tell us whether this company going to bankrupt or half of its employees have to be laid off.

Plot holes in Genesis

Assuming the word “god” is a job title then there are two gods in genesis
Chapter 1 god (no name given) creates every thing
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Chapter 2 the LORD god creates every thing
2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Assuming the talking snake is satan and it is he who caused the fall of man, then what caused satan to fall?

For eve to know that eating the fruit was wrong would she not need to have knowledge of good and evil to start with?

Who was god growing the tree for any way?

Why did god lie about the consequences of eating the fruit?
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

And how come the LORD God only seems to care about the possibility of A&E eating another kind of fruit?
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

If god(s) is all knowing, how come he didn’t know any of this would happen?
If god(s) is all powerful, how come he didn’t just make it un-happen?
If god(s) is all loving, how come he didn’t just drop the whole thing and move on?

I think it's a real triumph of Christianity that they have so promoted their views about this story, that lots of people, including some non-Christians, don't discuss the story anymore, but rather the centuries-later interpretation of it.

But I believe, this "Satan" might be the 'knowledge' giver, to us humanity by making eve eat the scared apple..

Satan doesn't appear in the story. A snake appears. He didn't make her doing anything. She reasoned her way to a deliberate choice.

I'm fairly sure that clothing existed before modern humans did, so by the time of the invention of written language we were wearing clothing while beasts were not and we had NO idea why.

A few days naked in the desert would furnish an explanation clearly enough.

In contrast, the story doesn't "explain" clothing. It does say a married couple alone by themselves in a garden don't feel shame running around naked. Umm, yeah, well that never happens anymore. Oh wait, the story says that it does. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body. The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame."

Adam explains why he puts on clothing in the story. He's not alone with his wife anymore. "I heard you in the garden; but I was afraid, because I was naked, so I hid myself." Not shame. Fear.

Fear? Just because the toughest motherlover in the jungle has threatened to kill him? Dude's gonna do it, too, after mutilating an animal and sexually torturing Adam's wife. Adam is smart. Fear is the way to go here. I'd cover my orbs and scepter, too.

... they are like beasts ignorant of right and wrong,...

The story says no such thing. What the tree confers is described by the same Hebrew idiom as what Solomon asks God for and receives. It is not the capacity to reason about right and wrong. Eve is depicted as doing precisely that in her dialog or projected monolog with the snake, which occurs before she eats. Wisdom, it's called when the idiom isn't "translated" word for word. The antithesis of wisdom isn't ignorance.

With all due respect God's first words to Adam in the Garden are a lie. He tells Adam the fruit will kill him and it does not.

Actually, both snake and God are being uncandid but telling partial truths, consonant partial truths. The Hebrew, I am told, is ambiguous (and so ambiguous for both, since snake and God say much the same thing). Even in translation, what God is said to say is usually well within the scope of the simplification typical of urgent command. Eating the fruit is a contributing causal factor to Adam's eventual death. Neither snake not God tells that striaght, each trimming it to fit their respective agendas.

Originally posted by eight bits

Satan doesn't appear in the story. A snake appears. He didn't make her doing anything. She reasoned her way to a deliberate choice.

Satan used the snake to deceive Eve into thinking that eating the fruit was to her benefit. This is the reason that the word "snake" is coupled to the word "deceiver" when calling someone else a snake. Eve wouldn't have eaten it if she knew that it would mean total anarchy on this planet together with receiving an imperfect body prone to disease and physical trauma AND an expiration date.

Adam explains why he puts on clothing in the story. He's not alone with his wife anymore. "I heard you in the garden; but I was afraid, because I was naked, so I hid myself." Not shame. Fear.

Fear? Just because the toughest motherlover in the jungle has threatened to kill him? Dude's gonna do it, too, after mutilating an animal and sexually torturing Adam's wife. Adam is smart. Fear is the way to go here. I'd cover my orbs and scepter, too.

I'd say that the fear that you describe is more acking to the fear of a son who has dissapointed his father and is afraid to face him.after all God personally raised Adam. And at that time Adam and Eve litterally didn't know of death. They couldn't have known what there was to fear.

Both snake and God are being uncandid but telling partial truths, consonant partial truths. The Hebrew, I am told, is ambiguous (and so ambiguous for both, since snake and God say much the same thing). Even in translation, what God is said to say is usually well within the scope of the simplification typical of urgent command. Eating the fruit is a contributing causal factor to Adam's eventual death. Neither snake not God tells that striaght, each trimming it to fit their respective agendas.

In this case eating the fruit was not merely a "contributing factor", instead it was the kindling to his death. You can say that had Adam refrained from eating the fruit, he wouldn't have died at age 920something

Satan used the snake to deceive Eve into thinking that eating the fruit was to her benefit.

That's nowhere in Genesis. In the Hebrew Bible, the character Satan is the loyal servant of God. While I agree that it would be fascinating if God orchestrated the whole thing, there's no textual support for it.

And, the snake didn't deceive the Woman. God told her one half truth, that he would kill her if she ate, with a phrase that connotes dispatch, and the snake told her the other half truth, that God wouldn't kill her, that is, not right away, not the way God said he would. The new information she first "hears" from the snake, about the other, beneficial, effects of eating, God confirms after they have had their meal. On those effects, snake and God speak with one voice.

Furthermore, we know Solomon got the same thing Adam and the Woman got, and God was OK with that. Apparently, as long as anybody who gets it dies eventually, it's swell.

Solomon could have asked God for anything. Solomon presumably knew this story. He could have asked for the Tree of Life to be restored to him. But he didn't. He asked for what the other tree conferred instead, using the same phrase as appears in Genesis.

So, bottom line, Solomon made the same choice the Woman did. Nobody whines that Solomon was "deceived." It's obviously the right choice, and even God can't say enough good things about what an excellent choice Solomon made. God actually throws in some bonuses for Solomon, in addition to what he asked for. But not a gnosh on the fruit of life, of course.

Eve wouldn't have eaten it if she knew that it would mean total anarchy on this planet together with receiving an imperfect body prone to disease and physical trauma AND an expiration date.

God said he was going to kill her and her husband. And he did kill them. What part of that are you saying she misunderstood?

I'd say that the fear that you describe is more acking to the fear of a son who has dissapointed his father and is afraid to face him.

Because his father has made a credible threat to kill him, and to kill his wife.

And at that time Adam and Eve litterally didn't know of death.

Really? Then why did God bring it up, if they couldn't understand what he meant by the penalty he announced? Are you saying God failed to give them adequate warning?

I've heard the "inadequate warning" thing before, but mostly from atheists, usually based on some supposed inadequacy about the First Couple's moral reasoning. But this is a nice new angle, that they couldn't understand the warning they were given, because it included vocabulary words they hadn't gotten to yet.

In this case eating the fruit was not merely a "contributing factor", instead it was the kindling to his death.

God could have forgiven them at any time during those nine centuries. Many causes, then, appear to have contributed to Adam's death.

You can say that had Adam refrained from eating the fruit, he wouldn't have died at age 920something

Actually, that's not in the story, either. God never says what he will do if they don't eat the fruit.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but then so is everybody else, and there is simply no way to resolve any disagreement about it.

reply to post by saabacura
saabacura,

Satan is the usurper and far from being the illuminated one as he claims to be. the one whose name is also "wisdom" created that old boy. His name who created lucy is also called "wonderful", another name is Jesus Christ.

Before Bethlehem He was YHWH of Hosts, Isa. 44:6 if you will. YHWH of Hosts because He is the creator of them all, Angels and men, includes lucy. All things were made by him, read -

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

He, Lucifer is the great deciever and leader and teacher of evil and that is an unbalancing factor not balance. He is a mind warp psycho. He is in the business of taking over the mind.

Jesus was also known "as Emmanuel" God with us.

Just to add a little straight testimony.

Truthiron.

Oh my.. Who knew so many Christians contaminated ATS.. Lol they will soon meet their savior.

Yes, I said their God will show up... after all, they have to come collect their herd soon...

I used to follow Satan. Knew him personally, even worshiped him. Taught me metaphysics.
www.angelfire.com...

THEN... I realized that these 'Gods' are all members of the nefarious Nordic ET race. These are the higher echelons of the dark empire that has shrouded Earth in chaos. They energetically leech off humanity, especially religious groups and zealots, even gurus. If you go high up enough on the chain, you find these 'Gods'.

So, get out of the trees and see the forest as a whole.


I also recommend seeking within. Get to know yourself and find balance...

so the pursuit of knowledge is not all there is to life and if one does pursue it constantly it could cause one to loose the greater meaning of it all eventually.

stuff happens... we all fall from grace, though I believe we are not born that way.

It appears that some made hints that the concept of good god and the bad god in our modern understanding may be backwards/lopsided/twisted etc etc. I can see why that could be the case.

I also noticed posters like Mayura above who claimed to be a former Satanist, who realized that both sides are the same thing at the end of the day. I can see why that could be the case also.

So Mayura, have you read into Gnosticism?? It seems your beliefs are similar to it.....

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by saabacura

 

I've heard this sort of interpretation of the story before. This idea that good and evil are a sort of false dichotomy because of gray moral areas or merely because all things, in the end are, in a sense, ONE. Its an interesting idea but I doubt that the story was intended to sound that way. I would look closer at the Sumerian myths that the Genesis account borrowed from.

I do agree with the idea that Satan plays a sort of Promethean role here by giving forbidden knowledge to the mortals, its a fairly common theme in mythology that I think early man may have used to rationalize why they were smarter and more obsessed with morality than beasts. For instance clothing. I'm fairly sure that clothing existed before modern humans did, so by the time of the invention of written language we were wearing clothing while beasts were not and we had NO idea why. The story starts with Adam and Eve naked and without shame, they are like beasts ignorant of right and wrong, this seems to be the writers of the myth rationalizing why they saw such complex morality in humans but failed to notice it in other animals. Interestingly enough further study of many animals has revealed that they do have morals, although the ancients may not have noticed.

edit on 30-12-2010 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

reply to post by freedish

 

He does not lie.

With all due respect God's first words to Adam in the Garden are a lie. He tells Adam the fruit will kill him and it does not. So either the author is lying and putting words into God's mouth that he did not say or God is lying, take your pick.

edit on 30-12-2010 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

Yes, as I recall, Prometheus gave knoweldge to us humans. Something that would benefit us. Something that could liberate us from all these Gods whom we fear. When Zeus found out that Prometheus has given the knowledge to humans, he was to be chained up in a chamber, getting his liver eaten alive by "monsters?" until his death... then his liver will grow again, the process repeats itself.... something like that as I recall in a class.......

So in this greek mythology, I got the feeling that the Gods were purposely preventing us humans from eventually discovering the knowledge of the gods which were actually tangiable through scientific discoveries. In that over time, we humans could be as powerful as Zeus.

but i wonder if ignorance was an actual bliss...

Originally posted by Mayura
Oh my.. Who knew so many Christians contaminated ATS.. Lol they will soon meet their savior.

Yes, I said their God will show up... after all, they have to come collect their herd soon...

I used to follow Satan. Knew him personally, even worshiped him. Taught me metaphysics.
www.angelfire.com...

THEN... I realized that these 'Gods' are all members of the nefarious Nordic ET race. These are the higher echelons of the dark empire that has shrouded Earth in chaos. They energetically leech off humanity, especially religious groups and zealots, even gurus. If you go high up enough on the chain, you find these 'Gods'.

So, get out of the trees and see the forest as a whole.


I also recommend seeking within. Get to know yourself and find balance...

If what you say or believe is a fact, then we know that we are living in a real matrix... oh crap

reply to post by saabacura


A similar theme also exists within the story of the Tower of Babel from the Bible. Mankind is so united in a common purpose that they can accomplish anything so God decides to confuse their speech. This idea is similar to the phrase "He tampered in God's domain". This sort of argument has been made by some religious folks in regards to things like stem cells, the human genome, and other scientific advances... this idea that there is a line to be crossed and if we over step it the gods (in modern times usually only one) will come in and punish us.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

With all due respect God's first words to Adam in the Garden are a lie. He tells Adam the fruit will kill him and it does not. So either the author is lying and putting words into God's mouth that he did not say or God is lying, take your pick.

God certainly told the truth. Adam immediately died spiritually, and lived 930 years, his death physically was 70 years before the end of one of God's "days". English screws this up a bit, the Hebrew is quite precise.

Example: In Hebrew there are several words we translate into English as "week", yet all are different in Hebrew. Blame a lazy language for your misunderstanding.

Nice to see this thread back up.

The Promethean parallel to Satan suffers from the problem that Satan doesn't appear in the original story. He was injected into it centuries later by Hellenistic (and later) Christians who, of course, knew the Greek myths as well as the Hebrew national epic. So, yes, their innovation reflected their own mixed cultural endowment, not the earlier Hebrew culture.

Serpent, the original story's character, is a "magical helper," a familiar role in myth worldwide, and one that snakes often play. Whatever agenda this snake had, it isn't discussed in the story.

In contrast, Prometheus' agenda is transparent. He is a heroic resistance fighter. He is a Titan, tolerated after the victory of some Titans (who are thereafter the gods) over other Titans. He sees giving fire technology to the humans as a way to make trouble for the enemy Titanic party, the gods. Prometheus gets caught, and pays for his heroism. Humanity gets to keep the improvement, although Zeus undertakes a separate punitive mission against them, enlisting Pandora to accomplish their chastisement.

I think the Christian revisionists borrowed much from the Prometheus myth, but they also intended to maintain a distinction between Titan and Devil. Whatever unconscious motivations they may have had, they didn't mean to suggest that Satan was a hero. They also didn't mean to suggest that Satan improved humanity's situation in any way at all, or that God treated humans at the beginning in a way that called for any improvement.

The story seems to say that the beneficial change was irreversible for Adam and the Woman (else, presumably, God wouldn't have worried about how long they lived). The rest of the book suggests that the beneficial effect was not conferred on humanity generally. Solomon has to ask for it, so he didn't already have it.

The revisionists certainly didn't mean to suggest that their God was a usurper, or the same order of being as the Devil. When God and Satan supposedly fought, God won because he was already God. God didn't become God by defeating Satan or his kind. Satan couldn't have filled God's shoes had the battle gone the other way, which it simply couldn't have anyway, in the revisionists' view.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Adam immediately died spiritually

God never mentions their spiritual well-being at all in the fall account. God puts a curse on mankind that will make them toil the fields and endure pain in child birth but never says a word about their spirits. It is possible this is what he meant but the Bible has dozens of translations and I have yet to see one that says Adam would die SPIRITUALLY. I'm no Hebrew Biblical scholar but I think the word used for die here is "muth" and as far as I can tell it means exactly what its translated as - to die.

Muth

The purpose of the verse that says a thousand years is unto a day is to emphasize that time is MEANINGLESS to an eternal being, not to set up a time frame.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


The 1,000 year reign of Christ is called the "DAY of the Lord" repeatedly throughout the Old and New Testaments.