jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (175 posts)

Is becoming like God evil?

  1. 0
    Greatest I amposted 4 years ago

    Is becoming like God evil?

    I would like to restrict giving God any other attribute except for knowing good and evil in this thread. Just for simplicity.

    I have two quotes I would like you to consider.

    “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.”

    “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”

    Knowing good and evil is the same as developing or gaining a moral sense. This is something that all governments and religions wish to develop in us and seems like a good idea to me.

    If being perfect like God means that we must have the knowledge of good and evil, then Adam and Eve had to eat of the tree of knowledge ---- if they were to accomplish what most seem to think is a worthy goal. Morals. As God says in Eden, such is to have your eyes opened. A good thing IOW.

    In the Jewish view, A & E did the right thing and they name it our elevation. In the Christian view, they did the wrong thing and call it our fall.

    Is becoming as Gods, in the moral sense, an evil thing?

    If so, please explain what is evil about developing a moral sense and following scriptures that tell us to be as Gods.

    Regards
    DL

    1. pennyofheaven profile image80
      pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And if God does not make distinctions between good or evil what then would becoming like God be?

      1. jacharless profile image81
        jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Phenomenal question! Can't wait to read the replies to this.

      2. 0
        Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Penny

        This is probably the best analogy to answer your question. Wait for the water scene and see God sitting on a rock with others who do not know good and evil.

        http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x88zxp … art-6_news

        Regards
        DL

        1. pennyofheaven profile image80
          pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Indifference is not the same as making no distinctions. Making no distinctions is not the same as not knowing good or evil.  Making judgements on whether an event is either good or bad would be of little use to anyone even in analogy you provided. There was a need there could have been an action without making the event either good or bad. It occurred and one can choose to act or not act. No amount of judgement would save the girl. Action would.

          1. Cagsil profile image83
            Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Actually Penny, that's not quite right.

            All actions:

            Moral=Good
            Immoral=Bad
            Amoral= Emotion.

            It has to be one of those three. If you were to say that an action was amoral, then what caused that amoral action? Depending on the re(action), such as crying or joyous...then the event would be considering immoral or moral.

            Emotions are nothing more than a reaction to an event and it's based on whether or not, a person knows the difference between good and bad.

            1. pennyofheaven profile image80
              pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Making no distinctions is not the same as 'not' knowing good or bad. We may 'know' a situation is bad instinctively, because the woman is obviously drowning and we can act on that knowledge and save the woman or not act on that knowledge and the woman drowns. If she is saved the judgement may be that that action was good. If she is not saved the judgement may be that that is evil. Making no distinctions as to whether the resulting action is either good or evil is what I am pointing to.

              1. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No one can make no distinctions with regards to good or evil. Good actions and evil actions can be witnessed. Any idiot claiming that they make no distinction must willingly admit that good and evil don't exist at all. And, that's simply delusion because it's not provable.
                Actually, one would have to value their own life before they would 'know' the value of another. It's not instinctive by any stretch of the imagination. It's a learned trait.
                Only in the eyes of those who value life. Those who put no value on life probably don't give a damn whether or not the woman lived.
                See above.

                1. pennyofheaven profile image80
                  pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Admitting it doesn't exist is one thing. Acknowledging it exists and making no judgement is another.

                  I am not sure about you but I have valued my life from day dot. For me, this is inherent in all of us. We have survival instincts that are based on this inherent value. The value of another's life is also inherent.

                  The judgement of whether it is good or bad is not based on whether we value life or not it is based on what little information we have to go by and more often than not it is by what we observe and what conclusions we draw from within the frames of references we have in our mind.

                2. jacharless profile image81
                  jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  C'mon Ray, you really do not believe that?! Good-evil do not actually exist. We both know that. Reason exists, yet is not provable -unless there is action/reaction. Action-reaction is what is defined as good-evil, moral-immoral. The emote is either pre- or post- event, which is possibly the only proof that Reason even exists at all.

                  Inaction, or acknowledgment, which can also be called not-knowing {no action of Reason}, supersedes. Inaction -lack of engagement- does not void the individual nor value of. If fact it defines the individual, on a much better/liberating platform, as they are not limited to Reason alone; the cause-effect, good-evil, moral-immoral. And they can still express emote regardless of either.

                  As pennyfromheaven said, we draw on the [preconditioned] conclusions from frames of mind, accepting or engaging what we determine as moral-immoral because we feel obligated.

                  A person who does not engage either is a person not controlled by the process of Reason, but allows that process to do and be what it is supposed to. In short, even being conscious, a person is not required to engage their consciousness to exist. Some refer to this as g/God Consciousness. A stasis above the necessity to reason. The human mind has a difficult time conceiving that, because its purpose is not designed to "understand" that stasis. The mind is designed to react to that stasis, to serve the greater power versus subverting it. And, presently, since it cannot control that stasis, does everything in its power to suppress, obscure or deflect this information from the individual. Precisely likened to amnesia, where the individual struggles to "remember" and often has powerful moments of intense reflections, that try to bring that information to the forefront.

                  James.

                  1. Cagsil profile image83
                    Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Really? Without any form of consciousness, there would be no form of self awareness. To think otherwise is absurd. Consciousness is how someone determines their alive. Without it, they would never know or understand their own existence. Even with it, many don't understand their own existence, but know they are alive.
                    Necessity to reason? Above it? Hmmm....interesting.
                    Another interesting statement.
                    Sorry, I have to laugh at this. lol lol
                    Apparently, ego does this? But conscience wouldn't. If it were true.
                    Yes, you've said this before.

                  2. 0
                    Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Jach

                    Who pre-conditioned this baby?

                    http://www.ctvnews.ca/babies-may-know-g … y-1.511477

                    Regards
                    DL

            2. WD Curry 111 profile image62
              WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Purveyor of gobbledygook.

              https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQquHVdZmTJpLmDydXFvepJYonaPQsKyf0uHGuolzzWeQNID_zk

              1. Cagsil profile image83
                Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Baiting? I guess that shows off more than you realize. Proud of yourself? Probably. And, that's the sad part.

                1. WD Curry 111 profile image62
                  WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Baiting the Bull! That's a good one!

            3. 0
              Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Penny

              I don't know if I would call those people indifferent. That word to me indicates that the situation, as good or evil is known and a decision is reached not to act because they do not care.

              If they have no knowledge of good and evil, they would not be indifferent to it. They would not know enough to be indifferent.

              Then again, my mother tongue is French so I may not understand all the nuances of English.

              Regardless of that, their lack of actions and lack of knowledge that they should act is not something I would desire in society.

              Would you teach those people what good and evil is?

              Regards
              DL

              1. pennyofheaven profile image80
                pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I doubt there are people that exist like the ones in the video. It is inherent in all, the differences between good and evil. Your link about the babies demonstrates this well. The babies chose based on what is naturally arising. There is also that which is learned which is different again.

      3. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
        Slarty O'Brianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It';s ironic. The idea is to emulate christ in your ways. But you must never think you are good as Jesus or you are sinning. Be it but never think it. If you can heal people or if you are nice to people and giving of yourself to those less fortunate, like a some nuns and priests have done, then praise god because he gave you those gifts.

        Really? You have nothing to do with it? You can not take credit. Taking credit for your actions is a sin in this case, but not taking the blame when things go wrong is also a sin. Well we can perhaps see why that would be the case.

        God gets credit for everything and we take the blame for everything. The reason for that is because god only sets up the circumstances of life. We live it supposedly with free will. So when we mess up we take the blame, not him.

        Ok. But if I have free will then it is not god that is credited with my good nature, it's me. No? Apparently not. Without god you couldn't be benevolent. If  left to our own devices we would pick evil most of the time. But with god by our side we do good.

        No one really buys this do they? Unfortunately they do.

        Truth is though, we are responsible for all our actions, both good and not so good.

        God? What god?

        No god required.

        1. Cagsil profile image83
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hey Slarty, welcome back to the forums. Been a while. smile However, I don't think the OP is a believer. Most of the posts s/he posts are quite the opposite. lol

          1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
            Slarty O'Brianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hey Cagsil. I try to check in on the forums when I have time. As for my reply: I just answered the question for anyone who was interested. wink

            Always good to see you too.

            1. Cagsil profile image83
              Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              cool

          2. 0
            Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Cagsil

            I am a he.

            Not too many women call God the names I do.

            Regards
            DL

        2. 0
          Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Slarty

          If there is one sin for sure it is self-deprecation.

          The highest form of hypocrisy that man has ever come up with.

          I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy is a crock of -----.

          Regards
          DL

          1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
            Slarty O'Brianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I must agree.

            1. 0
              Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Respect grows.

              Regards
              DL

      4. diyomarpandan profile image60
        diyomarpandanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Deleted

        1. 0
          Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No argument.

          I wrote as I did going with the theist view of a good God.

          Bible God to a thinking person, call him what you will, is a prick in every sense of the word.

          Regards
          DL

          1. diyomarpandan profile image60
            diyomarpandanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Deleted

            1. 0
              Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Exactly.

              Regards
              DL

          2. 61
            meanpeaceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I must admit those are mighty tough pretenses there from the get go. Why would you retain to keep things bicameral? There's 3 sides or none figuratively speaking. For example the ole saying there's two sides to a story. Yours and mine. But the third is truth. God is truth. 

            1. Cagsil profile image83
              Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Those who believe apparently are the ones who cannot get past bicameral.
              Untrue.
              Wrong. There's only two sides to every story. Truth and Lie.
              Truth is Truth.
              That would depend on your definition of G/god now wouldn't it?

              1. 61
                meanpeaceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Speaking of belief. That reminds me of a certain delima. Im sure that my mom loves me, but how will I ever produce the proof to anyone. After all love is something intangible isnt it. Is it belief that asures me that she does. Surely not . For I do know. But does this awarness arise out of hope that it will continue. No because it's proven unconditional. The motion thereof has set it's course. So the presense or absense of belief is irrellevant to its exsistence and momentum. 

                Its odd how we humans try to define this momentum or creation etc. Something we did'nt create but assume that we can define or understand. How we catogorize and associate. 

                Why on Earth would Those who "believe" be the (only?) ones who cannot get past bicameral. Surely some people from some other man elected catagories would fall victim of this circumstance as well :-D

                Truth has no story. Lie has no story. You have a story. I have a story. They have a story. We tell storys of truth and lies. They become mingled, thus have different versions (storys) that are told. Truths origin and claim etc belong to its creator, which is God. God can be a tuna sandwich, for all intensive purposes it doesnt mater. Just as in our culture the creator has the claim. Just as a inventor has claim to his creation etc etc. Its through mans agendas that others copy, modify, deface, dictate or attempt to understand them. 

                Ya know the sun is a funny thing. It is light. Where is the darkness that spews from it? No where. Unless it burns out. But even then it wouldnt surely produce darkness.  But is that a belief or a possibility. None the less it appears daily and provides only light. Sure it provides heat as well. But thats if the eye beholder choses to elect other facets. It is however painfully obvious that everything is doing as what everything was designed or programmed to do. Thus product of "preconception". 

                Becoming as Gods, in the moral sense, is nuetral. Because it depends on the action set forth. Becoming The President of the U.S is not an evil thing (god) or good. Its the actions produced by the president that determins the pressense of good or evil. 

                That is the beautiful aspect to Christ. He was made a god. Yet he returned all momentum, glory and credit back to his (The) creator-God.

                Fortunately for God, God doesnt need to be defined. Hence the term "I am". And how is it that one can define what they cant see or understand in the first place. Odd is it, that the speculation of a subject is still subject to the subjects momentum or direction. 

      5. christicue profile image78
        christicueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hey DL,

        In the garden, A&E were in a perfect state of existence with God.  They knew only good.  That state could have existed for as long as they chose to be obedient.  In order for God to give humanity free will it was necessary that he place the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden.  Without it, A&E would not have had the opportunity to turn away from God and free will would have been violated.  God offered humanity (A&E) perfect existence, but he also wanted humanity to choose him for themselves, so while he began with perfect relationship, he had to allow for the possibility that they would reject it in exchange for serving themselves.  This is the role of the tree.  God, as God, is aware of all things, both good and evil, but that does not make him evil.  Though the tree existed in the garden and A&E were allowed to eat it and therefore be banished from perfection, God lovingly had a plan to bring that state of perfection to fullness and ultimately offer it to all mankind.  Now, we each have the opportunity to choose:  will we serve God or will we serve ourselves?  Ultimately God is the way to complete fulfillment.  In order to ensure that man doesn't rebel against him (like Lucifer did) he had to allow each of us to come to that choice on our own and it must be coupled with the awareness that we are not God and never can be. 

        To answer your question, what A&E did was necessary and while it was disobedience, it still was a good thing because it was the first step in the process of God's redemptive plan for mankind.  It demonstrated to mankind that without God we are not capable of being like God.  If we want to truly become like him we have to admit and realize that, like A&E, we too are rebellious.  Also, like A&E, we experience shame and a feeling of separation from God when we sin.  Rebellious people and people separated from God cannot be God because even in the face of temptation and evil God does not sin, he hates sin.

        It is our "elevation" in the sense that it furthered God's plan to bring us to himself.  It is our fall because in order to truly become more like God we must become aware of our separateness from him and our need for his intervention in order to become more like him.  It is God in us that makes us good.  Without him and left to ourselves we are blind and living in darkness.

        What do you think?

        1. 0
          Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          christicue

          I think you have changed scripture and scriptures tell us not to do so.

          You have changed your tree of knowledge of good and evil to just the tree of evil.

          You say A & E knew good yet ignore that in knowing the good of something also tells you what the evil is.

          You also say that A & E did the right thing. I agree.
          Having done the right thing, then why did God punish the innocent?

          Regards
          DL

          1. christicue profile image78
            christicueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hi DL,

            I think that maybe what I said was unclear.  I'm not changing the tree to just the tree of evil.  I'm stating that prior to the fall, A&E walked with God daily in the garden and therefore knew perfect good, because they knew God.  I'm saying that prior to eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they did not know anything other than good.  The fruit of this tree (or at least their eating of it, which was disobedience to God's command) opened their eyes to both good and evil. 

            I disagree with you that knowing the good of something also tells you what evil is.  A&E were in a state of perfection in the garden and it was prior to the fall.  This means evil had not yet been present  in the garden.  Genesis 2:25 says that prior to the fall A&E were naked and were not ashamed, their eyes were focused on God alone, therefore they knew only good.  After they ate the fruit, Genesis 3:7-10 says that their eyes were opened and they became aware of their nakedness and were ashamed, their eyes were drawn away from God and they began to regard themselves instead of God.

            Also, I'm not saying that they did the right thing, or that what they did was good, I'm just saying that it was not something that "thwarted" God's plan.  God wouldn't have placed the tree in the garden if he hadn't also instituted a system that would bring reconciliation to the situation should A&E choose to disobey.  Rather, God's plan is for the furthering of his Kingdom and this was the first step in the process. 

            God is not punishing the innocent, through his grace we are given the opportunity to be reconciled to him.  This reconciliation is available to us through the cross.  If it were not for Jesus and God's overarching redemptive plan, we would all be lost.  We are not innocent, DL, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Ro 3:23)  Why is this true?  Because we are separated from the state of perfection that A&E fell from.  Think about how every man's inclination, even from birth, is for himself.  We are self-serving by nature and yet never satisfied.  God's plan is for the purpose of providing a way back...a way that we can choose to accept or reject.  That's why in the end, when all is said and done, no man will say that he didn't have the opportunity to choose God for himself.  God does not force anyone to come to him and he does not prevent anyone the from coming who wants to.  Being that he is God, he knows our hearts better than we ourselves do.  He is a perfect, holy and righteous judge.  In every moment of our lives here on earth, we are choosing to seek him or turn away from him.

            1. 0
              Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Keep preaching and we will never get anywhere.

              "I disagree with you that knowing the good of something also tells you what evil is.  A&E were in a state of perfection in the garden and it was prior to the fall.  This means evil had not yet been present  in the garden"

              If evil was not yet present then who or what was the talking snake?

              If it was not evil, then why did God punish it?

              Regards
              DL

              1. christicue profile image78
                christicueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You said:
                "Keep preaching and we will never get anywhere."

                haha, that's funny  smile

                You said:
                "If evil was not yet present then who or what was the talking snake?"

                Whether he was there or not before A&E's encounter with him is questionnable...I think that the snake was used by Satan to deceive A&E.  He successfully diverted their attention away from God and tempted them into sinning which they had not done until that moment.  Their shame and awareness of their own nakedness after they ate the fruit is pretty good evidence that prior to it they knew nothing of shame or nakedness (disgrace).  They were focused on and in love with God for who God was to them (perfect fulfillment and goodness).  The serpent deceived them into believing that they could be God.  This is where their focus turned away from God and onto themselves...spiritually, their eyes turned away from light and good and inward to darkness and self-love. 

                Regardless, the serpent's tempting of A&E was the start and cause of the sin and therefore it suffered the curse as a result. 

                Back to your original question, though, "Is becoming like God evil?"  The answer is no, becoming like God is not evil.  The problem comes in, however, when people think that through their own effort they can become "like God" or "be God." This "idea" is evil.  It is evil for anyone besides God to claim to "be God."  It is also impossible because God is the source of all good and according to James 1:17 and other Scriptures no man can be good without him. 

                A person who is truly "becoming like God" will be doing so in direct proportion to their own realization that they are not capable of being like him on their own.

                1. 0
                  Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yet scriptures say that A & E did.
                  Call it a lie if you want. That is closer to the truth as most of the bible is a lie or myth.

                  Regards
                  DL

                  1. christicue profile image78
                    christicueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I will quote the verse here:

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

                    First of all, this was said by the serpent, whose aim was to deceive.  There was some truth to it...look at the sentence again, "you will become like God KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL."  He does not say that they will be like God in every way, only that they, like God, will know both good and evil.  Notice also how the serpents words are aimed to confuse and deceive.  They will not CERTAINLY die?  Hmmm....  Sadly, the evil they came to know, they found within themselves and were faced with the consequence of death as a result (spiritual death was immediate and physical death after a time).  This was no surprise, God told them already very clearly what would happen should they eat of the fruit of that tree.  They would die, and they did (Genesis 2:17).

                    1. 0
                      Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      They did not just die. They were murdered because God forcibly kept them from what would keep them alive. The tree of life.
                      That is like the J W of today trying to deny their children a blood transfusion.

                      That is murder by today's standards.

                      Strange that you would say that they died spiritually upon eating while God says that they became as Gods in the knowing of good and evil.

                      Just make up your own B S do you. I do note that you at least seem to be acknowledging that God lied by omission and that A & E had to be informed by the talking snake.

                      Regards
                      DL

              2. jacharless profile image81
                jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You seem to be asking the incorrect questions, leading to incorrect perceptions/answers.
                Most -actually all, I have encountered- neglect to ask the primal question:

                How, pray tell, did 'the serpent' come into possession of such privileged information: knowing both trees, what each was, and most importantly, what the effect of eating of the Tree Of Knowledge would be?

                Once you answer these, it becomes astoundingly clear what truly transpired.

                James.

                1. christicue profile image78
                  christicueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi James,  Interesting questions  smile

                  I think that the Biblical witness states that Satan, aka Lucifer, used the serpent in the garden.  This "Lucifer," was at one time the highest of angels.  He fell as a result of his own desire to be God so it is not surprising that he would continue to "play God" in God's good creation and attempt to destroy what God had created.  He cannot usurp God, though, he is not God.

                  In describing Lucifer's attempt to become higher than God, Isaiah 14:12-14 says:

                  "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

                  Satan's pride became the root of evil and just as Proverbs 16:18 says:
                  "Pride comes before disaster, and arrogance before a fall."

                  1. 0
                    Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If Satan was just using the talking snake and it was under his supernatural control, then it would have been an innocent victim to Satan.

                    That being the case, why did God punish it instead of Satan?

                    Regards
                    DL

                    1. christicue profile image78
                      christicueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      I accept your point to be valid.  I don't have the answer.  Maybe someone else might have an understanding or interpretation of that, but I can only assume that there is more to Satan's interaction through the serpent on a spiritual level than we (or at least I) am able to understand.

                2. 0
                  Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  jacharless

                  It is your myth and you are asking me question?

                  Nice deflection away from discourse though.

                  Regards
                  DL

                  1. jacharless profile image81
                    jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    lol. Not my myth, at all.
                    I do not believe in, nor is there any evidence of such an entity titles Satan/Lucifer/Devil. furthermore, my understand of the metaphoric language that describes the Adamic Inception, is quite a different view, from the collective Theos {be it science or sensation}.

                    So, please, kindly refrain from these sophistic anecdotes, without fully investigating what is being presented.

                    James.

                    1. 0
                      Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      You are correct. It is all myth.

                      Regards
                      DL

                3. 0
                  Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  James.
                  Plan on giving us your insight?

                  Regards
                  DL

                  1. jacharless profile image81
                    jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Insight, as to what, precisely?

                    1. 0
                      Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      "How, pray tell, did 'the serpent' come into possession of such privileged information: knowing both trees, what each was, and most importantly, what the effect of eating of the Tree Of Knowledge would be?"

                      Waiting for your opinion. I cannot see it being knowledge or fact.

                      Regards
                      DL

      6. Dave Mathews profile image59
        Dave Mathewsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        For a moment, think of what life today might be like if Adam had not eaten of that fruit.
        We could all be living in Eden still. We could all be living in a perfect environment. We could eat what we want when we want and how much we want, for there would be no sickness, no suffering, no death.

        1. 0
          Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Pie in the sky and a wish list. And an ugly one at that.

          Have a look at what Eden would look like without us having eaten what gives us our moral sense.

          If you agree that Eden would not be a good place without knowledge of good and evil then fine.

          If you are not put off by this analogy that is quite accurate, then you are not thinking well at all.

          http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the … mp;first=0

          Regards
          DL

      7. groopy11 profile image61
        groopy11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I haven't read through all of the comments yet so I am not sure if anybody has mentioned Rene Descartes yet. I only bring him up because he has some interesting things to say about both god and perfection.
        To eliminate all the Philosophical jargon and get straight to the point he pretty much states that perfection is a concept that comes from our notion of god in that we can understand the idea of it, but not what it actually is. For example, you can imagine what a round triangle is or a winged horse but neither of these things exist in nature.
        Why I even bring all of this up is that, in his search for knowledge, Descartes concluded that he could only know that he existed. The famous Cogito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am). One can derive from this that trying to become something that we cannot know/understand cannot possibly be good or evil.
        I will admit however that aspiring towards the unattainable is one of humanities best flaws.

        1. jacharless profile image81
          jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          lol. While I thoroughly appreciate the notation of this esteemed fellow philosopher, we should keep in mind he was severely manic depressive. I love his writing, despite the obsessive woe-is-me melancholy approach.

          Either way, you are correct in that humanity strives for immortality. Why? Only one of two ideas come into view: He is immortal, and has forgotten that, else believes he can become immortal thus saving the collective human species. Personally, am 99.9% towards the former and 0.01% to the later. Good-Evil are applications/circumstances of just one thing: Reason. Supersede Reason and by both views, humans become immortal. Interestingly enough, the entire situation says just that. A/E were immortal, above simple reason. They indulged Reason and became primal. enter science, who states man has evolved from primal to what he is today -and notes quite often what he could potentially become. No mystery there. Both perspectives of Theos {science & sensation} have been locked in a rams joust for centuries, on who will be the first to restore humanity to their rightful position. Sadly, using their "god given" Reason have completely failed.

          James.

          1. 0
            Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I would say that man is doing quite well in spite of the drawbacks and roadblocks that religions have used.
            In fact, many of the markers for evil are the best they have ever been. Check the violent death and slavery statistics for proof.

            Regards
            DL

        2. 0
          Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          groopi

          I do not see setting goals as a flaw but I think I agree with all you wrote.
          As a Gnostic Christian I think that once one finds a God, we are to set him aside, raise the bar of perfection and begin to seek anew. If God does not evolve in this way, then he is just like the stagnant pool that Christians have made of the bible that they idol worship.

          Regards
          DL

          1. groopy11 profile image61
            groopy11posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            For both DL and James:
            DL, I like that you would see religion as something in constant flux and always changing into something new. All I was saying with the flaw comment was that I was making a joke about attempting to complete an impossible task. Personally, I think you are right that idol worship is not the right way to go, this is why I live my life using the power of my mind as fully as I can every day, and if there is a god up there, and it did give me these powers of reason, then it will think me 'good' for using my gifts instead of blind belief.
            James, your love of Kant is showing tongue But if I may bring up another german you may enjoy reading Friedrich Nietzsche. His notion of the eternal recurrence strikes very much at the problem of immortality and human beings. To summarize, (because it is his most confusing theory and that's really saying something) he poses the question, (in not so many words) "what if you were given the gift/condemned to live this exact life that you are living over and over again for all eternity?" Everything that you have done, are doing, and will do in an infinite string of recurrence going into the past and future. Ignoring the problems of free will that go along with this Nietzsche arrived at the conclusion that we should live our lives AS IF this were the case. That way if we could be content to do this, if our lives are so full that that contentment could be reached, then you could handle immortality.

      8. smfay profile image60
        smfayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "what I have done here, you can do better." as the Master said, and one can go beyond the words of the mundane and become one with all there is. Good and evil is a choice and as human beings living life in this created world to experience its greatness such choice is incomparable. We all have Freewill: Free without illusions, meaning, that as part of the entire creation we are identified only with what is good.

        1. 0
          Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I do not agree.
          We are basically good, yes, but we need our evil side to survive.
          Only by recognizing that can we hope to minimize the harm that we do when we do evil.

          Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

          That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

          But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

          If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.


          Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

          Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

          Consider.
          First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

          Evil then is only human to human.
          As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
          Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

          Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

          This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

          Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from. God or nature.

          There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

          Regards
          DL

      9. PseudoLogic profile image60
        PseudoLogicposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Before Adam and Eve sinned (we have no idea how long it took them before they did) , it was God's perfect will that they do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thus, yes, it was a sin for them to eat the tree.

        1. PseudoLogic profile image60
          PseudoLogicposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Also, you must remember what the definition of evil is. All evil is is anything that contradicts God's perfect will. The best way to explain it is with light and darkness. God's perfect will is like light, so anything that is not light, is darkness. Get it?

          1. 0
            Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for the simplistic dogma.

            Can a person sin if they do not know what a sin is?
            Look up mens rea before any simplistic replies please.

            So, if we must follow God's will, then what of our so called free will?

            Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

            That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

            But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

            If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.


            Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

            Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

            Consider.
            First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

            Evil then is only human to human.
            As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
            Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

            Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

            This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

            Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from. God or nature.

            There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

            Regards
            DL 

            Regards
            DL

    2. knolyourself profile image61
      knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

      Seems to me that a concept of gods would transcend good and evil.

      1. 0
        Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No. It would define them.

        God, at the end of the day, since he is a myth, can only be described as a set of rules and laws as they are the only thing that can be followed.

        Regards
        DL

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well really, gods are a concept and as such all manner of attributes can be  speculated concerning them. That's why there are so many variations.  knolyourself is just postulating the idea of a transcendent god. Good and evil would not define it ; rather it would define good and evil since it decides what good and evil is.

          In that god hypothesis there is no good or evil except as dictated by god. Therefore the god can do anything it likes and can not be said to be evil even if it has us dash our babies against rocks and eat each other.

          Such a god's punishments are always just and fair; as it defines what just and fair is, not us.

          It's a philosophical position which many fundamental christian cults believe is the god's honest truth.

          There are many other philosophical positions concerning god and it's relationship to good and evil. One being that good and evil are objective natural rules which god itself follows and enforces, not just a decree from on high. But that, of course means god is not the most powerful thing in the universe as it too adheres to natural laws.. 

          Each position starts with a particular speculative attribute and is then followed to it's logical conclusions as if that attribute were reality.

          Now if you take god out of it and ask what good and evil is you get a whole new path to follow. The first thing to ask is: Are they subjective or objective?

          In fact, from my perspective they are obviously both. In experiments with monkeys for instance it was noted that if you gave one monkey a treat but didn't give his friend one, the monkey would often refuse the treat after noticing the imbalance. This shows that animals besides humans have a concept of fair play.

          When I am hurt in an accident it is an objective physical pain. It is objective harm. If it wasn't an accident and someone hit me on purpose, the intent of the person can be said to be "evil". If on the other hand someone physically changes the conditions so the accident does not happen or is less destructive, that action can be said to be good.

          So we have intent as the basis for good and evil. If there is no intent then  the harm done is not evil except subjectively even though the harm is objective.

          Harm certainly is not just a concept, it is an objective physical/mental condition which is felt subjectively and objectively.

          As with everything harm has degrees. Being unfair intentionally is subjectively evil, but it has objective consequences.

          In the wild, so to speak, where there is competition for food and survival is at stake, there is a choice to be made which automatically does harm to someone. Does he get the food or do I or do we share? Often times sharing is not thought possible as there are hungry mouths at home.

          Hard choices have to be made. Good and evil isn't cut and dried.

          Therefore there is one objective piece of advice which if followed can be said to be an objective moral code: Do no intentional harm.

          1. 0
            Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sure but that advice cannot be followed if one is to survive.

            Let me explain.

            Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

            That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

            But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

            If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.


            Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

            Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

            Consider.
            First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

            Evil then is only human to human.
            As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
            Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

            Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

            This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

            Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from. God or nature.

            There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

            Regards
            DL

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
              Slarty O'Brianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well first let me say that I never said that following an edict like "Do no intentional harm" is easy. I tried to point that out by my food example. Hard choices have to have to made and someone may suffer.

              But there is such a thing as finding win/win solutions as opposed to accepting that competition must result in losers. Competition can be good in some sense and produce negative results in other situations.

              If you want to get away from the words good and evil, we can just use the words positive and negative. You can still compete in positive ways where you do no intentional harm. Harm may come from the best intentions but that's not the point.

              I agree that because evil is intent as is doing good is intent, both intents come with actions. And intent is human to human. Natural disasters are no one's fault. Nature doesn't punish or reward, it just follows it's own laws of cause and effect.

              But for the organism there are laws of cause and effect as well. If you cause shit, shit is likely to come back on you. People deal with guilt. You don't have to if you resolve the guilt or come to terms with it.  You don't want chaos in your life, you don't cause it for others.

              So while it is human to human it is also just the objective natural way of things.

              However, again, the most rational and logical way to deal with others is honestly and fairly. Competition can be fair and it does not require a loser. We just set it up that way most of the time because it is easier, not better. And that's what causes things like economic collapse. Greed is not always good, as the conservatives would have us believe.

              1. 0
                Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "So while it is human to human it is also just the objective natural way of things. "

                I agree as shown above. We cannot help but do some evil.

                You indicate that competition does not have to produce harm or a loser hurt by it.

                I cannot think of such an instance and have argued against this notion in the past.

                Can you come up with a realistic scenario that shows this notion?

                Regards
                DL

                1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I am sure you can think of many ways in which people deal with each other every day in a fair way in which neither of them come away a loser. If I buy something in a store and the price does not outrage me and I don't feel that as if I am buy it I am being gouged, then I am not losing and the company makes a sale. Win/win.

                  Let's go back to the two cave men who come upon the same food source.
                  They have choices to make. Does one kill the other for the food? That's win/lose. It's also a knee jerk reaction.

                  A win/win would be if they split the food down the middle. That way neither get hurt, both have more food than they had to begin with, (if not enough they can go their separate ways and find more, and they both may have made a friend and ally for the future.  The other positive is that they didn't make an enemy.

                  If I kill you and your kids find out it was me they will probably want to kill me as revenge. I may have fed my family but I may have caused a tribal war.

                  The problem is that the current model of a capitalist economy is cut throat.
                  Again, it doesn't have to be. Because of that  the entire system is destined to collapse soon anyway. It has before and for many of the same reasons.

                  There is a difference between healthy competition that drives down prices, and greed that causes run away inflation and makes the very few very rich by gouging the public and destroying the mom and pop businesses that are the life line of any country.

                  Major changes need to be made and they likely won't be because of the greed of those that could make the changes needed. So the system will collapse, many will suffer, and until we start getting it right it will all happen again.

                  We often talk about the good old days when deals were made with a handshake and people lived and died by their word and their integrity. We as humans want fair play just as the monkeys I mentioned do. If we believe we have been treated fairly and with dignity we can walk away happy. If we don't think we have been treated fairly we tend to rebel. The Boston tea party comes to mind.

                  Anyway, I'll stop for now and let you tell me why you think a win win is not almost always possible, why it wouldn't be desirable if it was possible, etc.

                  I may not be able to get back to you on your reply for a few days though.

    3. paradigmsearch profile image89
      paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

      I would like to see more thread titles without the word "God" in it...

      1. 0
        Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Then leave this religion forum.

        Regards
        DL

        1. paradigmsearch profile image89
          paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Gosh!!! I'd really like to! Problem is, I leave the religion forums, but they won't leave me (or anyone else for that matter). They are in our faces every time we come here. Sometimes, we just get so, so sick of it...

          Maybe I'll start a dozen forum threads on things religionists hate most. See how you like it...

          I honestly and truly do not understand why HP hasn't incorporated a forum thread filter...

          1. 0
            Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If you do start something on what religionists dislike, link me up or add this.

            It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
            They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClU … playnext=1

            They also do much harm to their own.

            African witches and Jesus
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXr … re=related

            Jesus Camp 1of 9
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBv8tv62yGM

            Promoting death to Gays.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_B … re=related

            For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
            Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

            Regards
            DL

    4. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago

      There is a huge dissimilarity between being g/God and having a knowing of what is good-evil {or g/god-like}. Becoming "like" g/God resulted in the parallel of Reason. Yes, many believe this was a good attribute, others do not.

      But, why; was it really wrong? Yes and no. Yes because self-indulgence is wrong, no matter how the parameter is presented. Was man denied the right to knowledge? Of course not. All good things come, in 'time'. This is where [they] missed it. Jumping headlong into something [neither] was prepared to engage, prepared to manage is -well- frightening. Power to the x-level in the hands of a novice. Not a good thing at all. However, had [man] been patient {and the entire text screams impatience on E's part -even A's part} that knowledge would have been instructed to them. Knowing right-wrong; good-evil is simply a matter of instruction to a direction. Billions of threads of information, without proper {kosher} placement, usage, results in calamity. I am overstating the obvious, because for x-thousands of years, this is precisely what humanity is been stuck in. Stuck in a rabbit hole of information he still barely can get a handle on. The Adamic Inception -or better said Information Inception. A helix called Duality:Reason. It is clearly evident today, as information and communication are the most important things to humanity.

      One thing most overlook about the entire scenario is this: both the TOK and TOL stood side-by-side in this stasis. That above all suggests neither was off limits, by permission and regulation. The instruction was simple: don't eat, else die. But that is not the end of the story, is it? Not by a long shot. Nothing suggests man was not to have understanding of his thoughts. But having jumped the gun, is now controlled by the mind, stripped of unity, anointing, glory and unlimited power. A lab rat in his own very own organic think-tank. No way out, just round and round, until he falls down dead, from mental exhaustion.

      Had he just waiting...
      Same as today with both sides of Theos. Neither is patient. Neither will full-stop and just take a step back, looking at the big picture. Looking at what a wonderful creation he is, Who made him so wonderful and do some serious one-on-one with Creator to understand that eluding question: Why!

      Thus, sealed off was the TOL, less man should eat of eternity in such a stat of madness; until such time as he could be fully restored, the Knowing come full-circle and no longer control him, but rather he control it -supersede it- and return to the being he was prior to that moment of self-indulgence.

      Knowledge is not evil to any measure conceivable! Knowledge is a process of information. Application of knowledge is what defines righteous from unrighteous, also known as good from evil, right from wrong. So, becoming "like" Creator, knowing the process of information/knowledge is not evil, it is very good, actually, but requires a power beyond the mind to organize, compile, debug and transmit the proper way.

      James.

      1. 0
        Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So do you think God was justified in murdering A & E by denying them the tree of life because they jumped the gun?

        Regards
        DL

        1. jacharless profile image81
          jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There is/was nothing to justify. And it was not murder. Technically, it was suicide on Adam/Eve's part. Having specific instruction: do not indulge/eat of the information in your head/TOK, else you will die. But, again, the question is why? The answer was quite simple: They went mad on information. Unable to remain "above" their consciousness, neither was able to retain the glorified stasis they were created in. They essentially became slaves to Choice, the Great Processor, the Mind. Unable to wield their supremacy over those processes, slowly became like every other creature in nature, living by wit/instinct -with  those countless thoughts as company. But thought alone cannot sustain a person. Reason cannot keep something alive. Hence, their battery {so to speak}, now being effected by the surrounding elements, silently killed them. Their minds denying them freedom, liberation and access to the TOL.

          The entire point of the thing most call Redemption is to be completely restored to that original stasis. some have tried using various parameters, but could not succeed. Both sides of Theos {science & sensation} are trying but cannot succeed either. The real method has been lost in a torrent of ideology, doctrine, mechanics -still more product of human thinking. None of which is contributing in any real respect whatsoever to said Restoration. Yet we have thousands of years of information, experience, pictographs and more, from civilizations around the globe, generation upon generation, that "testify" to something man was before this reality; something exceeding wonderful; something that understood this universe, planet, life they have.

          Their punishment for self-indulgence came at their own hand. I would liken it to Pharaoh, whose own words destroyed him. This of course applies to every human. Words are either killing or restoring life to them. The punishment is on their own heads. In essence, A/E chose death over life. They chose their punishment and continue to do so. The power to be restored still exists in them. Humans need only focus and begin the restoration process, to reverse everything that has happened. Oddly, seeing how obsessed humans are with words, literature or spoken {communication} one would think they would have picked up on the real ability/purpose of those words and use that power to escape the madness, the inception, and the consequence of it. But, I suppose that is what one could define as practical faith, versus pseudoscience the textually based Memorex Effect.

          James.

          1. 0
            Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            To your first sentence.

            God denied them the tree of life. They did not put the cherubim and flaming sword there themselves.

            That is murder.

            It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

            If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

            God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

            This then begs the question.

            What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

            Only an insane God. That’s who.

            The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

            One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women.
            They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqN8EYII … re=related

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dspWh9g … re=related

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c0RFxXr … re=related


            As to the rest of your justification of God's immorality.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

            Regards
            DL

            1. jacharless profile image81
              jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Precisely how is temporary denial murder? Might be mistaken, but I do not think Creator forced the TOK down their throats, like pro/con theists do their "truth". They killed themselves by self indulgence. And obviously blocking the information/direction/access to the TOL makes logical sense.
              Really? There is nothing textual to support that claim. If there is, show it.
              How did you come to the conclusion that because "from the foundations of the earth" means "God planned it all along"? If you understood what was being said, the text explains from the moment of indulgence the Vessel was broken and the Peg put in place, the situation activated. Second, you are mincing "general sin/Law based sin" with the Inception. Which are two entirely different items. So, please get your analogies proper. Besides this, why do you care how the situation unfolded; why the requirement of man-restored was executed? Rules are rules. Rule said: a man broke something; a man has to fix it. In others words: man has to take responsibility for his action or lack of action. Not like humans today who whine and cry that man broke it, now g/God fix it with regards to hunger, sickness, social unrest, bombs, radioactive poisoning in water, genetically modified foods, medicine and its side effects, etc etc etc.
              So, if you build something, you do not provide safety nets, security measures, "just in case" items? Interesting. Even if they had not indulged would not remove the necessity for said measures. Any inventor can tell you that. As a programmer, am forever placing hundreds of "solutions" on standby, hidden in the code even, in the event of. It's called being rational and precautionary.
              This is completely subjective speculation. There is nothing to suggest they were inept to listen to the request and not indulge.
              Again, hypothesis. No facts to back these claims up. Are you sure you're not a Christian? Why do I ask? Because you seem to read the book exactly the same way they do. lol
              There you go again with misinformation. Christianity has nothing to do with human sacrifice -or animal- actually, and certainly not a cornerstone. Never did, never will. Welll, better said, not originally. It was grafted in and made the focal point of Romulus-Remus Christianity. Judaism is an entirely different story. However, the event known as Resurrection is a more precise analogy, regarding the cornerstone of Christianity.
              That has nothing to do with this conversation. But as for equality, women in every form of culture throughout history -regardless of which side of Theos- has demoralized them. More sadly, they have demoralized themselves with regard to marketing, fashion, sexual exploitation and more -to some degree or another, which is why Western equality took so long. The East still does not accept Western Ideology of equality.

              I get the impression you are angry, at yourself moreover, for whatever missteps you encountered, be it under the guise of theology, Christianity in particular and society in general. which has nothing to do with becoming like g/God. you are angry because like the others, the text doesn't make sense, because you continue to rely on the text for proof/disproof. Ain't madness great? Besides, if you feel it was unjustified or savage to begin with, why the argument? Why the passive aggressive hypostatic of angst toward good-evil; g/Gods and gender inferiority?
              Innocuous Suggestion: Get over it, get a therapist, else go back to being a Christian. Because it appears anti-christian, atheist or whatever title applies, ain't working for you -its actually making you more upset, which is not healthy for anyone. Full-stop the power of the Processor like everyone else who enjoys Duality and look for something else, beyond it...

              James.

              1. 0
                Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "And obviously blocking the information/direction/access to the TOL makes logical sense."

                If allowing A & E to die makes logical sense to you then we are not on the same moral page.

                You say that the TOK was not forced down their throats but that would ignore that God placed Satan there, a Satan that scriptures say was given the power to deceive the whole world which would include A & E, which suggests that it was forced down their throats.

                Bottom line question.

                Is man better off with the knowledge of good and evil, that leads to a moral sense, or does that make man worse off?

                Regards
                DL

                1. jacharless profile image81
                  jacharlessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh good grief, the Satan thing again. Was beginning to wonder when you would inject "him" into this.

                  *Facepalm*

                  Why do people persist on this idea? Blame it on the "Debble" when there is NO such entity else blame Creator to deflect personal responsibility...

                  Moral sense is ambiguity dressed in justification, ignorance and determinism. Morality is the playground of humanism.

                  Man is destined to escape the prison of Reason, either by Life or by death. Again his decision. No man is forced to live or die. Each chooses one or the other.

                  James

                  1. 0
                    Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    *Facepalm*

                    Regards
                    DL

    5. Druid Dude profile image61
      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

      Becoming as God has been walking with us since we determined to be more than we were. Knowledge outside of our natural state. Since we started walking the path of knowledge, we were bound for this point in time, knowledge increasing in increment, sometimes in leaps and bounds. In the quest for knowledge, certain ones believe that we have dis-proved God, when in truth, everything we have found fits the description of God to a "G". Becoming as God is not easy, but it is a step by step process. We were created to become perfect and we still have a ways to go. There is no skipping steps, and the transformation is painful at times, hard to bear, but necessary to acheive the end...being one with the mind of the almighty. That goal is far in our future, but it is there, and therefore, we will be there also.

      1. 0
        Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        But does that path not have to start with the knowledge of good and evil?

        As to being one with the mind of the law maker, you will note that few if any Christians would want to live under God's draconian laws and that his law has already been improved upon.

        What you say is in the future is in our past.

        Regards
        DL

    6. pinkrose91 profile image60
      pinkrose91posted 4 years ago

      I'm not sure if I understand you question fully but in Islam "becoming like God" has the status of worship. Becoming like God means awakening His attributes in once self but in a human form. God has characteristics described in he holy Quran.
      For example: God is all forgiving and merciful. So we should become forgiving and merciful towards its creation. No human can ever attain the level of Gods mercy towards his creation but he should keep walking that way and trying to go higher and higher up the ladder. No human can become God but the way is the destination. In other way our "job" is to keep walking on the path of trying to "become like God". The only characteristic which God has and humans are not allowed to have is pride. He has also called Himself the Proud. He can be He is the Creator but no human can ever attain anything in life which should make him feel that he can be proud and consider himself better then any other human being. Everything a human can attain is God given. He is the creator of everything. That is why accept being proud every human should try to "become like God" but never feel that he has become like God. I hope this is relevant to your question and helped in some way.

      1. 0
        Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What is mercyiful about God if he has hell in store for us?

        Is that not purposeless torture? Where is the mercy in that?
        If there is a purpose to it then what is it?

        As to pride, are you not proud of your choice in friends and family?
        I am quite proud of mine?

        Regards
        DL

    7. lone77star profile image91
      lone77starposted 4 years ago

      Could "knowing good and evil" (reference to the Garden and forbidden fruit) instead refer to "knowing" as in the sense of "to lay with?" E.g. he lay with her and knew her.

      Laying with good-evil would be falling into the machine of physical dichotomies and forgetting your spiritual nature (which remains above all dichotomy). And "fruit" means "product" or "result."

      Creation exists without dichotomy. Persistence occurs when dichotomy is added. Buddhism describes this with its "paramitas" or "perfections" -- like the sound of one hand clapping, or the one-sided coin. Generosity without any blemish of its opposite. Peter could not have walked on water, even for the few moments he did, if his faith had been tainted with even the tiniest spot of doubt. That's the difference between true faith and mortal belief. This is like the calculus concept -- discontinuity. The physical realm is full of continuity. Our dependence on that continuity is part of the trap.

      Ego is pure dichotomy (good-evil, right-wrong, generous-selfish, wisdom-stupidity, compassion-indifference and others).

      Ego is the blindness that prevents us from awakening as children of God.

      Becoming one with God is good. This is following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ.

      Ego is the source of evil. Being trapped in the web (matrix) of dichotomies is the "grand turning away from God" -- the "great fall from grace."

      1. Druid Dude profile image61
        Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Good assessment

      2. 0
        Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So if becoming one with God is good, and one must have knowledge of good and evil to do so, are you saying A & E did the right thing?

        Regards
        DL

        1. Druid Dude profile image61
          Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It was always part of the plan. It is actually a lesson in prohibition. Tell someone they can't...and they will. The only reason E ate first was because A was boosting her up. The SNAKE was actually a worm, that was happily munching away. Did you really think it talked?

          1. pennyofheaven profile image80
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            lol

    8. Niteriter profile image78
      Niteriterposted 4 years ago

      Toss out all the moralism, dualism, and historical "metaphoricism" and follow this one principle: Treat others the way you wish to be treated. Then there is no evil.

      1. 0
        Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Pie in the sky.

        You cannot help but do evil to some.

        Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

        That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

        But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

        If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.


        Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

        Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

        Consider.
        First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

        Evil then is only human to human.
        As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
        Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

        Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

        This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

        Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from. God or nature.

        There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

        Regards
        DL

        1. Niteriter profile image78
          Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "As you believe in your heart, so shall it be done unto you." You and I have no argument, my friend. Whatever you choose to believe is what you will see in the conditions around you. The system of life is without limit and produces for you whatever you wish to see.

          1. 0
            Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Meaningless phrases are cheap and not a substitute for correction if it can be donne.

            If you could not then you should have had the balls to agree.

            Regards
            DL

            1. Niteriter profile image78
              Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Your aggression in this exchange is evidence enough that you are not yet ready to accept a new point of view. And as long as you hold on to the position you have taken you will not see anything other than what you now see. Until you become more peaceful within yourself, any further exchange would prove fruitless. Best regards.

              1. 0
                Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Proverbs 3:12
                For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

                Thanks for ignoring your bible.
                You follow your tradituion well.

                Regards
                DL

                1. Niteriter profile image78
                  Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  For a person who has no Hubs, you sure are taking up a lot of HubPages' server space to spread negativity and ill will. Tut tut.

                  All I was trying to suggest is that as long as you are talking you can't do much listening. If you could remain quiet for an hour or so and allow the love of the Universe to penetrate your consciousness, it might amaze you at how nice a person you have become.

                  Best of luck in whatever it is you`re trying to accomplish. And that  will be my final word on this.

                  1. 0
                    Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Good. Less garbage here.

                    Regards
                    DL

          2. pennyofheaven profile image80
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Makes sense to me.

    9. SpanStar profile image59
      SpanStarposted 4 years ago

      Regarding the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden, knowing good and evil does not make one good or evil it is only in the doing that makes that determination.

      The idea of a human becoming God from my perspective is a misnomer for in the history of mankind there has been only one perfect person and he was God in human form.

      1. 0
        Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You forget Job.

        God says he was perfect in that myth when God is shown as making an immoral; bet with Satan and encouraging Satan to harm Job and his family.

        Regards
        DL

        1. SpanStar profile image59
          SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Job did gain favor in God's eyes just like Noah and Moses. There was no wager between God and Satan. God wanted to show Satan that Job could remain faithful even in the midst of tragedies. It is not uncommon even for us as people to refer to someone as perfect when we are pleased with who they are or what they can do for example if we have trained up a prize fighter and we believe they can reach the top of their field we might refer to them as perfect, the one who can meet and be all challenges.

          1. 0
            Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks for ignoring God immorality and bet for tradition and dog shit dogma.
            You do a disservice to your theology.

            Regards
            DL

            1. SpanStar profile image59
              SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If you're looking for immorality simply look around the world you will find more than enough.

              1. 0
                Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sure. Your sky is falling as statistically speaking, things are the best they have ever been.

                You cannot see the forest for the trees.

                Regards
                DL

                1. SpanStar profile image59
                  SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  How sad That This The Best it's ever been.

                  1. 0
                    Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Only to fools.

                    Regards
                    DL

    10. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago

      I disagree regarding only one perfect person. The person was not perfect, by natural standards, but was made perfect ~as the text states emphatically. This person went though the test of the great isolation called the mind, test of body to overcome its limitation and test of the spirit -that unity with Creator.

      Once the mind lost control, this person was liberated and transformed into the original human form. This is something people mention in many ways yet never seem to grasp fully. The entire exercise was displayed for the specific purpose of how-to achieve it. First came the few, then the many to be instructed after. Unfortunately, religion and politics over shadowed this event and turned it into a game of control and manipulation.

      It was so uniquely inconceivable to believe -even those who saw it first hand- people were dumbfounded and flabbergast by its happening. Nothing like it had ever been seen before, even though it was philosophically/theoretically part of many cultures prior to. Nothing has been referenced like it since.

      This person became godlike not by becoming a god themselves, but rather consumption by that fire -that purity of understanding. Knowledge yielded, returned to its rightful place. Knowledge was not removed or destroyed, because it is very much apart of every human, necessary even as noted by both it and Life side by side in that stasis. Knowledge was tempered and tamed by selfless Purity. The result was beyond astonishing, unlike anything anyone had ever witnessed. This is one reason the prophets -like Elijah- are mentioned in such great detail. Because should the event be correct, what happened to Elijah was but a precursor to what man would become once more. A shadow healing, environmental changes/control, power over gravity, animals, life and death itself. Sustainability, creativity, unity.

      Impossible?! To most, yes. When the person goes beyond wanting to be perfect or straining to be perfect, through their own efforts, Purity comes calling like a very powerful wind. The brief battle occurs within the humanus, as Reason -Knowledge in Chaos- fights for the right to remain master. Should Purity previal- mind tempered, body submit- everything man has every known comes to light -becomes clear as day. Every single blip of information created in him properly executed and ready to do whatever he desires.

      Duality ends. Reason is satisfied.

      The world within and world without transform. He cannot exist as anything less than what he was created to be. He cannot continue to live as a mere mortal, with a satisfied mind. He cannot contain the beauty of free flow Creator-creation without the proper tools and setting. So the body itself consumed, as the genesis happens once more. Enlightenment superseded. Evolution fulfilled. Destiny complete. Mission accomplished. Adamic Inception reversed. And the refreshing newness open him to possibilities he was restricted from, for far too long...
      Life finally begins.

      James.

      1. 0
        Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree.

        Scriptures show that Jesus had to learn obedience.

        Regards
        DL

    11. Steel Engineer profile image88
      Steel Engineerposted 4 years ago

      The first person who wanted to be like God was Satan. All religions which teach you can become like God have been infiltrated by doctrines of devils.

      God is the only God, and there shall never be another. (I think that is in Jeremiah somewhere.)

      See now that I, [even] I, [am] he, and [there is] no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither [is there any] that can deliver out of my hand. (deu 32:39)

      1. 0
        Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Though shalt place no other God before me says that there are other Gods otherwise God would not fear us putting one above him.

        Regards
        DL

    12. Man from Modesto profile image82
      Man from Modestoposted 4 years ago

      I read through a few of the posts on the forum. Many of you all are sounding off without any real first hand experience. Science and knowledge suffer when people run their mouths as if they know something... But are only regurgitating lies they have heard on the Internet and in the media.

      Church is free. Go to one. They will have some vague truth there.

      For about 15 or 20 bucks you can own a Bible. Or, read it for free at blueletterbible. (don't use Biblegateway, it is owned by the satanists- their crescent moon symbol comprises the BG logo)

      There is a real, massive war going on. God is working on your hearts. Satan teaches his people the battlefield is for the mind. And, they are working against your minds with disinformation, lies, and psychological maneuvers.

      You who vomit those lies onto this thread are sorely losing the most important race in life: to find God and salvation through Jesus. If you win everything else, and lose on this, you will have lost everything.

      1. pennyofheaven profile image80
        pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You should not assume what you do not know.

      2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
        Slarty O'Brianposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I read the bible, went to church, saw the vague truth they offered, figured out what the vague truth actually were, dismissed the religious version as superstitious nonsense created by primitives, and discovered science and logic.

        You need to use the brain you think god gave you and study science and logic. You may also need to do a more in depth study of the bible. The devil is a Christian construct with no basis in the OT.

        Personally I think your beliefs are unhealthy and you probably need to re-evaluate them for your own sanity sake. Telling people that basically knowledge is of the devil speaks for itself. What is the alternative? We all live in ignorance and think irrationally? 

        Christianity is trap of the mind. It is much like a virus that demands to be spread and takes over the mind of the person it infects, keeping them in belief. Ever see the movie Matrix? Wish there was a pill I could give you.

        Of course now you point to me and say that I am exactly what satan wants me to be and I am spreading his word. Perhaps you even think I am satan.

        How does anyone convince someone that thinks rationality is evil that they are the ones who need help?

        Christianity never ceases to amaze me. The hold it has over people is frightening, and in my opinion, in its fundamentalist form, as dangerous as the Catholics were in the inquisition glory days.

        Hope I didn't offend you. That is not my intent.

        1. 0
          Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Slarty

          Well put.

          Truth is always offensive to those who believe lies, dogma and tradition.

          Regards
          DL

      3. 0
        Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        M F M

        You do what you advise us not to do.

        It is immoral to try to profit from a barbaric human sacrifice.

        "Test all things"
        1 Thessalonians. 5:21


        No noble and gracious God would demand the sacrifice of a so called son just to prove it's benevolence.

        Regards
        DL

        1. 61
          meanpeaceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A spirit does not die.

          1. pennyofheaven profile image80
            pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Agree.

            1. 0
              Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks for that lie.

              Ever meet a spirit? If not, how can you say anything definitive about them?

              You have to know you are lying. Right?

              Regards
              DL

          2. 0
            Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            meanpeace

            Thanks for that lie.

            Ever meet a spirit? If not, how can you say anything definitive about them?

            You have to know you are lying. Right?

            Regards
            DL

            1. 61
              meanpeaceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why pray tell, would you want to limit your mental capacity to things that can only be seen or touched?

              Are you aware this is a spiritual discussion? If you reserve the aspect of "only things physical" than why would hold place in spiritual concersation. Im not saying that its not permissible that you do. Just that its contridictory to say the least.

              Anyhow to address that statement lets "look" at a few things.
              You cant see the wind. Does it exsist? Why, because you see the effects that it has. So that effect is considered evidence. 
              Well the effect from God is life. Look around you,  life is all over the place. Its an easy concept to grasp we can continue if you like...........

              I am a spirit. You are a spirit. Do you correct someone when they say "hes a mean spirited person"? No you might say, thats an emotion etc etc. Ok well you cant see emotion either so now what?

              If I am lying than I do not exsist.

              1. 0
                Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                There is a huge difference for what can be known and what cannot be known.

                If you want to believe in the unknowable and foolish, then by all means use it to create your own version of God.

                Just do not expect respect for your imagination.

                Regards
                DL

                1. 61
                  meanpeaceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay like what? Even mere concepts have applications......

                  Unknowable? So you are sayin that if something can never be known its not worth your time? Or what? Then why are you here then. Are you sure that even your happiness will ever be known? What is foolish about giving credit to the "one" that created us? My version, your version, isn it magnificant how the eye interprets. 

                  I dont expect anything, its all part of humility. 

                  1. 0
                    Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    To speak with knowledge of what cannot be known is a lie.

                    Regards
                    DL

                    1. 61
                      meanpeaceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Ahh but what is a lucky guess that manifests true. Faith? The creator of knowledge is the executor, but what are we trustee? Without knowing whether the knowledge is true or not how can you distinquish what is lie. All then would be based on moral.... And wich  manly bicameral side is embraced.

    13. jacharless profile image81
      jacharlessposted 4 years ago
      1. Cagsil profile image83
        Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'll say it again- Smart a$$ tongue

    14. 61
      meanpeaceposted 4 years ago

      If kindness, compassion and meekness be my trap, so be it. Its strange how some think of christianity as a desease of conformity of some sort. How everything is based off of a book or a building instead of the charictor embodiment of Christ. We all play follow the leader. Whos your idol? Im sure my charictor guide will reap a better harvest than the option associated with not having a charictor such as Christ as an example. Then again the squirl on ice age is an excellent role model as well. 

      1. 0
        Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A man would have to be some hard up to choose Christ as his God. That one is just full of unworkable rhetoric and if he is the one that the trinity ties to O T God, then your Christ is a prick.

        Regards
        DL

        1. 61
          meanpeaceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

           
          Its called humility. Few people will truely understand what it means. It really all starts when we are born.  Physically and spiritually. The ego usually surpasses it however.

          Have we confirmed that we are all dependant? Is there a greater "thing", that is other than your self? You are perfectly entitled to the non aknowledging of a provider or creator of yourself and everything else wrapped up with a pretty little bow. But if you want to believe or stand for something that you dont believe in go right ahead, insert you cant prove a negative here. The positive has been proven already. Your alive. 

          How so is it rhetoric? Persuation isnt my objective. Truth is best persued in an honest manor. Forgive me if my terminology apears tactical or destractive or what ever excuse you wish to embrace. If you cant produce rebutal have no fear. "It" all depends on your willingness to accept or not accept anyways. The ole saying if i could prove to you that christianity was "real" or "true" would you be a christian, applies here. 

          None the less ask your self this. Will you go your own way whence i come or go. What is there for me (meanpeace) to gain by persuading you anyways? 
          Spiritual mater is intangible just as the internet is as well. Our physical body is as hard and software are. Old testament, new testament, God is God. Is your view of your father the same as it was when you were a child... What about vise versa. Man cannot explain nor comprehend everything. But if you want to assert that he can, its your call. But i would suggest meeting and conversing with like minded people if you want to further develop the belief of unbelief that you have. Its not unworkable bro. Have at it.... Time is on our side, snap into a slim jim.

          1. 0
            Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You forget that I am a Gnostic Christian so your view of my un-belief is off base.

            I just have a God who makes sense as compared to yours and I do not have to sell my soul to Satan by thinking that it is good to try to profit from the murder of an innocent Jesus.

            Regards
            DL

            1. 61
              meanpeaceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Silly me, i thought that we all have the same God. Can your God beat up my God. My mom says i cant get wet, but i can squirt you. Seriously though, im not at all familiar with gnostic principal so forgive me. 

              Im certainly glad that you aknowledge that there is God. I soppose its your motive then that appears deceptive. Do you assert that you know the truth or that others like you do, or is that just that others are speaking lies. Inorder for you to know others are lying you would need to know truth. Whom knows truth other than the creator of it. 
               Im not aware of the gnostic view of Jesus, but judging from my independant study of "his" accounts, "he" is favored by me due to his "servant thought proccess" or return to father practices (+). I will admit the common conception derived from "scripture" is misconstrued as even Jesus pointed out. 

              Eye lad, although the convenience of having (a) God that is personaly matched to the way that "we" think, is lustrous, you got to admit its rather egotistical n stuff. 
              And what are the odds there eh..
               I look at it like this. If someone told me that they had a book or what not, that has account of my fathers words or actions etc. I would indeed investigate it as we all would/do.
              However if there be many books or stories to "choose" from, in a sense that they contridict or alter. What is logical then but the only true account of my father would come from my father, or someone that irrefutably gives,displays or calls for glory to father, thus being Jesus. 

              Again murder or sacrifice, its all bicameral. Jesus' death could be what you make of it. When i take my child to the dr and he has to get a shot, am i taking my son to get punctured or is it to get healed. Regardless remedy + and need -go hand in hand. But all conceptional breakdown is limited by the minds capacity. Man doesnt have the mental capacity to comprehend God. We can however make observations. You observe, i observe, they observe. As for knowledge, the true Owner is God.

              I did not profit from his death, as im not fly or larvae. I did however profit from his exsistence and sacrifices  wich prove profit to me. As for Satan, my focous is of God. 

              1. 0
                Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Your focus is on ridding a scapegoat into heaven instead of getting there on your own the way scriptures say you must.

                You would prefer the easy way and will take an immoral stance on human sacrifice just to shed your responsibilities.

                Regards
                DL

                1. 61
                  meanpeaceposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Thats a big fat neggitive my friend. Jesus is the example to me, his persona is the treasure, to me.  Jesus is not a redemption ticket, hes a template. That precisely is what infuriates me. We are all responsible regardless. That is why we should all seek and study God individually first and foremost, not basing our belief on accordence with a group. I will agree 100 percent that most "christians" falsely assume that they have redemption tickets.
                  As far as "getting there" is concerned, the kingdom is within "you". So how far must i travel to reach it. 

                  As ive said, i admire Jesus for his charictor, and how he return(s) glory to God. Returning glory to God is unselfish and denies the ego of its glory. How is my denile of ego the easy way out? On the contrary its rather difficult at times and more often than not, the ego is victor. None the less its by jesus' virtue, that enables me to correct my wrong, not dismiss it. 

                  What are my responsibilities by the way, and how would you know what they are?

                  1. 0
                    Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    From what you say here, your responsibility would be to correct your fellow Christians who, as a majority, are using Jesus as their free ticket and scapegoat into heaven.

                    Not arguing with those like me who already know that human sacrifice and trying to profit from it is immoral. So is punishing the good and not the evil ones.

                    That, or start looking for a religion where you are not the minority view.

                    Try being a Gnostic Christian if you can discard the need of fantasy, miracles and magic. You seem to be bright enough to step up to a better way of thinking. You have to be ready to seek forever though because even those who suffer through apotheosis, must raise the bar of the Godhead they find and that initial perfection. If not, then they become idol worshippers just like the Christians who have found their Godinabook.

                    Regards
                    DL

                  2. 0
                    Greatest I amposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    From what you say here, your responsibility would be to correct your fellow Christians who, as a majority, are using Jesus as their free ticket and scapegoat into heaven.

                    Not arguing with those like me who already know that human sacrifice and trying to profit from it is immoral. So is punishing the good and not the evil ones.

                    That, or start looking for a religion where you are not the minority view.

                    Try being a Gnostic Christian if you can discard the need of fantasy, miracles and magic. You seem to be bright enough to step up to a better way of thinking. You have to be ready to seek forever though because even those who suffer through apotheosis, must raise the bar of the Godhead they find and that initial perfection. If not, then they become idol worshippers just like the Christians who have found their Godinabook.

                    Regards
                    DL

                    1. Druid Dude profile image61
                      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Gnosticism....Knowledge. If you have faith the size of a grain of mustard seed, yet faith can be moved, faith can be tested and found wanting. Knowledge is a rock. It is immobile, solid, heavy. Carbon into diamond.

     
    working