Why Not...

Luthien wrote: Like most creation myths, there are many things wrong with it and doesn't explain the world very well anymore.

im not sure anyone really knows what it means anymore

ive heard that its likely a fusion of at least two other stories which were likely integrated as a result of a cultural/religious syncretism that happened before written language, but i dont claim to know

i recall someone here at the temple mentioning that as well, but i wouldnt be able to say a name

personally i think its a story of mans evolutionary leap to higher order cognition - like we learned to compare things to each other and make abstract value judgements, and thats where the "knowledge of good and evil" originated and also when we lost our "innocence" and saw our "nakedness"

Prof. J Peterson likes to mention that human eyesight evolved to a great extent to detect the ripening of fruit and the movement of snakes

and i mean he has got the research of evolutionary biologists as a foundation for the position so whether there is a relationship between that and the story or not, it is definitely interesting

but anyway this is a great example of where i think that a literal interpretation misses the point

but lol who am i? just some dude on the internets

Indeed. I don't know the original intention, nor do I care anymore about it. The bible is a collection of books written by men with imperfect understanding. I don't put too much stock in the reality of myths, but, rather, the lessons behind them. Whether or not god exists is beyond any understanding I can muster. It's all speculation for me until it can be proven true, historical accuracy/inaccuracy aside.

rugadd wrote: One can try to explain "God's" will all they want, or call "him" out, but divinity by definition is beyond our ability to understand so when you do, remember you can not possible be right about it.

What I can't fathom is why anyone would want to serve a deity like that.

Nothing is above being wrong/evil if we're going to view things in those sorts of terms. Not even god.

Sorry, I know I'm mostly talking to myself here.

Snowy Aftermath wrote:

rugadd wrote: One can try to explain "God's" will all they want, or call "him" out, but divinity by definition is beyond our ability to understand so when you do, remember you can not possible be right about it.

What I can't fathom is why anyone would want to serve a deity like that.

Nothing is above being wrong/evil if we're going to view things in those sorts of terms. Not even god.

Sorry, I know I'm mostly talking to myself here.

I viewed it as a fragmentary view of the divine, limited by my own corporeal incarnation. By holding onto a set of values as obligatory to its presence (the experience), it might best define those which give the most useful (?) meaning to the experience of it. Else, change the values and try again....

... and instead of using the experience to define the source, the experience is defined by both source and recipient. I mean the source might even be within oneself, but that detail could be incidental if the intended result is the experience itself.

So by understanding its defined (to some extent!?) by your own limitations/capabilities/self then you can more easily relate the experience back to your own self in terms of progress, rather then characterizing any anthropomorphism of the divine experience and stagnating personal development into dogmatic servitude. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with dogmatic servitude... well at least not all the time.

It can be a very colorful meditation.

Since I wrote my last post on this topic (and after reading some of the responses), I have to admit to being slightly unsure of, well, everything. Not just because of what I've read but because of what I've experienced.

My conclusion is simple. "All the answers fall short of the truth."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wutmEjdbedE&list=PLCA4298A0D7F18B04&index=13

Streen wrote: Since I wrote my last post on this topic (and after reading some of the responses), I have to admit to being slightly unsure of, well, everything. Not just because of what I've read but because of what I've experienced.

My conclusion is simple. "All the answers fall short of the truth."

have you really tested all of the answers?

i dont dispute that conclusion but i am curious at the process that brought you to it

from here it looks like you were introduced to ideas that you hadnt considered, and these ideas made you realize that what you thought was true, may not actually be as true as you thought it was, and now you are saying "since the truth that i want to be true, might not be true, i have to conclude that we cant know the truth"

MartaLina wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wutmEjdbedE&list=PLCA4298A0D7F18B04&index=13

Interestingly enough, I still listen to Christian radio, sometimes, for a bit of a positive, uplifting spirit for my day. Not to derail the discussion, but my range of music I listen to is very wide.

I do, i love Gospel , i am just not into the Religion anymore