The subject of the Garden of Eden and the Fall of Man has come up recently on a few threads, so I decided to give the argument a home of its own...

I have been giving this some thought.
What could be the "message" or lesson to be learned of the story of the "Fall of Man"?

Why would God have even placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden (Hell, why would he have even CREATED the trees) if he didn't want them to eat of it?

Although I agree with a LOT of what Snakelord says, and I think he is an extraordinarily intelligent person I have to disagree that they did what God fully expected them to do and what they were created for.
That makes it all pointless.
Regardless of whether or not it is "true" or historically accurate, the Bible was written for a purpose.
It had a point.

The only reason I can see for God to have created the trees, placed them in the Garden of Eden then told Adam and Eve not to eat of them would be that it was some sort of a test.
A test of what, however?
As Snake (and others, including myself) has said... Contrary to seemingly popular belief, it could not have been a test of morality because God had not imbued Adam and Eve with a sense of morality. That is the WHOLE POINT of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil). Morality <u>IS</u> the <b>Knowledge of Good and Evil</b>!
So, what was he testing?
Well, look at his words...
NIV Genesis 2: 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

God was giving man a choice:
Mankind could stay in this blissfully ignorant paradise with God to serve and obey him if he so chose.
His other option was to go it alone. To seek knowledge on his own, make up his own mind and make decisions for himself. In short, he could grasp free will.

Man chose to reject the guidance of God and forge his own way in the world.

As far as man knew, by rejecting God's guidance, he could be ending his life altogether.
From God's perspective, man chose to risk death rather than stay under his wing.
Man decided to listen to the serpent rather than God.
Man turned his back on God.

What was it a test of?
It was a test of man's courage, fortitude and drive to be independent.
Man had free will and had proven that he had the impetus to act upon the free will against the advice of God, even at the risk of his own immediate peril.
God knew that if man had access to the Tree of Life, that he would wholly and completely reject God because he did not need him anymore. With eternal life and self-sufficient morality, what purpose would God serve?

Adam and Eve is a story of the coming of age of mankind.
The kids leaving the nest.

Throughout all of the Old Testament if there is one recurring theme it is man's rejection of God's wisdom and guidance time and again.
Adam and Eve was just the beginning.

I would just like to recommend, that is, if you would like to ask questions.
Go here and ask him, the only sensible preacher in our time http://angdatingdaan.org/ask/ask_broeli.php .

I would just like to recommend, that is, if you would like to ask questions.
Go here and ask him, the only sensible preacher in our time http://angdatingdaan.org/ask/ask_broeli.php .
Thanks, but no thanks.
If he comes here and shares his opinion, I will be glad to discuss things with him.

That is interesting. Your avatar looks like a mix between Charles Manson, Cat Stevens and Dennis Miller.
It's Manson.
I guess Cat and Dennis look like him?

What about my post?

Don't trust men with your apple tree.
:D


The Tree of KofGE is a test.
But a test of what?


And how long do you think they were in the nest?
That's a good question.
It seems that starting about 600BCE there was an explosion of "Self Determinist" philosophy worldwide. When people really started to cling onto ideas that mankind is in control of his own destiny rather than at the will and mercy of God(s).
Zarathustra, Lao-Tzu, Confucius, Buddha, Xenophanes, Pythagoras... the list goes on.
The Tanakh (and the story of Adam and Eve) was written before that, however, and 600BCE was closer to the time of Jeremiah and Ezekial, who also started to lean towards personal notions of human ethics, rather than simple mindless mandates of action from God.

It seems to me that it is a story on the nature of man, rather than specifically the actions at that time.
When did the nature of man turn from animal instincts, to rational thought and reason searching for answers to the unknown by turning to God(s)?
Anthropologists are still trying to answer that, and that's one of the reasons I want to study Anthropology.

Perhaps it was a *warning* of what was to come with the culmination of human knowledge, wisdom and rationality.

And it continues into the New Testament with man's rejection of Christ.
Good point.

Man chose to reject the guidance of God and forge his own way in the world.
you've missed the point, without the knowledge, what god may of said was just gooble de gook to adam, as was the aledged serpents words.

As far as man knew, by rejecting God's guidance, he could be ending his life altogether.
From God's perspective, man chose to risk death rather than stay under his wing. he had no idea about life or death, he had never come a cross it had he, they were just words with no meaning.

Man decided to listen to the serpent rather than God.
Man turned his back on God.
see above answers, this is impossible.

It wasn't the Tree of Knowledge, it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Adam was not a blithering idiot.
God spoke to him, why would he not understand the words he was speaking?
He may not have known that what he was doing was "Evil", therefore did not desereve to be punished or branded with being a sinner, and I don't think that WAS the intention of the story.
What he DID know, however, is that God, his creator, parent, mentor... the one who taught him EVERYTHING he knew told him that if you do this you will die. (Why would he not know what death was? He knew animals, they are not immortal.)
The serpent told Eve that she would not die, rather she would know Good and Evil and become like a God.
They both decided to believe the serpent rather than God, therefore chose to risk death and turn their backs on God in the pursuit of independence and free will.
It wasn't a "sin" to disobey God, because they did not know what "sin" was (not knowing Good from Evil), but it WAS a rejection of God and his protection and guidance.


My point, just in case I didn't make it clear, is that this was not a story about two people, it was a parable about mankind and its self-awareness.
Mankind rejecting God's rule to embrace self-determinism.

It's an interesting theory, however I will point out at least one critical flaw.

You claim that the choice they were given was for independence, free will. However, the error of this is that they already had free will, independence. First, simply because they had the freedom to choose disobedience, but also because the "Image of God" is a phrase that implies free will. Humans, according to the genesis story, were created with free will, we know this because we are told that God made man in His own Image and Likeness.

Like I said, it's an interesting theory, but it fails on at least that one account.

God spoke to him, why would he not understand the words he was speaking?
He may not have known that what he was doing was "Evil", therefore did not desereve to be punished or branded with being a sinner, and I don't think that WAS the intention of the story.
What he DID know, however, is that God, his creator, parent, mentor... the one who taught him EVERYTHING he knew told him that if you do this you will die. (Why would he not know what death was? He knew animals, they are not immortal.)

My point, just in case I didn't make it clear, is that this was not a story about two people, it was a parable about mankind and its self-awareness.
Mankind rejecting God's rule to embrace self-determinism.then it an extremely bad parable, and were is it written it's a parable.

give it some deep thought and then could you explain to me, how two people, with no knowledge of good and bad ( no morals) could understand what a god was saying when it said what was good to do and what was bad.
and how would adam know that dying was bad.

then it an extremely bad parable, and were is it written it's a parable.
I disagree.
Perhaps you just do not understand it?

give it some deep thought and then could you explain to me...
Please do not condescend to me.

how two people, with no knowledge of good and bad ( no morals) could understand what a god was saying when it said what was good to do and what was bad.
and how would adam know that dying was bad.
I thought I already did.

First of all, God did not say "This would be bad" nor did he say "You were bad, so this is punishment".
He simply said, "This is the consequence of your actions."
He DID tell them there would be consequences if they ate from the Tree, and there was.

Let's say you tell a child who does not know Good from Evil (but does have a vocabulary and understands what you are saying) that if they touch the stove they will be burned.
When the child burns himself when he touches the stove is that punishment from you for the child being bad? Of course not, it is simply the consequence for his actions.

As I said, I don't think it has anything to do with them being good or bad at all.
As I pointed out...
It wasn't a "sin" to disobey God, because they did not know what "sin" was (not knowing Good from Evil), but it WAS a rejection of God and his protection and guidance.


You claim that the choice they were given was for independence, free will. However, the error of this is that they already had free will, independence. First, simply because they had the freedom to choose disobedience, but also because the "Image of God" is a phrase that implies free will.


Good point.
Though I am not sure how much free will an innocent child who is entirely dependent upon its parents really has from a practical point of view, technically, they do have the ability to disobey, so I suppose that is at least limited free will.
Perhaps saying it was a choice for self-determination would be more accurate.


I was talking about this with my girlfriend today, and she brought up an interesting thought.
God did not lie to Adam and Eve when he said they would die if they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (though he may have been being less than totally forthcoming).
They DID die because of it. Because they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were banished from the Garden of Eden, therefore no able to partake in the fruit of the Tree of Life. Thus, they died.
The serpent, as well, was not lying, nor being totally forthcoming in the matter. Their death was not directly due to them eating the fruit, rather indirectly due to that and directly due to God's banishing them from the garden.

It still stands, however, that God said to them, "Either you stay with me here in blissful paradise with me for eternity, or you go it alone and die."
If God were to allow them access to the Garden of Eden and immortality, they would have no need for God whatsoever. They would have become like Gods themselves -immortal and in charge of their own destiny, morality and decisions (self-determinate).

Eve, who grasped for self-determination and offered it to her husband was not the being who cast "Original Sin" on mankind, rather she was the first hero of the Bible because she gave mankind it's most precious gift.

The only reason I can see for God to have created the trees, placed them in the Garden of Eden then told Adam and Eve not to eat of them would be that it was some sort of a test. What possible reason would God have for testing anyone?

The reason for a test is to confirm whether or not the subject understands some concept or has the ability to perform some task.

But God reputedly knows everything. He would not have to give you an Algebra test because he already knows how much Algebra you understand and how much you do not understand. There is therefore no reason for God to test anyone.

~Raithere

I was talking about this with my girlfriend today, and she brought up an interesting thought. God did not lie to Adam and Eve when he said they would die if they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (though he may have been being less than totally forthcoming). They DID die because of it. Because they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they were banished from the Garden of Eden, therefore no able to partake in the fruit of the Tree of Life. Thus, they died. But God did lie. He did not simply say, "you shall not eat for you will surely die". What he said was this:

Genesis 2:17 "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." (emphasis mine)

Neither Adam, nor Eve died the day they ate from the Tree. They lived several hundred years more.

In contrast:

Genesis 4 - 7 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.

God lied. The serpent told the truth.

~Raithere

Since the phrase "image of God" does not imply free will, beyondtimeandspace's point is irrelevant.

That is rather an absurd charge and I feel motivated to quickly disqualify it.

Any notion of free will is anthropocentric. Logically then, any assumption that God has "free will" is absurd since the claimant cannot even produce an explanation of how a non material "being" (already, a contradiction in terms) can possess what is strictly a material attribute. In the event of such silence, we can safely say that an interpretation of "created in God's image" as a bestowment of free will is straw grasping. This, of course, doesn't bring into account the contextual difficulties.

Moving on to the original post, we see again that the Genesis account is indeed anthropocentric. The only way for the "test" to have been genuine is for the outcome not to have been fixed; this we can agree upon. Since Genesis makes no claim that God is omniscient, we'll regard that counterargument as superfluous (for now).

The fall of the First Couple cannot signify a rejection of God's wisdom. Again, Genesis makes no claim that they had any inkling of the extent of God's wisdom so we can't make that assumption. In fact, it was not a test at all. As far as what Genesis tells us explicitly, God gave Adam and Eve a choice of living (in Eden) or dying. And this is critical: it was not a commandment, but a suggestion. I remember having made this argument back in my early days and I will reiterate:

Someone says "You must not eat bright fruits in the forest, for when you do, you will surely die." This is obviously not a command, it is a suggestion, or more accurately, a warning. Therefore if you choose to eat bright red fruit from the forest, you are not "rejecting" per se, but rather using your own initiative. And using your own initiative, instead of someone else's, has never been a sin (in most cases). So that theologians are foolish for characterizing "The Fall" as an instance of human rebelliousness. You can't rebel if there is nothing to rebel against; Adam and Eve never disobeyed a commandment since they were never commanded to begin with.

Obviously then, when someone says"You must not eat bright fruits in the forest, for when you do, you will surely die" they are not testing you. They are giving you advice. Again, Adam and Eve neither passed nor failed a test because there was never a test to begin with.

Now, earlier, I conceded that in most cases using one's own initiative is not a sin. In God's case, it was. We see the jealous and angry, but merciful God showing compassion on the Two by casting them out instead of letting them die. This was the first lesson the tale sought to teach, that of God's mercy. We also see the "petulant" God, who is infuriated when His recommendation is cast aside and the lesson here is a parallel between parenthood with humans and parenthood with God.

A mother might recommend to her son: "Don't wear the blue shirt, the red shirt makes you look better" It's obviously not a command, or a test, but when the son goes ahead and wears the blue shirt anyway, the mother becomes angry (or hurt) because her recommendation was not taken seriously. We see this parallel with God. He is hurt when, in all His glory, the puny humans cast aside His Fatherly advice and lashes out by cursing them with all manner of afflictions in childbirth, agriculture, etc. Like the mother, even though He is angry, He still loves them and so does not let them die.

They will instead be allowed to live and reap the consequences of what they have sowed, like any human parent will do.

But God did lie. He did not simply say, "you shall not eat for you will surely die". What he said was this:

The NIV says:
Genesis 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Genesis 3:4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

I think the NIV is a much better translation, personally. You?

Let's say that God did lie and the serpent told the truth...
My argument still stands that this was not a test of morality, nor a punishment for sin.
Simply the consequence of rejecting God.

But God reputedly knows everything. He would not have to give you an Algebra test because he already knows how much Algebra you understand and how much you do not understand. There is therefore no reason for God to test anyone.

That is RC doctrine, and like much of RC doctrine, not necessarily Biblically sound or valid.

Perhaps significant, perhaps not...
The Tanach does not have "section titles". "The Fall of Man" is stictly a Christian thing. As far as I understand it, the Jews do not see this act as an act of sin or something to be condemned.

Excellent post, §outh§tar, but I have to take issue with the idea of punisment.

A mother might recommend to her son: "Don't wear the blue shirt, the red shirt makes you look better" It's obviously not a command, or a test, but when the son goes ahead and wears the blue shirt anyway, the mother becomes angry (or hurt) because her recommendation was not taken seriously. We see this parallel with God. He is hurt when, in all His glory, the puny humans cast aside His Fatherly advice and lashes out by cursing them with all manner of afflictions in childbirth, agriculture, etc. Like the mother, even though He is angry, He still loves them and so does not let them die.

They will instead be allowed to live and reap the consequences of what they have sowed, like any human parent will do.

It is simply the consequences of their actions, regardless of God's "feelings".
Rather than the red/blue shirt analogy, think of it as a father telling his son that if drives recklessly, he will die.
The son disregards his father's advice, and drives like a nut.
He gets into a nasty car wreck and is paralyzed for life.
That was not his father punishment, simply the cost of disregarding his advice.
The sharp edge of self-determination.

Uh... god? Adam? Eve? Snakes?

So it's a story about man's coming of age. Just when and how did we come of age? Really? It's not a parable, it's just a simplistic story, a myth. Just like Athena popping out of Zeus' head in full battle gear. Seems like an awful lot of discussion on the deep philosophical ramifications of something so simple.

People made up all kinds of goofy stories to tell around the fire at night simply because they were bored. The holy books of most religions (if not all) are collections of nifty campfire tales.

In Nordic mythology we have the "World Tree" Yggdrasil.

Lord Śiva also seems to have popped out of the the forehead of Lord Brahma.

Go figure.

Since the phrase "image of God" does not imply free will, beyondtimeandspace's point is irrelevant.

I agree, but the ability to disobey, or disregard God's advice DOES imply at least some level of free will, does it not?

So it's a story about man's coming of age.
That's the question I am posing.

Just when and how did we come of age?
Read my post about 600BCE above.

It's not a parable, it's just a simplistic story, a myth.
I disagree.
The Tanach was a book of laws, history and philosophy of the Jewish people.
It has a great deal to say, whether or not you agree with it, and certainly had a purpose.
It wasn't silly poinless myths, it was a teaching tool.
I think it is extraordinarily interesting to try and determine what it was they were attempting to teach.
You can disagree, of course, but I love to study and discuss religions and philosophies (obviously).

Just like Athena popping out of Zeus' head in full battle gear. Seems like an awful lot of discussion on the deep philosophical ramifications of something so simple.
I don't think it's quite that simple, and I thinks it's fun.

Okey Dokey. Enjoy!

I agree, but the ability to disobey, or disregard God's advice DOES imply at least some level of free will, does it not?

Yes, but he is claiming their free will is a result of being created in "God's image". Which is something else entirely, not to mention Genesis never says anything about free will being an attribute of those created in God's image.

Excellent post, §outh§tar, but I have to take issue with the idea of punisment.



It is simply the consequences of their actions, regardless of God's "feelings".
Rather than the red/blue shirt analogy, think of it as a father telling his son that if drives recklessly, he will die.
The son disregards his father's advice, and drives like a nut.
He gets into a nasty car wreck and is paralyzed for life.
That was not his father punishment, simply the cost of disregarding his advice.
The sharp edge of self-determination.

This can't be true since the earth being "barren", and the woman having pains in childbirth, and the man sweating all of his days in the field were all "consequences" which God never mentioned in the first place.

And remember, since Genesis never state it, we can't assume it.

Instead, we see that God became angry and cursed them with these things. If you say He did not do it out of anger then the sanity of a God who curses His own children, in addition to driving them out of Eden, just because they chose to make their own decisions, is brought into question. So saying Adam and Eve were not cursed because God was hurt/angry makes the very act nonsensical - there was no point to it.

Yes, but he is claiming their free will is a result of being created in "God's image". Which is something else entirely, not to mention Genesis never says anything about free will being an attribute of those created in God's image.

Actually, that was only half his argument...
First, simply because they had the freedom to choose disobedience
So I don't think it is reasonable to discount his entire argument, nor discount the notion that they had free will in the Garden of Eden.

This can't be true since the earth being "barren", and the woman having pains in childbirth, and the man sweating all of his days in the field were all "consequences" which God never mentioned in the first place.

And remember, since Genesis never state it, we can't assume it.
I disagree.
God also didn't state that they would be banished from the Garden if they did not heed his advice, yet that's what happened.
The part about Adam having to toil in the barren fields and all stands to reason as a natural consequence, since they were barred from the verdant lands of the Garden. If they were barred access from the garden, they would have to sewat and toil to feed themselves. Perfectly reasonable, though it was not explicitly stated in the tale.

I admit that I can not figure out why Eve's pain in childbirth would be increased, and any reasoning I try seems too great of a leap.
This is far from a complete theory, though.

One other thing that throws a wrench in the works of what you said about it not being a commandment, therefore it not being a test is...

Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

It WAS a commandment.

If you say He did not do it out of anger then the sanity of a God who curses His own children, in addition to driving them out of Eden, just because they chose to make their own decisions, is brought into question.
So saying Adam and Eve were not cursed because God was hurt/angry makes the very act nonsensical - there was no point to it.
He drove them out of Eden to keep them from the Tree of Life, to keep them from becoming "like Gods".
Not to punish them.

So I don't think it is reasonable to discount his entire argument, nor discount the notion that they had free will in the Garden of Eden.

I never said they didn't have free will beforehand; I assumed free will in my interpretation also. He was agreeing that they had free will too, EXCEPT that he wanted to use the "created in God's image" thing as an explanation.

I disagree.
God also didn't state that they would be banished from the Garden if they did not heed his advice, yet that's what happened.
The part about Adam having to toil in the barren fields and all stands to reason as a natural consequence, since they were barred from the verdant lands of the Garden. If they were barred access from the garden, they would have to sewat and toil to feed themselves. Perfectly reasonable, though it was not explicitly stated in the tale.

I admit that I can not figure out why Eve's pain in childbirth would be increased, and any reasoning I try seems too great of a leap.
This is far from a complete theory, though.

One other thing that throws a wrench in the works of what you said about it not being a commandment, therefore it not being a test is...

Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'

It WAS a commandment.

Well... that's really not my problem. ;)

You see, nowhere in Genesis can you actually QUOTE God saying "You must not eat of it." The truth is, NOWHERE in Genesis was He ever recorded as saying that. Therefore you can't really pin this one on me - I'm just going on what is given explicitly. If the Bible wants to contradict itself by making up a phrase which was previously nonexistent, or wants to change the grammar of the phrase to change it from a suggestion to a command then that's not my business.

You can see from my analogy with the bright fruit in the forest that what God said was indeed a recommendation.

This, which is advice given:

You must not eat bright fruits from the forest, for when you do, you will surely die

is not the same as this, which is an order:

You must not eat bright fruits from the forest.

Again, imagine you tell your friend: "Don't go out without an umbrella because it might rain today". You are obviously not commanding your friend to not go out if he doesn't take an umbrella; you are simply recommending that he take an umbrella.

That is totally different from giving the command, "Don't go out without an umbrella", which is in the imperative mood (http://www.englisch-hilfen.de/en/grammar/imperativ.htm) form. Context often helps us determine whether "You shouldn't eat too much" is a suggestion or a command - as you can see, it can easily be one or the other. In this context, I find it best to think of God's original statement as a suggestion and not a command. When we think of it as a command, the whole thing collapses and nothing makes sense. Adam and Eve couldn't have known beforehand (without having any knowledge of Good or Evil) that disobeying the command was "bad" or that life in Eden was "better" than life outside of Eden (they had never even been outside) and therefore God's fury at them would be nonsensical. This is why we shouldn't interpret it as a command.

That later amendment where God abbreviates his words to make it seem like a command, if you are willing to consider, actually conforms to the explanation I gave earlier.

Let's have an example:

You suggest to your roommate, "Don't go outside without your umbrella because it might rain". He goes out and comes back soaking wet. He gets a flu that night. While spending time nursing him instead of studying or whatever, you scold him: "I warned you not to go outside without your umbrella!" Obviously, your initial statement was not a command, but after he gets sick, you change it around to sound like a command, making it seem like he disobeyed what you told him and ended up getting sick.

This is not abnormal human behavior, so I don't see why the original story makers couldn't have intended it so. After all, they were anthropomorphizing God.
You

He drove them out of Eden to keep them from the Tree of Life, to keep them from becoming "like Gods".
Not to punish them.

That makes even less sense since they had already eaten from the Tree.

Think about it this way:

If eating from the Tree the first time did not make them become "like Gods", then there was no point to God driving them out and cursing their lives.

Therefore it doesn't make sense to say God drove them out to "keep them from becoming" like Himself since it would be a little too late for that.

I never said they didn't have free will beforehand; I assumed free will in my interpretation also. He was agreeing that they had free will too, EXCEPT that he wanted to use the "created in God's image" thing as an explanation.
Fair enough.

You see, nowhere in Genesis can you actually QUOTE God saying "You must not eat of it." The truth is, NOWHERE in Genesis was He ever recorded as saying that.

NIV Genesis 3:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
:bugeye:

What if I say to someone, "Sure, you can crash at my apartment. Keep in mind, though... You must not go into the basement, for if you do, you will die."

What would they assume?
Seems reasonable to me to assume that I mean if you go into my basement, I'm going to kill you.
That is a commandment with consequences if you disobey it.


That makes even less sense since they had already eaten from the Tree.

Think about it this way:

If eating from the Tree the first time did not make them become "like Gods", then there was no point to God driving them out and cursing their lives.

Therefore it doesn't make sense to say God drove them out to "keep them from becoming" like Himself since it would be a little too late for that.
What makes them "like Gods" is the knowledge of good and evil (i.e. self-determinism entirely devoid of guidance from a higher power) COMBINED WITH immortality. By removing them from access to the Tree of Life, he deprives them of immortality.

Does anyone know where the idea of "free will" comes from in the bible? I asked this question on another thread...Proof That God Does Not Exist (or something close to that).

The term 'free will' is of course not itself present even in English translations, but there are adumbrations in the New Testament which are less obscure than their OT counterparts. As a result, Calvinism looks to the NT primarily (maybe exclusively) for corroboration of the predestination doctrine.

Things didn't get really philosophical as far as the Bible goes until the New Testament books. Some verses there imply the sovereignty of God in determining who gets saved and who doesn't, while others stress the responsibility of the individual to accept grace through faith (or works, or both).

Overall, the theme of omniscience has cast doubt on the ability of man to effect his own salvation, and thus, his free will.

(Look up 'Calvinism verses' on Google and see what you make of them for yourself)

It is implied.
If free will was not a reality, works and actions would mean nothing whatsoever.
"Sin" would be a meaningless word.

Are there actually Calvinists around still?

one_raven,

I would like to contend that both the snake and god lied.

NIV Genesis 2: 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

DO we have have knowledge of good and evil? I know I have a system of beliefs that have been taught to me that predicate my knowledge of good and evil. Does this mean that I know good and evil? No, it means I know a condition of morality.

If we were to have spawned from adam and eve, would we not all experience the same condition of 'knowing' good and bad?

I am of the opinion that god knew what would happen- especially if we are to believe the attributes that are given to him. This casts him into a completely malicious light. But considering everything else he has done (speaking hypothetically of course) I don't find this to hard to believe.

The simple fact that you can say, "I think God lied", is proof of self-determination in itself.

I'm not arguing self determination, I'm arguing the fact that if we were to gain a knowledge of good and evil from a tree (which to me is patently absurd, tomatoes though) would it not be a uniform knowledge, with no varience?

Surely the fact that we have conditional morality shows a certain contradiction to the events depicted in the bible.

I think the NIV is a much better translation, personally. You?Not at all. The NIV sacrificed literal translation for readability. It's like paraphrasing one of Dr. King's speeches or reading Cliffs Notes. But I'm willing to concede the point that it is dependent upon the translation.

My argument still stands that this was not a test of morality, nor a punishment for sin. Simply the consequence of rejecting God.Then we have to consider that God is not omnipotent (couldn't save us from consequence) or question his love and concept of justice (decided that all humanity should suffer for the actions of two people).

That is RC doctrine, and like much of RC doctrine, not necessarily Biblically sound or valid.Whose is? And are you saying that God is not omniscient?

The Tanach does not have "section titles". "The Fall of Man" is stictly a Christian thing. As far as I understand it, the Jews do not see this act as an act of sin or something to be condemned.I believe that's correct.

~Raithere

NIV Genesis 3:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
:bugeye:

What if I say to someone, "Sure, you can crash at my apartment. Keep in mind, though... You must not go into the basement, for if you do, you will die."

What would they assume?
Seems reasonable to me to assume that I mean if you go into my basement, I'm going to kill you.
That is a commandment with consequences if you disobey it.

Looks to me like you're giving them a choice, yes.

But (if you took at the site I linked to), the imperative mood of verbs does not allow for a choice. You have given your friend a choice between living and dying, the same as God did.

When you command a child, "Go and clean your room now" - you are not giving them a choice between cleaning their room and not cleaning it. You can see then that commands do not give room for choice. But look at a conditional statement.

"Go and clean your room now, or you will not eat" - you are giving them a choice between eating and non eating. Maybe it's semantics, but that's what I've gathered from my knowledge of the language. Last, the definition of command is "to direct authoritatively" (MW). It may be just me, but I don't see how you can be directing authoritatively if you are giving the person a choice.

What makes them "like Gods" is the knowledge of good and evil (i.e. self-determinism entirely devoid of guidance from a higher power) COMBINED WITH immortality. By removing them from access to the Tree of Life, he deprives them of immortality.

Where does Genesis mention anything about immortality and being "like Gods"? The phrase is vague and I wouldn't ascribe anything that isn't given explicitly. You might as well say they would lose their physical body since God doesn't have a physical body.

I'm not arguing self determination, I'm arguing the fact that if we were to gain a knowledge of good and evil from a tree (which to me is patently absurd, tomatoes though) would it not be a uniform knowledge, with no varience?

Surely the fact that we have conditional morality shows a certain contradiction to the events depicted in the bible.
Not at all.
Quite the contrary, in fact.
If, as I am putting forward, the metaphor means that eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, imparted self-determination, it would be the other way around.
For the Tree that God created to give us very specific un-adulterated rules regarding what is Good and what is Evil, then we would still be living under God's mandate.
For us to have an inherent knowledge of what God thinks is Good and Evil, we would NOT be self-determinate, we would be just as we were, following his rules.
Self-determination means the ability to decide for ourselves.


Not at all. The NIV sacrificed literal translation for readability. It's like paraphrasing one of Dr. King's speeches or reading Cliffs Notes. But I'm willing to concede the point that it is dependent upon the translation.
I can't help but wonder how much you know about the NIV, what the intention of the translators were and what the methods of translation were.
That statement is not meant to imply any ignorance on your part. You very well could know as much as I do or more about it and come to the same differing and valid opinion.
The reason I can't help but wonder, though, is because I used to say the exact same thing about it until I researched it more.
It was not a simple retelling of the KJV in a more friendly and readable tone.
Their express intention was to make a more accurate version as well as a more readable version of the original texts.
More readable simply due to the fact that it was translated into modern English.
A vast wealth of resources and wide array of knowledge of people of differing faiths went into the translation.
They used as many original sources as were available.
I suppose this is a topic for another thread, however.

Then we have to consider that God is not omnipotent (couldn't save us from consequence) or question his love and concept of justice (decided that all humanity should suffer for the actions of two people).
Only if you think mankind "suffers" as a result of this action, which is exactly what I am arguing against.
As I said, I don't think that mortality was a value judgement against man, rather this fable was a simple attempt to explain why humans are mortal.
Please explain how manking suffers as a result of this.


Whose is? And are you saying that God is not omniscient?
Hell, I don't even believe that anything resemblig Abraham's God exists, so I am not saying that God is or isn;t anything.
What I am saying is that the Bible doesn't make any explicit claims about God's omniscience, simply examples of things he does know.
Yes, the Bible does state the God has the ability to know everything you know...
NIV 1 Chronicles 28:9 "And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever. 10 Consider now, for the LORD has chosen you to build a temple as a sanctuary. Be strong and do the work."
...but there is nowhere that I am aware of where it states that God is aware of everything that will happen.

I believe that's correct.
The part about the section titles, or the part about them not seeing it as a sin, rather something to praise?



Looks to me like you're giving them a choice, yes.

But (if you took at the site I linked to), the imperative mood of verbs does not allow for a choice. You have given your friend a choice between living and dying, the same as God did.

When you command a child, "Go and clean your room now" - you are not giving them a choice between cleaning their room and not cleaning it. You can see then that commands do not give room for choice. But look at a conditional statement.

"Go and clean your room now, or you will not eat" - you are giving them a choice between eating and non eating. Maybe it's semantics, but that's what I've gathered from my knowledge of the language. Last, the definition of command is "to direct authoritatively" (MW). It may be just me, but I don't see how you can be directing authoritatively if you are giving the person a choice.
Now you are really grasping at straws.
You were framing this as a choice rather than a commandment, correct?
If you live in Texas, it is mandated by the authorites that you must not murder another human being.
Now, according to your portrayal above, you have a choice, correct?
Either you do not kill, or you will BE killed.

Would the commandments mean anything if they were not backed up with God's willingness to follow through with, say... an eternity in Hell?
Without an entity's ability and implied willingness to enact consequences for actions, "authority" is meaningless.
Well, when would a commandment NOT imply a choice?
"Either you do this or you will be punished" is a threat -a commandment with consequence for not abiding.

Where does Genesis mention anything about immortality and being "like Gods"? The phrase is vague and I wouldn't ascribe anything that isn't given explicitly. You might as well say they would lose their physical body since God doesn't have a physical body.
NIV Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

I think it is a reasonably safe assumption.

disregarding all theocratic interpretations to read it as is, the story to me is simply about learning right from wrong (good and evil) through direct expereince, cause and effect.

disregarding all theocratic interpretations to read it as is, the story to me is simply about learning right from wrong (good and evil) direct expereince, cause and effect.
Who learned right from wrong?
Adam and Eve?
If so, what did they learn was right or wrong?
If that was the point of the parable, do you mean that it was that God is right and to disobey him is wrong?

i think it is a story and should be given no more weight than that. in my opinion, it is not
a factual account of anything, if it is as some suggest a factual account of the creation of the universe and of mans ascent from animal or descent from spirit then it is an extremely poor factual account.

viewing it as a story the interpretation is a personal one and is only suggestive of certain posssibilities, nothing more.

Who learned right from wrong? me!

Adam and Eve?if we take the interpreation to be that having your eyes opened to know good and evil means learning right from wrong then yes, adam and eve.

If so, what did they learn was right or wrong?good and evil. postivie and negative.

If that was the point of the parable, do you mean that it was that God is right and to disobey him is wrong? i dont know what the intention of the author of the parable was but for me it is that adam and eve had to understand right and wrong this understanding could not be communicated it had to be expereinced. eating the fruit and the consequence, gave the expereince, they now know of good and evil

me!
You say you learned right from wrong from the story.
What did you learn?
What is right and what is wrong (that you gleaned from the story)?

i dont know what the intention of the author of the parable was but for me it is that adam and eve had to understand right and wrong this understanding could not be communicated it had to be expereinced.
Isn't the intenion of the author the whole point, being that this is a religious book written specifically to teach?

What, then, did their experience teach them?
What does the story tell about what is right and what is wrong?
If it sats nothing, then wouldn't that make the story completely pointless?
Why would one of the most significant stories in a book of religion and morality be a pointless one?

in my opinion, it is not a factual account of anything
I agree, by the way.

You say you learned right from wrong from the story.nope! not from the story form the metaphorical eating of the fruit. i gained my understanding of good and evil form expereince. this understanding could not be communicated by god, parents, teachers, gurus, prophets or the babylon.

i taste the fruit to know its flavour.

to me the story has symbolized the development of this knowledge in way which considers and confirms the individuals expereince.

What did you learn?
What is right and what is wrong (that you gleaned from the story)?as said above the story is a confirmation of expereince, the knowledge can not be communicated not spoken and not written.


Isn't the intenion of the author the whole point, being that this is a religious book written specifically to teach?how can we know what the intention of the author was, how can we know it was written to teach?

What, then, did their experience teach them?it is a parable. the point is that the expereince is the learning. the flavour cannot be known with out tasting the fruit. does there need to be some proverb or piece of infromation to digest in order that learning take place?

What does the story tell about what is right and what is wrong? that it has to be known directly by the individual, that it is not an object, event or phenomena that can be shown to others.

If it sats nothing, then wouldn't that make the story completely pointless?if it says nothing it would be pointless. if it seems to say nothing it might actuallly be saying something not comprehended.

i taste the fruit to know its flavour.
I get your point.
The eating of the fruit is symbolic of experience itself.
I can't say I agree, but I understand where you are coming from.

how can we know what the intention of the author was, how can we know it was written to teach?
We can't, but I thoroughly enjoy examining the possibilities.

if it says nothing it would be pointless. if it seems to say nothing it might actuallly be saying something not comprehended.
Which is the point of examination and discussion, in my opinion.

The eating of the fruit is symbolic of experience itself.
I can't say I agree, but I understand where you are coming from.
if you dont agree, then would i be right in thinking you have your own interpretation of the story? what does the story symbolize for you?

Yes, you are correct.
I started this thread.
Begin with the first post on page one to get a basic idea of what my interpretation is.
Further posts serve to solidfy the nuances and address original inconsistencies.

i would say...FIRST, FIRST, keep in mind that te story is a tale, a myth!...so dont unconsciously premise there actually being a 'reeal' 'God', 'Garden', 'Tree' etcetc...oterwise you cn only get suked into an established unflexible way of understanding the myth AND its ORIGINS....

for exmple, this tale did not originate from the Hebrews. its motifs o Trees, Frit< Serpent or much much more ancient AND PRE-PARIARCHAL

bearing that in mind let's examine it.......when you look at myth it is advisable to try and seek out te associative, and etymological roots o the words used. i say associational first because in pre-literate times there was more a sense of association, as in poetry. myth actually began as song

i am going straight to the point. ready?

the TREE and FRUIT mean psychedelic inspiration!

Serpen in pre-partriarchal undersranding guarded the Earth and its treasures which very much includes TH source of ecstatic inspiration, psychedelic FRUIT. got it?........the biblical patriarchal taledemonizes that understanding. it demonizes the 'Serpent' and the Fruit, and the Goddess/'EVE', and us!

now, dig this, cause this is very very very current. have yo heard of the Illuminati??

you must have heard of 9/11 and 7/7 right? well the secret elite Illuminati are behind these mass murders. And listen closely.....teir belief is in Luciferian philosophy do a google on this)

Now, THEIR interpretation of the Garden myth is this: the belief that the 'Serpent' is 'Lucifer' who is a 'liberator god' who wants 'man' to excercise his intellect --'knowing good and evil', yeah?, and that 'God' who they call 'Adonay' is evil, because he had wanted to keep Adam and Eve prisoners in the Garden

so....do you see how they believe the reverse of the Judeo-Christian version?

what i am saying is that they are both horribly wrong, and we are caught in te middle of this poisonous confusion an literlaization of myth.

what i feel i a much more ancinet and
earth religious understanding is that psychedelics inspiration allows one to understand te Intelligence of Nature. which includes usbecause we are Nature

The strong indicatorator that Judaic christian and luciferian interpreations are completely wrong, is in their ANTI-nature beliefs and ACTIONS

for exmple, this tale did not originate from the Hebrews. its motifs o Trees, Frit< Serpent or much much more ancient AND PRE-PARIARCHAL
What specific pre-patriarchal story was it based on?
Care to link me to it?

bearing that in mind let's examine it.......when you look at myth it is advisable to try and seek out te associative, and etymological roots o the words used. i say associational first because in pre-literate times there was more a sense of association, as in poetry. myth actually began as song

i am going straight to the point. ready?

the TREE and FRUIT mean psychedelic inspiration!
Please point out the etymological evidence and trace the associative roots connecting Tree and Fruit to psychadelic inspiration.

Serpen in pre-partriarchal undersranding guarded the Earth and its treasures which very much includes TH source of ecstatic inspiration, psychedelic FRUIT. got it?
According to what mythology, specifically?

now, dig this, cause this is very very very current. have yo heard of the Illuminati??
Of course.
I have also hear of The Christian God, that doesn't mean I believe it exists.

you must have heard of 9/11 and 7/7 right? well the secret elite Illuminati are behind these mass murders.
You going to back that assertion?

And listen closely.....teir belief is in Luciferian philosophy do a google on this)

Now, THEIR interpretation of the Garden myth is this: the belief that the 'Serpent' is 'Lucifer' who is a 'liberator god' who wants 'man' to excercise his intellect --'knowing good and evil', yeah?, and that 'God' who they call 'Adonay' is evil, because he had wanted to keep Adam and Eve prisoners in the Garden
Sounds more like Satanism than any "Illuminati" vesrion of the story.

so....do you see how they believe the reverse of the Judeo-Christian version?
There is no Judeo-Christian version. The Jews disagree with the Christians on this one, as far as I understand.

what i am saying is that they are both horribly wrong, and we are caught in te middle of this poisonous confusion an literlaization of myth.
Just a few fundamentalists. Most Christians and Jews see this story as a fable.

what i feel i a much more ancinet and
earth religious understanding is that psychedelics inspiration allows one to understand te Intelligence of Nature. which includes usbecause we are Nature

The strong indicatorator that Judaic christian and luciferian interpreations are completely wrong, is in their ANTI-nature beliefs and ACTIONS
What???
Are you on psychodelics right now?

the TREE and FRUIT mean psychedelic inspiration!

oh.. man, where have you been for a couple of months?! during your absence this forum has become too much patriarchial without your dose.

What specific pre-patriarchal story was it based on?
Care to link me to it?


You will find that the Garden story is a later version of Sumerian stories. The tale of Adamu, the serpent that stopped Gilgamesh from eating the plant of eternal life and so on.

From a biblical perspective you can also clearly see it's Sumerian origins..

Gen 2:10 puts the location of the garden by the Euphrates/Tigris, (which was Sumeria), and indeed the very name of the garden is Sumerian, (eden - from E-din {house of purity}). Sumerian stories state that man was put to work in the gardens of these houses. The bible also tells us that Abraham was from Ur - Sumeria.

Further to that the nephilim are a later story concerning the anunnaki, Moses is based upon the legend of Sargon, Noah is based upon Utnapishtim and so on.

If the garden was in Sumeria as the bible states, then Adam and Eve would have been Sumerians. The fact that Sumerian writing vastly predates the biblical text means that the Sumerian texts would be considered the originals and as a result be vastly more accurate than any version told several thousand years later.

Having said all that, I still have no idea where duendy's dragged up his psychadelic fruit nonsense from.

oh me GOOOOOD, you are all so propaganderized about 'psychedelics'.....!
please see...i know it may be tough, but one can only try. there is no more profounder experience you may have than ecstasy wt the aid of psychedelic inspiration....connect the dots. whay do you feel there continues to be a WAR ON drugs, ie. on psychedelic drugs? IF they weren't considered a threatr....now rewiiiind yor miiiind to the Garden myth, in its patriarchal version. what do you ee? what does old '
god' read the male patriarchy elite'--TELL authoritavletAdam and Eve not to do???????????....comon, you at the back of the class, stop sleeping!!...what?

why, not to eatthe FRUIT. now pray, what can you IMAgine this vert very faous 'FRUIT'!!!!!!! can be, in its essential meaning? 'good and eveil'?? just THAT? surely not. it must have a deeper meaning.

for fuk bleedin sake

2+2=.....?

You will find that the Garden story is a later version of Sumerian stories. The tale of Adamu, the serpent that stopped Gilgamesh from eating the plant of eternal life and so on.

Do you think the Sumerian story is also taken from somewhere? I think many stories in religions are taken from the stories of the Atlanteans. I don't think the entire story of Moses is a "story", but only parts are... allegorical... so is the story of Noah, a story of the Atlanteans but still not... partly yes

oh me GOOOOOD, you are all so propaganderized about 'psychedelics'.....!
please see...i know it may be tough, but one can only try. there is no more profounder experience you may have than ecstasy wt the aid of psychedelic inspiration....connect the dots. whay do you feel there continues to be a WAR ON drugs, ie. on psychedelic drugs? IF they weren't considered a threatr....now rewiiiind yor miiiind to the Garden myth, in its patriarchal version. what do you ee? what does old '
god' read the male patriarchy elite'--TELL authoritavletAdam and Eve not to do???????????....comon, you at the back of the class, stop sleeping!!...what?

why, not to eatthe FRUIT. now pray, what can you IMAgine this vert very faous 'FRUIT'!!!!!!! can be, in its essential meaning? 'good and eveil'?? just THAT? surely not. it must have a deeper meaning.

Sorry, how many "psychadelic" fruits do you know of?

(you can't include mushrooms - because they're not fruits, you can't include cacti - because they're not fruits, and you can't include nutmeg - because it isn't a fruit). What else is there?

duendy, you seem to be very troubled.
what has the illuminate to do with genesis and what have either to do with psychadelics.
are you connecting dots that are not in the picture? is this your none literalist way of reading?

why would god create a psychadelic fruit tree that no one could eat from? if no one was to eat from it how they take the trip?

Do you think the Sumerian story is also taken from somewhere?

Currently there is nothing to support that idea. It also stands to reason.. Sumerians -> Babylonians -> Akkadians -> Jews. As man travelled inland from the the bottom of modern day Iraq, the stories would have gone with them. This can be seen in the path of these stories from Sumeria and north into the hands of the jews, (of course the daddy of the jews was a Sumerian himself which means he would have already known all those stories and could quite easily do a rewrite of them).

I don't think the entire story of Moses is a "story", but only parts are... allegorical

It's based upon the Legend of Sargon.

And 'Atlanteans' as being people from Atlantis? The fictional place that sunk?

Yes, you are correct.
I started this thread.
Begin with the first post on page one to get a basic idea of what my interpretation is.
Further posts serve to solidfy the nuances and address original inconsistencies.

you seem to take the stance of an apologetic christian.

God was giving man a choice:
Mankind could stay in this blissfully ignorant paradise with God to serve and obey him if he so chose.
His other option was to go it alone. To seek knowledge on his own, make up his own mind and make decisions for himself. In short, he could grasp free will.god gave adam a warning!



What was it a test of?
It was a test of man's courage, fortitude and drive to be independent.
do you see it as god testing adam? or adam testing god?


God knew that if man had access to the Tree of Life, that he would wholly and completely reject God because he did not need him anymore. With eternal life and self-sufficient morality, what purpose would God serve?the pre-supposition is that adams relationship to god is only to achieve immortality and sufficient morality.

Adam and Eve is a story of the coming of age of mankind.
The kids leaving the nest.what does it mean to come of age? i suspect there is a very similar interpretation to mine within this?

It's based upon the Legend of Sargon.

moses copied from sargon.

And 'Atlanteans' as being people from Atlantis? The fictional place that sunk?

not fictional. even great philosophers like plato wrote about it, he said it sunk in an earthquake.

it is said that "the Atlantis-race became a nation of wicked magicians." the flood.

u probably think it's weird how i believe in all kinds of "fantasy", but it's because they have such cool names like atlantis, lemuria and poseidon, so they must be true.

the egyptians are said to be the descended from an alien race.... Egyptian Zodiacs show more than 75,000 years of observation

i'm beginning to think that there's truth in all myths.

Sorry, how many "psychadelic" fruits do you know of?

(you can't include mushrooms - because they're not fruits, you can't include cacti - because they're not fruits, and you can't include nutmeg - because it isn't a fruit). What else is there?

fiar enough, good honest question,,,,,,,,,but let me say, you are being literal. myth isn't to read read like that. te whole trouble is people rading myth from a literalist basis, not wanting to understand the etymology, etc of words, the mindset of te times and so on....and, importantly eeing how any myth is a hybrid of other influences

ok 'fruit'....fruit is a metphor. it doesn't mean it has to be an apple, pear, strawberry.....when some saying says 'the "fruit" of your labour' etc., tey dont actually mean actual fruit do they?....that is mephor for te fruting of your action
well same wit the FRUIT OF THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL......it is a myria of meanings;

secretly pointing ro psychedelic 'fruit', the experience, and in the patriarchal case a warning about such 'fruit'--ie., inspiration which might lead one to disobey 'God'. now 'GOD' is really a metaphor for the ones who devised 'HIM', a male elite/patriarchy, who want control, and dont want you having access to any substance that might threaten their mind-control over you. THIS is still VERY much going on, in AUgust 2005!

u probably think it's weird how i believe in all kinds of "fantasy", but it's because they have such cool names like atlantis, lemuria and poseidon, so they must be true.

So, if someone makes up a cool name for their fantasy, you'll believe it true?

What about Unicorn, Ork, Dragon, Centaur, Harpie, Amphiptere, Amphisbaena, Basilisk, Chimera, Cockatrice, Hydra, Gorgon, Wyvern, Ipotane, Lamia, Manticore, Caladrius, Gansas, Hippogriff, Martlet, Bonnacon, Bunyip, Cerberus, Gulon, Ibex, Mantygre, Mermecolion, Musimon, Yppotryll, Kraken, Nereid, Mermaid, Scylla?

Do you believe in these creatures as well?

duendy, you seem to be very troubled.

(((((((well, on one level, my reponse isn't meant to be seriously rude. it is both tongue in cheek yet also deadly seriuus. regarding actually being troubled. we ALL should be trouboed in these times, if not in denial. terrble terrible tings are being down by psychopathic pople in power believing in silly fukin stories. and we all will suffer less they and more importantly 'usa' gu;llibles wake up. seriously

what has the illuminate to do with genesis and what have either to do with psychadelics.

ccccccccwell, if you care to research a bit about te beliefs of te Illuminati, you'll see it is Luciferian. if your American go get a dollar bill. look at the symbol on it of a pyramid wit an eye at the top. all that is part of teir Luciferian belief.
regarding their cvonnection wit genessis. as said they interpret it to mean--te Garden myth--that te 'Serpent' IS 'Lucifer' and that this 'angel of light' is the 'good god' who wants 'man' (read white man of aryan stock to have 'INTELLECT'...rght? now their justification for their techological prowess is that IDEA. tis mans tey are extemel;y dangerous. thewy feel that they can be/become 'gods' for as you know, in that story theere is said 'ye can become gods' if thewy eat the fruit of knowledge.......now the deeper understanding of this myth--as is etymologically shown by Allegro, is that both trees in the garden ae the same. so ewating the fruit of one is the same as the other.....rigt?
but for now--the important point is that men are believing tis story to justify their genocidal ecocidal intentions. they hVE PSYCHOLOGICALY DIVIDED intellect from FEELINS, emotions, heart. and tus are anti-Nature. they are presetly destroying Nature wit their madness

are you connecting dots that are not in the picture? is this your none literalist way of reading?

OOOOOOOwell you are making a blind assumption here. you dpont know what i know...the 'dots' which are patterns. where would i begin. this needs intuition, and intellect, and keeping to it. only you can do that. i cant MAKE you see the dots can i?

why would god create a psychadelic fruit tree that no one could eat from? if no one was to eat from it how they take the trip?

exctly why would '
god'??? so we have to then boldy wonder, wo IS tis god in tis story who is coming down heavy on our ancestors for simply wanting to eat fruit.....why would he not want that?


tis is a vast question, and is not just to do with then but now (nth exclaation marks

was reading an articlea short while ago...listen. tis guy is suffering terribly from a disease. he's tried everything, only hemp--the variety that makes you high--is of any help tp him. he got permissioon from his doctor to grow it. then he gets raided by a gang of drug squaddies who tear up the few plants he got. even thoug he had showed them the papers. they said they didn't follow te jurisdiction of that county (in the USA)....he had to wait 6 excruciatingly painul months before he was 'ALLOWED.....ALLOWED' to grow natral plant

now. check the dots....do you get me?

regarding actually being troubled. we ALL should be trouboed in these times, if not in denial. terrble terrible tings are being down by psychopathic pople in power believing in silly fukin stories. and we all will suffer less they and more importantly 'usa' gu;llibles wake up. seriouslywhat are they doing? what silly fucking stories do they believe in?


if you care to research a bit about te beliefs of te Illuminati, you'll see it is Luciferian. if your American go get a dollar bill. look at the symbol on it of a pyramid wit an eye at the top. all that is part of teir Luciferian belief. and this is troubling you because....?


regarding their cvonnection wit genessis. as said they interpret it to mean--te Garden myth--that te 'Serpent' IS 'Lucifer' and that this 'angel of light' is the 'good god' who wants 'man' (read white man of aryan stock to have 'INTELLECT'...rght? a much more palusible interpretation than psychadelic fruit. sorry, i dont mean to be rude, but i can see where they might come to this conclusion but i cannot see how you arrive at the hallucinogenic interpretation.

now their justification for their techological prowess is that IDEA. tis mans tey are extemel;y dangerous.

you think they are dangerous becasue they believe the serpent wants man to be intelligent. i think the christian ideals are more dangerous than this.

thewy feel that they can be/become 'gods' for as you know, in that story theere is said 'ye can become gods' if thewy eat the fruit of knowledge yes, again i can see how they might interpret this from the text but why that is a problem i cannot see.


but for now--the important point is that men are believing tis story to justify their genocidal ecocidal intentions. they hVE PSYCHOLOGICALY DIVIDED intellect from FEELINS, emotions, heart. and tus are anti-Nature. they are presetly destroying Nature wit their madness this is bad if it is true but how can we be sure it is true? do you know how they have divided intellect form emotions? is this division in them selves or in pother people and how does this division make them anti-nature?

i cant MAKE you see the dots can i? you can point them out.


was reading an articlea short while ago...listen. tis guy is suffering terribly from a disease. he's tried everything, only hemp--the variety that makes you high--is of any help tp him. he got permissioon from his doctor to grow it. then he gets raided by a gang of drug squaddies who tear up the few plants he got. even thoug he had showed them the papers. they said they didn't follow te jurisdiction of that county (in the USA)....he had to wait 6 excruciatingly painul months before he was 'ALLOWED.....ALLOWED' to grow natral plant
iam geussing that you think the tree is the weed and that god is the policemen and the garden is someones attic and adam just wanted to get stoned and laze about all day easing his pains and feeling the blues.

now. check the dots....do you get me? :m: yeah, i get ya! ;)

So, if someone makes up a cool name for their fantasy, you'll believe it true?

It doesn't necessarily have to be true "physically", but it could still be true. Ex: the garden of Eden is allegorical, yet it's a real event.

The story must also sound good. It's a sign that the people who created it were wise, they thought about it carefully and had a purpose with it. But it's not so simple. You also have to have an intuition. So sometimes there may be a nice story and names, and still I wouldn't believe in it.

Lemuria and Atlantis were physical realities. The initiates can recognize whether stories are true or false, allegorical or physical etc..

What about Unicorn, Ork, Dragon, Centaur, Harpie, Amphiptere, Amphisbaena, Basilisk, Chimera, Cockatrice, Hydra, Gorgon, Wyvern, Ipotane, Lamia, Manticore, Caladrius, Gansas, Hippogriff, Martlet, Bonnacon, Bunyip, Cerberus, Gulon, Ibex, Mantygre, Mermecolion, Musimon, Yppotryll, Kraken, Nereid, Mermaid, Scylla?

Do you believe in these creatures as well?

I think many of those are symbols for something real.

For example, if I said that I believe in Centaurs, it would mean that I believe in the meaning of the Centaur. They were never real (in the way you define real) creatures. It's a sign in the Zodiac. It is a representation of a person who lives above his animal desires and uses his body only as an tool to reach the goal (he IS not the animal body)

---

Even fictional stories can include truth, which the creators aren't even aware of. You have seen movies. For there to be a good movie, they must follow specific laws.

God, the self expresses itself through all things. The human body quite advanced, so God can express himself pretty good, but this also means that God's opposite, satan, the spirit of matter, can also express itself pretty good... But only through someone like Jesus, God can express himself fully.

Art is what comes from within, and the self is "God". Everything that is good comes from the self. So even if movies, video games, books, and music are "fictional", they contain truth. What is good, what we are attracted to, is good because it imitates our lost self.

Artists don't often think about what they create or where it comes from. They just do it intuitively. Then people come and try to understand what was the purpose, what they were "thinking" while creating it. They just receive it from "above" (within)

what are they doing? what silly fucking stories do they believe in?

That they are 'god' or 'gods' i've just explained it.
if you have a belief that uyou are an elite, and god or more close to your idea of god, and tis god wants blood sacrifice what do you do? you liv e out that ddream right? that story yo tell your self you act upon.

and this is troubling you because....?

They believe in a new world order. that presewntly they are making parts of the earth uninhabitable for generations, and children are being born with horrendous genetic deformations, and cancers, etc. what do you NEED?



a much more palusible interpretation than psychadelic fruit. sorry, i dont mean to be rude, but i can see where they might come to this conclusion but i cannot see how you arrive at the hallucinogenic interpretation.

))))))))have you had it? if not,either it didn't much of an effect on you, or you aren't aware of the power o psychedeli experience.



you think they are dangerous becasue they believe the serpent wants man to be intelligent. i think the christian ideals are more dangerous than this.

ooooooooyes, they are both as dangerous as each other. they feed off each other for their roots are patriarchal, which very much involves a deep fear of Nature

yes, again i can see how they might interpret this from the text but why that is a problem i cannot see.

EEEEEEEEsee above


this is bad if it is true but how can we be sure it is true? do you know how they have divided intellect form emotions? is this division in them selves or in pother people and how does this division make them anti-nature?

.........IF they hadn't psycholigically divided deep feeling from intellect, they couldn't do what they do/are doing!

you can point them out.

pppppppoint what out? psychedelic references?.....checkout the writings of J.M.Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, DAn Russel's Shamanism and the Drug Propaganda, GOrdon Wasson, etc. the information is out there/ also do some google searches with key terms

iam geussing that you think the tree is the weed and that god is the policemen and the garden is someones attic and adam just wanted to get stoned and laze about all day easing his pains and feeling the blues.

OOOOOOOOno. ypou are creeating a phony myth out of what i am saying. psychedelic experience is much more powerful than 'weed', though of course hemp features VERY much and in our own. you should go check outthe story of hemp, it may surpise you!
so what is wrong with being lazy? ypou tink it cool to always be at war?

:m: yeah, i get ya! ;)

are you takin the piss?

what are they doing? what silly fucking stories do they believe in?


That they are 'god' or 'gods' i've just explained it.can you explain to me in clear and rational terms what silly fucking stories these dangerous elite believe in that makes you so worried about them.


if you have a belief that uyou are an elite, and god or more close to your idea of god, and tis god wants blood sacrifice what do you do? you liv e out that ddream right? i dont have that dream, do you? you seem to be very concerned about these illuminate and their practices, do you think it is healthy to sacrifice you own power worrying about them?


They believe in a new world order.have you spoken to them directly about ther beliefs?
how do we know this is true do they have a maniphesto or scriptures that outline their belief?

presewntly they are making parts of the earth uninhabitable for generations, and children are being born with horrendous genetic deformations, and cancers, etc.this is terrible but it is happening with out the aid of any exterme religio-poltical fascism too.

what do you NEED?are you selling something? :bugeye:

a much more plausible interpretation than psychadelic fruit. sorry, i dont mean to be rude, but i can see where they might come to this conclusion but i cannot see how you arrive at the hallucinogenic interpretation.

have you had it? if not,either it didn't much of an effect on you, or you aren't aware of the power o psychedeli experience.do i need to be high to interpret genesis in the way you do? what would that mean? but having experienced a variety of altered states of consciousness i still have to say that i cannot see the hallucinogenic metaphors in genesis.



ooooooooyes, they are both as dangerous as each other. they feed off each other for their roots are patriarchal, which very much involves a deep fear of Nature.
are you afraid of men? do you feel protective to wards the purer, softer, feminine aspects of your nature? is this fear that they, the male, wish to control or dominate you?

yes, again i can see how they might interpret this from the text but why that is a problem i cannot see.

EEEEEEEEsee abovei cannot see why this would be a prtoblem unless it isl as i sadi that you have a fear of being controlled or dominated by these illuminated MALE elite.


.IF they hadn't psycholigically divided deep feeling from intellect, they couldn't do what they do/are doing! so is this true then or are ytu just summizing this because you cant conceive it being any other way?

pppppppoint what out? psychedelic references?.....checkout the writings of J.M.Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, DAn Russel's Shamanism and the Drug Propaganda, GOrdon Wasson, etc. the information is out there/ also do some google searches with key termsno thanks, if you dont want to show me it does not matter.

no. ypou are creeating a phony myth out of what i am saying. psychedelic experience is much more powerful than 'weed',no duendy, you told me about the guy who got raided for smoking potent hemp. this when i was asking how you interpret the genetic scripture to be a parable psychadelic experience.

though of course hemp features VERY much and in our own. you should go check outthe story of hemp, it may surpise you! i doubt very much there is anyting that will suprise me about substance misuse, particularly the greener substances ;)

so what is wrong with being lazy?it is a waste of energy.

ypou tink it cool to always be at war? ypou do take some gigantic speculative leaps with your eyes shut dont you? where do you get wars from? what war?
WHAT i think IS it is cool to chill?

are you takin the piss? are you trying to sell me something else here?
:bugeye:

Duendy:

I see you have troubles breaking up quotes.

Each quoted text must have only one set of quote tags; a set of quote tags is
[xQUOTE] [x/QUOTE].
I put the x there so you can see the tags, otherwise the program would automatically make them invisible. When posting a post though, remove the x.

So:
[xQUOTE] quoted text [x/QUOTE]
without the x, this looks thus

quoted text

Note that when you are composing a reply in the advanced reply window, the software here automatically wraps the whole text in quote tags.
To break it up, remove the very first and last quote tag.

Then quote the parts as you need using the [xQUOTE] quoted text [x/QUOTE] form.


You don't need a special machine for this. I can tell you are using the reply window, so you can implement the proper use of tags as well.

You will find that the Garden story is a later version of Sumerian stories. The tale of Adamu, the serpent that stopped Gilgamesh from eating the plant of eternal life and so on.

From a biblical perspective you can also clearly see it's Sumerian origins..
I agree.
I wasn't aware, though, that the Sumerians were a matriarchal society. :bugeye:

do you see it as god testing adam? or adam testing god?
God testing man.

the pre-supposition is that adams relationship to god is only to achieve immortality and sufficient morality.
Not necessarily.
What is a dependent's relationship with its parent?
Protection, guidance, comfort etc.
God offered them eternal bliss.
With eternal bliss, morality is unnecessary.

what does it mean to come of age? i suspect there is a very similar interpretation to mine within this?
I suspect the same thing.
"Coming of age" is that period of time in your life when you assert your independence from your perents and decide to shift the balance of responsibility and accountability of your life, choices and actions to yourself.

I see you have troubles breaking up quotes.
He said that he has a 'very limited system (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45833)'

you seem to take the stance of an apologetic christian.
I don't see that at all.
Please explain.

God testing man.do you imagine that god made adam and gave him those qualities but needed to test him to make sure those qualities wher e functioning?


Not necessarily.
What is a dependent's relationship with its parent?
Protection, guidance, comfort etc.
God offered them eternal bliss.
With eternal bliss, morality is unnecessary.why is morality unecessary, is eternal bliss a state of inaction? a physically inert, emotionally pleasurable sensation.
or is it that in a state of eternal bliss there can be felt no negative consequence for behaviour?



"Coming of age" is that period of time in your life when you assert your independence from your perents and decide to shift the balance of responsibility and accountability of your life, choices and actions to yourself.
i do think this is similar to my understanding, though you are naturally emphasizing those aspects which are unique to your personal experience.

to gain that independence and to shift that balance of responsibilty there most be a degree of moral reasoning which has become valued as enhancing the individuality of the self.

my point about the fruit being tasted is that gaining of self awareness and responsibility which cannot be taught by peers or gaurdians but most be aquired through direct experience. it ihas to be lived to be known. such things cannot be communicated. you cannot tell somebody what the flavour of an orange is unless they have expereinced that same flavour.
when you know what the flavour of the orange is no one can tell you it taste of strawberry.

when you know good and evil form expereince you know right and wrong. you do not need the guidance of god or parents or the approval of peers. none of these can tell you what is good or bad and you no longer need help in decisions. your eyes are open and you know good and evil as god knows good and evil.

He said that he has a 'very limited system (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45833)'

if he can make a blue quote box he can make one for each section of the reply.


duendy

it does make your post easier to read if you have a structure.

no box at all and some quotation marks, maybe.
or if YOU type with capslock on.

do you imagine that god made adam and gave him those qualities but needed to test him to make sure those qualities wher e functioning?
There is no telling how long it was after they were warned that they ate the fruit.
You raise your children in the way you deem appropriate and correct, but until they take hold of the baton and take their own life into their hands, they were not ready to.
Does that make sense?
I'm not sure if I am wording it correctly.

why is morality unecessary, is eternal bliss a state of inaction? a physically inert, emotionally pleasurable sensation.
or is it that in a state of eternal bliss there can be felt no negative consequence for behaviour?
In a state of bliss, by definiton, can be no negative experience.
Heaven on Earth.

the rest of what you said
I agree.

I don't see that at all.
Please explain.

sorry, i cant really justify why i see that. its just the impression i got.

i am someone that dislikes being labelled especially when the label is unjustified and i realise i have done to you exactly what i hate being done to me. i appologize. :rolleyes:

Does that make sense?it does.

do you imagine that god made adam and gave him those qualities but needed to test him to make sure those qualities wher e functioning?

There is no telling how long it was after they were warned that they ate the fruit.
You raise your children in the way you deem appropriate and correct, but until they take hold of the baton and take their own life into their hands, they were not ready to.
Does that make sense?
I'm not sure if I am wording it correctly.
although it does make sense, i dont see the relationship between this and god testing adam, how are these two realted?

can you explain to me in clear and rational terms what silly fucking stories these dangerous elite believe in that makes you so worried about them

OOOOOOOOyou seem thick!

i dont have that dream, do you? you seem to be very concerned about these illuminate and their practices, do you think it is healthy to sacrifice you own power worrying about them?

(((((((((when i see what they are doing o others, and myself, and the freedoms going of fukinc course it worries me. no everyone buries their head in the sand like comfortable you you know.......

have you spoken to them directly about ther beliefs?
how do we know this is true do they have a maniphesto or scriptures that outline their belief?

llllllllloh....go check it madam or sir. i take it you own a computer? whay do you wanna mea to do the job for you?

this is terrible but it is happening with out the aid of any exterme religio-poltical fascism too.

mmmmmmyes. but it is thewy who have the money and the hands on skin-melting techno. a very small elte has the most dosh. i have to tell you EVERYTHINGdont i?

are you selling something? :bugeye:

dddddddddd.....i am tryin to get trough your thicxk thik head is what i am doing!

do i need to be high to interpret genesis in the way you do? what would that mean? but having experienced a variety of altered states of consciousness i still have to say that i cannot see the hallucinogenic metaphors in genesis.

(((((((which shows me that you obviously underestaimte the psychedelic experience. it actually says a lot about you for psychedelics are really triggers....the insights come from YOU. if you aint got em, then is that my fault? you seem to be struggling absorbing what i am pointing at, and pretending to be clever.



are you afraid of men? do you feel protective to wards the purer, softer, feminine aspects of your nature? is this fear that they, the male, wish to control or dominate you?

(((((((do (& wish to be dominated, oppressed? just it gey you off? jeeeez, what the hell are you talking about?does the slave wish to be dominated? what do you say?

i cannot see why this would be a prtoblem unless it isl as i sadi that you have a fear of being controlled or dominated by these illuminated MALE elite.

)))))))))SEE what they are doing. it isn't only happeneing to 'us' but to many people round theplanet. have ypou no compassion?


so is this true then or are ytu just summizing this because you cant conceive it being any other way?
{{{{{{summizing what?:

no thanks, if you dont want to show me it does not matter.

FFFFFFFFFFexactly, you have no intention of making any effort to learn have you. but sat there wityour feet up expect me to type m fingers off explaining, when you also have/seem to have no absorbtion powers. do i seem like fool to you?

no duendy, you told me about the guy who got raided for smoking potent hemp. this when i was asking how you interpret the genetic scripture to be a parable psychadelic experience.

((((((((yes i told you, and your reponse was some kind of smart alec reponse. be real, what do you feel about what happened tp that man, and the culture that does that to that man?....do you have opinions?

i doubt very much there is anyting that will suprise me about substance misuse, particularly the greener substances ;)

((((((((i see. you call it substance misuse? tis is the language of the warmongers against [some] druugs..........was it substance misuse for that guy who needed itfor his awful pain?

it is a waste of energy.

((((((being lazy is a waste of energy?

what utter tosh

ypou do take some gigantic speculative leaps with your eyes shut dont you? where do you get wars from? what war?
WHAT i think IS it is cool to chill?

((((((i a thinking you are thicker than thick the more i put up wit you

are you trying to sell me something else here?
:bugeye:

yes, you are all about buying and selling aren't you? i actually am TRYING to have intelligent discusion......maybe some other time

you've missed the point, without the knowledge, what god may of said was just gooble de gook to adam, as was the aledged serpents words.No, is everything a matter of good and evil?

Understanding what is good and what is evil is not the same as knowledge of everything, i'ts the knowledge of good and evil. Man still had knowledge, could still understand language and could still make decisisions. Just not on a basis of good and evil.

Man did not know the consequences (why God didn't want them to eat) and therefor should have trusted God, not because of good and evil, but because it was foolish not to know the consequences and still go against Gods command, and particularly since they would surely die if they did.

We still foolishly go about with our actions without knowing the consequences in these days. Even though we get the consequences we still do it, because we don't understand what consequences originated from what action!

duendy i will keep my reply as brief as possible as i am obviously winding you up.

the world needs some form of order if the illumniate have a new order to impose on the world, which they believe is better than our present one, good luck to them.

psychotropic substances fuck with your mind this is well researched, i understand that you think this evidence is to keep us from reaching a higher state of awareness, but if the illuminate want man to have an intellect why do they not advocate these substances? i know from expereince that the substances on the street today do not help us achieve a state of enlightenment and are more likely to induce psychosis. perhaps the real propaganda (and for me the more likely) is to encourage people to become mindless zombies, that live in a dream world, cannot move away from the playstaion or the TV and can be easily controlled.

i would prefer an intelligent discussion also. all you did was rant at me for asking questions about what you believed? i dont want to go searching for illuminate material or do any further experiemnts in chemically altering my mind. i simply wanted to know; why you believe, what you belive, about the illumnaite and how you realted the psychadelic experience to the genesis story.
i am trying to be civil.

ok< you dont like it rough>>>>>i@ll try be gentle as can be

bascially this thread@s about the fall of man

we get that idea from the hebrew garden myth

do we take that assertion as a god_given premise or do we seriously question it?

TO DO SO WE HAVE TO LOOK FURTHER AFIELD

who SAID MAN WAS FALLEN?......do you believe it WAS 'God'?....

This story was devised by men as a parable to describe 1) The wisdom of obedience.. because, had the fruit not been eaten then man would not have fallen from grace and it would have proved the wise thing to do. In this case, it was obedience to God; in the real world, it's telling you that you should be obedient to your higher authority ie your father, your boss and your government. It is a ploy to keep men under the control of their higher authority manipulators.

2) Notice that it was Eve that was led astray by the serpent and then she, in turn, tempted Adam. This was meant to demote women as being weak willed, manipulative and untrustworthy and ultimately lays the fall from grace at their feet; it's women's fault!

The story has absolutely no basis in fact; is totally man-made and is blatant political manipulation.

bascially this thread@s about the fall of man

we get that idea from the hebrew garden myth
do we get this idea form the myth or are we told by "other sources" this is the idea presented in the myth? i think me and you see eye to eye on this point, but correct me if i am wrong.

what is a fall and where in genesis does this falling occur? i suspect the fall is an invention of some "other source" for some other purpose, what says you?

TO DO SO WE HAVE TO LOOK FURTHER AFIELD do we really need to look as far as the psilocybin mushroom? (Psilocybe mexicana)

who SAID MAN WAS FALLEN?......do you believe it WAS 'God'?....that is a difficult question to answer. to some sense this understanding of man being fallen must be serving a purpose. something does not manifest without summons. whether it was said and whether it is actually the case is a different matter.

but i dont beleive man is fallen, if anything god has fallen for man to rise. that is if we consider our current state of existance to be of lowlier nature than that of the spiritual existence.

do we get this idea form the myth or are we told by "other sources" this is the idea presented in the myth? i think me and you see eye to eye on this point, but correct me if i am wrong.

() who knows. lets find out

what is a fall and where in genesis does this falling occur? i suspect the fall is an invention of some "other source" for some other purpose, what says you?

() the myth was elaborTED ON BY EARLY CHRISTIAN translators....but its main giat is that 'god' authority was disobeyed. meaning the authority of the devisers of the tale--as social control, as Tablariddim sees

do we really need to look as far as the psilocybin mushroom? (Psilocybe mexicana)

() this, i feel, is yourmajor blindspot, iffff you dont mind me saying so ooops, too late.
The psychedelic mushoom/plant/sacrament is Central. it is most feared by authority, because authority wants control of your mind, and psychedelic experience is unpredictable. It can inpire the seeing through of the social gaes being played............The Hebrew myth-it being closer to the 'Abominations'--read Goddess religion it is usurping is demonizaing their symbols. it is a warning. a propaganda

that is a difficult question to answer. to some sense this understanding of man being fallen must be serving a purpose. something does not manifest without summons. whether it was said and whether it is actually the case is a different matter.

() yip

but i dont beleive man is fallen, if anything god has fallen for man to rise. that is if we consider our current state of existance to be of lowlier nature than that of the spiritual existence.

i dpont. and the idea of god sacrificing 'himself' is rater the eastern myth....which also is denigratig actual Nature. ie., in indian Upanishadian belief is the subtle duality between the 'One' and the 'Many'.....then te imposition is to get-back-to-te-one.......these oriental ideas inluenced Orphism, Gnosticism etc

i feel Nature is just fine as it is. it is INTELLIGENT, andvastly alife. but what many humans do is concoct absurd stories which make tem feel alienated fomr teir bodies, other people--especially those tey consider lower, and for patriarchal- men--women--and of course, Nature

although it does make sense, i dont see the relationship between this and god testing adam, how are these two realted?

Perhaps "challenge" would be a more appropriate word than "test".
It is a scenario set-up by God, in that when they (mankind) were ready to grasp the gauntlet of self-determinism, it was there.
If they blindly obeyed him, they simply were not ready for it.
The act of eating the fruit (acting on self-determination) was, in itself, proof that they were ready for it.
If they were not ready for self-determination, they would not have disobeyed God by eating the fruit.

Perhaps "challenge" would be a more appropriate word than "test".
It is a scenario set-up by God, in that when they (mankind) were ready to grasp the gauntlet of self-determinism, it was there.
If they blindly obeyed him, they simply were not ready for it.
The act of eating the fruit (acting on self-determination) was, in itself, proof that they were ready for it.
If they were not ready for self-determination, they would not have disobeyed God by eating the fruit.i would agree with this also. again this is not given in the text, so would we have to have some experience of living life or of god in order to come to this interpretation?

i would agree with this also. again this is not given in the text, so would we have to have some experience of living life or of god in order to come to this interpretation?
Wouldn't that be true for ALL valid interpretations? (unless I am misunderstanding your statement)

Wouldn't that be true for ALL valid interpretations?
yes, and i'm not questioning your interpretation either.

what is it that makes an interpretation a valid interpretation? i mean is duendy's interpretation valid, from her expereince the genesis story is a narrative of mans denial of enlightenment via hallucinogenic plants?

since all that we have is a very bare narrative, how do we know anything other than that narrated?

how do we decide what is a valid interpretation? i think is what i am getting at,
perhaps i am missing my own point! its early!

how do we decide what is a valid interpretation? i think is what i am getting at,

I suppose through experience (like you said) and sound reasoning.
The same way we determine if the interpretation of anything is valid for ourselves.

I think a quote from the Indigo Girls' "Deconstruction" is perhaps appropriate...

"We're sculpted from youth, the chipping away makes me weary
And as for the truth it seems like we just pick a theory
The one that justifies our daily lives
And backs us with quiver and arrows"