With knowledge comes death?

Cuervo
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

But why? Why all the semantic gymnastics just to make it fit a popular view? Why can't it be as straight forward as it seems and that the serpent was telling the truth?

God already told them the truth, "the day you eat of it you will surely die"

SisyphusRide

Cuervo
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

But why? Why all the semantic gymnastics just to make it fit a popular view? Why can't it be as straight forward as it seems and that the serpent was telling the truth?

God already told them the truth, "the day you eat of it you will surely die"

But... they didn't die that day. Not spiritually, not physically, not in any way.

Besides, the punishment they did receive wasn't from the fruit, it was from a jealous godling storming around in the garden. But none of that matters because they didn't die.

reply to post by DISRAELI

DISRAELI
Do animals experience pain in childbirth? i had picked up the idea from somewhere that pain in human childbirth was a consequence of the anatomical changes resulting from bipedal movement. In which case it would indeed be one of the consequences of developing humanity, so the timing fits.

I’m sorry, I’m not following you here…

If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then how can childbirth pain be the “consequences of developing humanity”…?

Joecroft
And yet we know from verses… Genesis 3:22...…that Adam and Eve had not yet eaten from the tree of life, or so it would seem (see further below) . Which means they were mortal beings, who would have experienced physical death, whether they ate from the tree of knowledge or not…

DISRAELI
I disagree that they had not eaten from the Tree of Life. You are assuming, like everybody else, that the Tree of Life would have conveyed immortality with a single act of eating. I challenge that assumption.

Hmmmm I wasn’t assuming anything; I presented both cases as true, so I could verbally discuss each one in turn…Which is why I wrote what I did below…

(or so it would seem (see further below))

The reason I did it that way, was to help explain and lead up to, my overall conclusion at the end…

And in my end conclusion, which leans more towards a spiritual death interpretation, I actually believe that they did partake/eat of the tree of life…so I’m in agreement with you on that aspect…

DISRAELI
In my thread "Did they eat from the Tree of Life" (linked in the opening paragraphs of this thread) I argued that the Tree of Life conveys Life only with continuous eating.

Well, I actually agree with you again, mainly because God clearly stated that Adam and Eve could eat from any tree, except from the tree of knowledge…so it makes sense that they would also have ate from the Tree of life.

DISRAELI
I maintain that they were eating from that Tree all the time they were in the garden, since there was nothing to prevent them- in fact, the whole point of putting them in the garden was to enable them to eatfrom the Tree of Life which was deliberately placed at the centre.

That is why I stated in the opening paragraph of this thread they they were eating from the Tree of Life.
The effect of God's decision was to cause this eating to cease, which made them begin to die.

I agree again, except I don’t see the Garden of Eden as being literal, but more of an allegorical concept, because if it actually existed for real, then the flaming swords protecting the tree of life, would probably have been found by now.

DISRAELI
Even if they don't know what death is, they know from God's attittude that it is something bad.
And they do know that God has told them not to do it, which ought to be enough in itself.

Yes, but you forget Eve’s conversation with the serpent also, because she seems to base her decision on talking to the serpent, which is how the narrative logically flows.

Which suggests to me that she had an idea of what death was, and because she believed the serpent, and thought death was no longer a consequence, she decides to eat from the tree. I really can’t see Eve making that decision, if she is not aware of what death was…?

In other words, if I didn’t know what death was and it sounded pretty bad from the way God spoke etc, then I wouldn’t be risking it…but if I knew what death was and was told it was no longer a consequence, then I might have become tempted.

If Eve just didn’t have a clue either way, then I would say she was innocent, because of her childlike state…she simply didn’t know any better, and was taken advantage of by the talking snake…

If a child is made do something they don’t know is wrong by an evil person, then the only one who should be punished is the perpetrator, and not the child. But like I was saying in my other post, Gods punishments just don’t add up IMO…

DISRAELI
Have you noticed that I don't take them as literal trees either?
You might like to re-read the OP and the two associated threads found in the links, to see how much of them you really disagree with.

Yes of course, but I was just describing how I see it. But the thing is, most people don’t take the trees as literal either, but yet ironically, they turn many other aspects of the story, into literal, even when those literal things cant possible fit.

This is why I have taken a broader allegorical view of the whole story, and is the key reason how I came up with my conclusion, that I outlined at the end of my last post.


- JC

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Vethumanbeing
I like this interpretation! (albit easier on the ears than my two (totally ignored) metaphorical interpretations of the two trees and the human interaction of them).

Thanks…but what is it, you like about my interpretation! Can you pin point it…?

Vethumanbeing
Nicely done; your knowledge of scripture and ability to pull an insightful corrosponding answer from your study (out of thin air) always surprises me.

Shouldn’t you be getting used to it by now lol

No, seriously, thanks again.

I pretty much just ended up chasing my own tail for a long time, in trying to decipher the Garden of Eden story, from a purely literal perspective. Eventually something had to give.

My current understanding of it, fits together perfectly with my other beliefs. I believe Jesus truth, leads us to the tree of life, which is why Jesus says He is the way, the truth and the life, because he helps lead us back to God.

- JC

Joecroft
I’m sorry, I’m not following you here…

If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then how can childbirth pain be the “consequences of developing humanity”…?

Ah, you haven't picked up from the second part of the OP how I tried to reconclie the Garden story with evolutionary theory and offered the suggestion that the "knowledge of good and evil" should be equated with the developing of human consciousness. My comment was made with that explanation in mind.
You see, I wrote two individual threads on the two Trees, and then wrote this third thread to pick up a couple of queries sometimes arising on the issue.
What I said in this thread was based on the first two, which is why I carefully linked them both in the opening paragraph, so it gets confusing if we try to discuss this one in isolation.

I agree again, except I don’t see the Garden of Eden as being literal, but more of an allegorical concept, because if it actually existed for real, then the flaming swords protecting the tree of life, would probably have been found by now.

Yes, and if we follow my tentative suggestion equating "knowledge" with "becoming human", then it does become allegorical.
I may have been responsible for some confusion by giving the impression that I was offering two different interpretations at the same time.
That is because I launched this thread with two intentions;
a) To defend the internal consistency of the story, mainly against the "they did not die" line of argument, and
b) To defend the story against attack from the evolutionist side, not by rejecting the theory of evolution but by reconciling the two.
It is thus actually a kind of appendix to the first two threads.

On the subject of Eve's decision making, the background to my thinking is what i wrote in "The Tree of what knowledge?";

Good and evil; if they know good AND evil, side by side, that implies that they know them as distinct.
Their “knowledge” relates to the boundary line between them.
In fact it comes close to knowing good FROM evil.
So this will be the kind of knowledge that makes judgements on the rightness and wrongness of things, though it need not be limited to moral judgements.

That explains what is meant by the previous phrase, “You will be like God”.
They will be like God in that they “know good and evil”.
So this points to God as the one who determines what is right or wrong.
If they do this for themselves, they are imitating one of his features, and putting themselves in his place.

So that will be the point.
If they’re claiming a “knowledge of good and evil”, that means making their own decisions about these things, instead of depending on God’s judgement.
In fact they were already doing this when they took the fruit in the first place.
They were making their own assessment of the fruit as “good for food, a delight to the eyes, and to be desired to make one wise”.
Therefore they were already disregarding God’s judgement on the fruit as “not-to-be-touched”.
That makes the taking of the fruit a very fitting symbol of the act of claiming independent judgement.

The key point is that she, and later Adam, were substituting their own decision-making for God's decision-making.
As I said earlier, even if she did not fully understand the penalty, she knew (in the story as written) that she had been told not to do it, and that should have been enough.
If authority tells you not to do something and gives you a reason, doing it is an act of disobedience to authority whether you understand the reason or not. It is enough that you understand the fact that there has been a prohibition.

Having said that, the evolution-friendly version of my explanation, which offers to identify "knowledge" with the growth of human consciousness, does not seem to allow room for any consciously-received warning command.
We would then be left with the human tendency to make conscious decisions instead of following instinct as the essence of the story, and the fact that human decision-making tends to get things wrong.

Yet whatever the interpretation of what happened in the Garden, i think we are in basic agreement on one point; that it was the function of Jesus to reverse what happened in the Garden and bring us back to what God wanted.
This came up in my Revelation threads when the Tree of Life was mentioned.

Cuervo

SisyphusRide

Cuervo
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

But why? Why all the semantic gymnastics just to make it fit a popular view? Why can't it be as straight forward as it seems and that the serpent was telling the truth?

God already told them the truth, "the day you eat of it you will surely die"

But... they didn't die that day. Not spiritually, not physically, not in any way.

Besides, the punishment they did receive wasn't from the fruit, it was from a jealous godling storming around in the garden. But none of that matters because they didn't die.

I understand... you think it was like poison and they would die instantly?

I didn't read it like that, I figured it was just knowledge at first, and that they would become aware of death and fear it.

Knowledge has taken on a few different meanings for me metaphorically over time, but each way I seem to look at it, nothing changes with the message.

The Bible is alien to us, I don't mean some flying saucer alien, more like it is still mostly beyond our senses and comprehension. We still have not achieved or aspired to the writing and language level in this book to this day, and there have been a few falls such as the dark ages.

the Bible is definitely mysteriously amazing! They tried to do the same with the Koran but the plagiarism just doesn't work even though it is only 600 years after Christianity.

SisyphusRide

Cuervo

SisyphusRide

Cuervo
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

But why? Why all the semantic gymnastics just to make it fit a popular view? Why can't it be as straight forward as it seems and that the serpent was telling the truth?

God already told them the truth, "the day you eat of it you will surely die"

But... they didn't die that day. Not spiritually, not physically, not in any way.

Besides, the punishment they did receive wasn't from the fruit, it was from a jealous godling storming around in the garden. But none of that matters because they didn't die.

I understand... you think it was like poison and they would die instantly?

I didn't read it like that, I figured it was just knowledge at first, and that they would become aware of death and fear it.

Knowledge has taken on a few different meanings for me metaphorically over time, but each way I seem to look at it, nothing changes with the message.

The Bible is alien to us, I don't mean some flying saucer alien, more like it is still mostly beyond our senses and comprehension. We still have not achieved or aspired to the writing and language level in this book to this day, and there have been a few falls such as the dark ages.

the Bible is definitely mysteriously amazing! They tried to do the same with the Koran but the plagiarism just doesn't work even though it is only 600 years after Christianity.

edit on 6-12-2013 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)

Yes, I did think they would die that day if Yahweh was telling the truth. Cherry picking when and where you decide something is a metaphor is one of the biggest complaints people have with the church understanding of the bible.

If it said Jesus walked to the market, then Jesus walked to the market.

If it says god sent fire down and torched the sacrificial cow, then god sent fire down and torched the sacrificial cow.

Yet, if got said something straight forward like "you will die the day you eat this", then you suddenly need to add a bunch of metaphor to it?!

reply to post by Cuervo


it's probably 75% metaphor imo... the words in Red are something else though.

a parable is a parable, and it depends on which part or words are being talked about.

it flows

Joecroft
reply to post by vethumanbeing

Vethumanbeing
I like this interpretation! (albit easier on the ears than my two (totally ignored) metaphorical interpretations of the two trees and the human interaction of them).

Joecroft
Thanks…but what is it, you like about my interpretation! Can you pin point it?

Your explaination of the trees is the lesser/better of 16 evils. We both understand I go off the rails in abstracting or enlarging concepts. You reel me back into the basics of fundimental reasonable/logical interpretation. Once done I can begin again with newer, better and more wild abstractions.

Vethumanbeing
Nicely done; your knowledge of scripture and ability to pull an insightful corrosponding answer from your study (out of thin air) always surprises me.

Joecroft
Shouldn’t you be getting used to it by now lol
No, seriously, thanks again.
I pretty much just ended up chasing my own tail for a long time, in trying to decipher the Garden of Eden story, from a purely literal perspective. Eventually something had to give.
My current understanding of it, fits together perfectly with my other beliefs. I believe Jesus truth, leads us to the tree of life, which is why Jesus says He is the way, the truth and the life, because he helps lead us back to God.

I call it connecting the spiritual, emotive and learned DOTS. It will at some point coaless at a crossroad. Heres the thing, its never the road taken from the crossroad its the reason you are there in the first place. Those N.S.E.W. points brought you there to the center. I believe anyones truth is true to their own sensibility and growth pattern. Akushla had a moniker "Everything you believe is True" someone argued it out of claiming it. This was wrong, I was involved in the discussion. You make your own truths; YOU HAVE TO , you are an individual expression of GodAspect and so design your growth and experience here for Gods selfish entertainment and enlightenment. I wouldnt say we were pawns exactly, just information seekers for the almighty that really? might not care. There, I SAID IT (I expect god to respond promptly).

God_Almighty
Joecroft
reply to post by vethumanbeing

VHB
I call it connecting the spiritual, emotive and learned DOTS. It will at some point coaless at a crossroad. Heres the thing, its never the road taken from the crossroad its the reason you are there in the first place. Those N.S.E.W. points brought you there to the center. I believe anyones truth is true to their own sensibility and growth pattern. Akushla had a moniker "Everything you believe is True" someone argued it out of claiming it. This was wrong, I was involved in the discussion. You make your own truths; YOU HAVE TO , you are an individual expression of GodAspect and so design your growth and experience here for Gods selfish entertainment and enlightenment. I wouldnt say we were pawns exactly, just information seekers for the almighty that really? might not care. There, I SAID IT (I expect god to respond promptly.

God_Almighty

What do you expect of me otherwise? The long process of defining myself from an 'Absolute Unbounded Oneness' of NOTHING (think from no-thing existing) has somehow coalessed into a "Non Physical Matter Reality" into a 'Physical Matter Reality' then into or back into an 'Absolute Unbounded Manifold', and its binary in function! not Carbonbased. Confusing to say the least; but there I am expressing myself THROUGH YOU (ingrates).

reply to post by DISRAELI

Joecroft
I’m sorry, I’m not following you here…

If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then how can childbirth pain be the “consequences of developing humanity”…?

DISRAELI
Ah, you haven't picked up from the second part of the OP how I tried to reconclie the Garden story with evolutionary theory and offered the suggestion that the "knowledge of good and evil" should be equated with the developing of human consciousness. My comment was made with that explanation in mind.

I see. Does that mean you don’t see Adam and Eve, as the first humans, but only the first arrivals of conscious beings that developed over time etc…?

DISRAELI
You see, I wrote two individual threads on the two Trees, and then wrote this third thread to pick up a couple of queries sometimes arising on the issue.

What I said in this thread was based on the first two, which is why I carefully linked them both in the opening paragraph, so it gets confusing if we try to discuss this one in isolation.

Yes, I saw the links to those threads but I didn’t have time to read all of them.

So does this mean you’d rather discuss those other aspects, on one of those other threads instead…?

DISRAELI
Yes, and if we follow my tentative suggestion equating "knowledge" with "becoming human", then it does become allegorical.

I may have been responsible for some confusion by giving the impression that I was offering two different interpretations at the same time.

That is because I launched this thread with two intentions;

a) To defend the internal consistency of the story, mainly against the "they did not die" line of argument, and

Great! Well, I’m certainly not in the, “they did not die argument” category, but then again, I only see it as spiritual death. So I believe God told the truth in that regard, but because Gods punishments don’t seem to fit or make any sense, I eventually arrived at the conclusion I described in my first post.

DISRAELI
b) To defend the story against attack from the evolutionist side, not by rejecting the theory of evolution but by reconciling the two.
It is thus actually a kind of appendix to the first two threads.

Ok, but if your going to accept the theory of evolution, then I guess that would mean you have to let go, of a larger part, of the “Adam and Eve” story being literal…right?

DISRAELI
As I said earlier, even if she did not fully understand the penalty, she knew (in the story as written) that she had been told not to do it, and that should have been enough.

If authority tells you not to do something and gives you a reason, doing it is an act of disobedience to authority whether you understand the reason or not. It is enough that you understand the fact that there has been a prohibition.

Yes, but I would say that your looking at that part above too literally. It’s difficult for me to even respond to this part, because I see the whole story as a spiritual allegory.

But to counter your position from a literal perspective, I would say this…

If she didn’t understand the penalty, i.e. new what death was etc, then why is the serpent even trying to convince her that death isn’t going to happen…? And why is she then changing her mind, based on what the serpent said…because that’s really how the conversation proceeds and in a logical order…i.e. it appears to infer, that she thinks death is no longer a consequence, hence her decision to eat from the tree.

If on the other hand with just go with the strict premise, that she has no knowledge and doesn’t understand what death is, which IMO would make her almost childlike. Then that would bring up an important question.

Which is; why would God allow this serpent like creature, to roam around tempting childlike creatures, who have no way to defend themselves…? And then punish those who didn’t understand, but were tricked into it…?

That’s completely unfair IMO, and it’s unfair in the first case (where she has knowledge), as well, although maybe not as bad…

But because I don’t see the serpent as literal, but instead as an aspect of our lower selves, those literal considerations, don’t apply to my current interpretation.

DISRAELI
Having said that, the evolution-friendly version of my explanation, which offers to identify "knowledge" with the growth of human consciousness, does not seem to allow room for any consciously-received warning command.
We would then be left with the human tendency to make conscious decisions instead of following instinct as the essence of the story, and the fact that human decision-making tends to get things wrong.

Yes, I think this partly why the serpent symbology is used, because it hints towards this idea, that we began to follow our animal nature, instead of our Godly nature…

DISRAELI
Yet whatever the interpretation of what happened in the Garden, i think we are in basic agreement on one point; that it was the function of Jesus to reverse what happened in the Garden and bring us back to what God wanted.
This came up in my Revelation threads when the Tree of Life was mentioned.

Yes, absolutely Jesus truth, which came directly from God, helps us to return back to God, or back to the tree of life, as some might say…

- JC

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Vethumanbeing
Your explaination of the trees is the lesser/better of 16 evils.

Well, what I described in my interpretation, seems to be touched upon in the Kabala, albeit in a slightly more complex fashion. I’m just starting to discover more about it, from looking at The Zohar…

Vethumanbeing
We both understand I go off the rails in abstracting or enlarging concepts.

Visualizing something is one thing, but correctly assessing what an idea might lead to/mean, when there are a myriad of choices available, is the difficult part…

Vethumanbeing
You reel me back into the basics of fundimental reasonable/logical interpretation.

One day, you’ll be able to real yourself in lol…

All truth, comes from within you, and your divine spiritual connection to God. If you are drawn to a certain truth, it’s probably because your starting to recognize that, which was already within you…

Vethumanbeing
I call it connecting the spiritual, emotive and learned DOTS. It will at some point coaless at a crossroad. Heres the thing, its never the road taken from the crossroad its the reason you are there in the first place.

Yes, your knowledge and understanding, should be guided by a combination of your Mind, Heart and Spirit, all working in harmony, as one. If your at a crossroads, then there’s a reason for it…keep going, would be my advice…

Vethumanbeing
I wouldnt say we were pawns exactly, just information seekers for the almighty that really? might not care. There, I SAID IT (I expect god to respond promptly).

Seems like you responded, to your own post lol….

Vethumanbeing
What do you expect of me otherwise? The long process of defining myself from an 'Absolute Unbounded Oneness' of NOTHING (think from no-thing existing) has somehow coalessed into a "Non Physical Matter Reality" into a 'Physical Matter Reality' then into or back into an 'Absolute Unbounded Manifold', and its binary in function! not Carbonbased. Confusing to say the least; but there I am expressing myself THROUGH YOU (ingrates).

No-Thing is actually something lol, it’s the absence of the something, and therefore, it’s its opposite…and actually exists. So yeah, there’s definitely a binary possibility of creation consisting of Zeros (0 - The Nothing) and Ones (1 – The something)

Not sure we can get rid of carbon based life though, unless you think where living in a 2d matrix lol

- JC

Joecroft
I see. Does that mean you don’t see Adam and Eve, as the first humans, but only the first arrivals of conscious beings that developed over time etc…?

Or an alternative is that they are symbolic figures, representing God's relationship with the early human race.
That's if we try to reconcile ourselves with the theory of evolution instead of rejecting it outright.

So does this mean you’d rather discuss those other aspects, on one of those other threads instead…?

Certainly anything I say about this one takes for granted what I wrote in the other two. I see them as the main exposition.

Ok, but if your going to accept the theory of evolution, then I guess that would mean you have to let go, of a larger part, of the “Adam and Eve” story being literal…right?

Yes, indeed. But the alternative is defending the literal story in rejection of the theory of evolution, and I don't know that that approach is sustainable or necessary.

Furthermore, abandoning the literal story gets away from all the modern quibbles based on the twisting of the literal story.
The author wants to explain the fact that people die, and things go wrong generally, and links it with the human race having a broken relationship with God.
The story provides the mechanism. They were told not to do something; they did it.
So it is necessary for the story that Adam and Eve be understood to understand what a prohibition was.
I don't think we are meant to see them as being childlike and without knowledge of any kind before eating from the tree- just as being without "the knowledge of good and evil", which I take to be the power of deciding the boundary line between them. [As expounded in "the Tree of what knowledge?"]

Yes, I think this partly why the serpent symbology is used, because it hints towards this idea, that we began to follow our animal nature, instead of our Godly nature…

Exactly. Understanding it in an allegorical way gets away from the quibbling based on the literal interpretation.

reply to post by Cuervo


Really? You think the God who created Eden feared anything?

Why people who don't believe in the bible take it literally amuses me. Get the point, move on to the next verse. God didn't say "blah blah blah" in English or whatever... A point was trying to be conveyed. That's all it is. Get the point and move on.

Joecroft
reply to post by vethumanbeing

Vethumanbeing
Your explaination of the trees is the lesser/better of 16 evils.

Joecroft
Well, what I described in my interpretation, seems to be touched upon in the Kabala, albeit in a slightly more complex fashion. I’m just starting to discover more about it, from looking at The Zohar.

Can we all as peoples agree we are dealing with metaphors that are symbolic of the natural/or unatural progression of the specie? Kabala in all forms of its spelling is a magical numbered geometric construct overlay. I dont know about the Zohar, what have you learned.

Vethumanbeing
We both understand I go off the rails in abstracting or enlarging concepts.

Joecroft
Visualizing something is one thing, but correctly assessing what an idea might lead to/mean, when there are a myriad of choices available, is the difficult part.

One doesnt willy-nilly visualize an outcome unless it is focused upon a 'potencial' targeted change OBJECT. If it doesnt work within the time frame no fault no blame but that energyform does not dilute and go to places unintended; generally it goes exactly to the place in space/time it needs to go. I havent experienced a missfire yet; or it could be dangerous.

Vethumanbeing You reel me back into the basics of fundimental reasonable/logical interpretation.

Joecroft
One day, you’ll be able to real yourself in lol…
All truth, comes from within you, and your divine spiritual connection to God. If you are drawn to a certain truth, it’s probably because your starting to recognize that, which was already within you.

From what aspect do you think I am not working within other than myself and a singular belief in a god as you may call it. I call it the Absolute Unbounding Oneness; that is expressing itself. Not a person, we are just its binary/carbonbased valve system to stem any possibility of internal Entropathic destruction.

Vethumanbeing
I call it connecting the spiritual, emotive and learned DOTS. It will at some point coaless at a crossroad. Heres the thing, its never the road taken from the crossroad its the reason you are there in the first place.

Joecroft Yes, your knowledge and understanding, should be guided by a combination of your Mind, Heart and Spirit, all working in harmony, as one. If your at a crossroads, then there’s a reason for it…keep going, would be my advice…

Not at any crossroads, just a metaphor for others to take to heart; they are not alone in their thinking and PATH, even if presented with the same roads as EXIT or ENTRY.

Vethumanbeing
I wouldnt say we were pawns exactly, just information seekers for the almighty that really? might not care. There, I SAID IT (I expect god to respond promptly).

Joecroft
Seems like you responded, to your own post lol.

Of course I would and did and can say: I do speak for this creator; am allowed to do so as it speaks through me to you as a vessel and hopes you listen to IT.

God_Almighty
What do you expect of me otherwise? The long process of defining myself from an 'Absolute Unbounded Oneness' of NOTHING (think from no-thing existing) has somehow coalessed into a "Non Physical Matter Reality" into a 'Physical Matter Reality' then into or back into an 'Absolute Unbounded Manifold', and its binary in function! not Carbonbased. Confusing to say the least; but there I am expressing myself THROUGH YOU (ingrates).

Joecroft
No-Thing is actually something lol, it’s the absence of the something, and therefore, it’s its opposite…and actually exists. So yeah, there’s definitely a binary possibility of creation consisting of Zeros (0 - The Nothing) and Ones (1 – The something)

There you go, yes; hard enough to grasp but the "all that is' is a binary system that produced a carbonbased smaller system; compartmentalizing itself to slow 'entropy'.

Joecroft
Not sure we can get rid of carbon based life though, unless you think where living in a 2d matrix.

We are essentially 2d, but are bulged out into 3d format and with that recognision or potencial manefested into another bubble thought indulgence form (accidental). Space time has much to do with this as its the arena for AUO to express itself, and were speaking of conditions, forces neg/pos/gravity/light meaning limits that are stretched and overcome to create new possibilities for expanded forms of ITSELF within the system. Make no mistake, we are each a cell in the being of that Entity.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Vethumanbeing
Kabala in all forms of its spelling is a magical numbered geometric construct overlay.
I dont know about the Zohar, what have you learned.

It’s an important kabbalistic book, which expands on the mysteries, of the five books of Moses. As for the “magical numbered geometric construct overlay”, Check out, my right up your alley thread

Vethumanbeing
Of course I would and did and can say: I do speak for this creator; am allowed to do so as it speaks through me to you as a vessel and hopes you listen to IT.

Oh, I listen…It’s just I sense the Rabbit hole goes deep with you…very deep…

Vethumanbeing
We are essentially 2d, but are bulged out into 3d format and with that recognision or potencial manefested into another bubble thought indulgence form (accidental).
…
…

Seriously. Do you think where like plugged in, 2d Matrix style…? I guess that would explain a lot, if it were true. Ghosts, out of body awareness, UFO’s breaking the laws of physics etc etc….Yeah, would explain quite a bit…

- JC

Joecroft
reply to post by vethumanbeing

Vethumanbeing
Kabala in all forms of its spelling is a magical numbered geometric construct overlay. I dont know about the Zohar, what have you learned.

Joecroft
It’s an important kabbalistic book, which expands on the mysteries, of the five books of Moses. As for the “magical numbered geometric construct overlay”, Check out, my right up your alley thread

Im on it, much to ponder the symbology aspects and the whys of the "Standards"/"FLAGS". Causes me to want to look at the standards of the medieval wars and note the use of animals within the iconography.

Vethumanbeing
Of course I would and did and can say: I do speak for this creator; am allowed to do so as it speaks through me to you as a vessel and hopes you listen to IT.

Joecroft
Oh, I listen…It’s just I sense the Rabbit hole goes deep with you…very deep.

Nothing to justify, fear or take any consequence of, just a "do you want to be a big 'Alice' or small 'Alice' in the scenario/circumstances presented to you" which pill, sweet or bitter in taste to take you to the next dimension of thought form or experience. Lewis Carroll was definately one of the more creative thinkers of his time/connecting to unbiased children.

Vethumanbeing
We are essentially 2d, but are bulged out into 3d format and with that recognision or potencial manefested into another bubble thought indulgence form (accidental).

Joecroft
Seriously. Do you think where like plugged in, 2d Matrix style…? I guess that would explain a lot, if it were true. Ghosts, out of body awareness, UFO’s breaking the laws of physics etc etc….Yeah, would explain quite a bit.

.

Well yes of course we are plugged into a binary matrix system (space/time) as a 3 dimensional carbonbased creature existing within that environment---speed/light/gravity/entropy drag equals a system that supports/sustains this flesh and bone aspect of God (all that is) Absolute Unbounded Oneness.
In the bubbles of time it happens to recreate itself everyday, like cell division within the human body. What happens when it decides to divide into 4 or 16 selves? What happens to us? Do we become even smaller within the matrix? We are like bugs trying to understand our environment (this is how little we know of the One).