Was seeking God pleasant before literalism?

[GreatestIam]

Was seeking God pleasant before literalism?

We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition. Before this hard line of locked thinking, various religions lived quite comfortably side by side. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.

As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.

In discussions with those who are idol worshipers, discussions are often strained as adherents to a literal God are not allowing themselves the benefits of thinking that is unhindered by what they are told they must believe. This often stifles any good discussion.

Seeker and non-believers on the other hand, even as they may have some pre-conceived notions, tend to be more open to a change of mind. This makes an interesting discussion where an end point and agreement might be gained for whatever issue is being discussed. Wisdom and insight can then be sought without having to contend with some ancient God’s feelings or ancient edicts coming into play.

It is quite possible that my own fundamentalism for my religion has given me too big of a bias to judge this issue well so I seek confirmation on this issue from others here.

Have you found it more pleasant to discuss with non-believers and seekers as compared to literalist Christians and Muslims who are idol worshipers?

Is literalism applicable to such old writings at all?

Is the wisdom of the old myths lost through literal reading?

Regards
DL

 

[RandomVariable]

When you say old writings and old myths are you referring to the NT?

 

[GreatestIam]

When you say old writings and old myths are you referring to the NT?

Yes. Both the new and the old testaments.
I see all scriptures and Gods as myths regardless of the religion.

Regards
DL

 

[RandomVariable]

When you say old writings and old myths are you referring to the NT?

Yes. Both the new and the old testaments.
I see all scriptures and Gods as myths regardless of the religion.

Regards
DL

New Testament and Old Testament are two completely different books. I can only speak to the Old Testament.

 

[GreatestIam]

When you say old writings and old myths are you referring to the NT?

Yes. Both the new and the old testaments.
I see all scriptures and Gods as myths regardless of the religion.

Regards
DL

New Testament and Old Testament are two completely different books. I can only speak to the Old Testament.

Please do so. Was seeking God pleasant before literalism?

Are you a literalist? If not, do you see Eden as man's elevation the way the Jews do?

Regards
DL

 

[Uncensored2008]

Was seeking God pleasant before literalism?

We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition. Before this hard line of locked thinking, various religions lived quite comfortably side by side. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.

As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.

In discussions with those who are idol worshipers, discussions are often strained as adherents to a literal God are not allowing themselves the benefits of thinking that is unhindered by what they are told they must believe. This often stifles any good discussion.

Seeker and non-believers on the other hand, even as they may have some pre-conceived notions, tend to be more open to a change of mind. This makes an interesting discussion where an end point and agreement might be gained for whatever issue is being discussed. Wisdom and insight can then be sought without having to contend with some ancient God’s feelings or ancient edicts coming into play.

It is quite possible that my own fundamentalism for my religion has given me too big of a bias to judge this issue well so I seek confirmation on this issue from others here.

Have you found it more pleasant to discuss with non-believers and seekers as compared to literalist Christians and Muslims who are idol worshipers?

Is literalism applicable to such old writings at all?

Is the wisdom of the old myths lost through literal reading?

Regards
DL

Who is the "we" who is supposed to "know" the absurd thesis you promote?

 

[GreatestIam]

Was seeking God pleasant before literalism?

We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition. Before this hard line of locked thinking, various religions lived quite comfortably side by side. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.

As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.

In discussions with those who are idol worshipers, discussions are often strained as adherents to a literal God are not allowing themselves the benefits of thinking that is unhindered by what they are told they must believe. This often stifles any good discussion.

Seeker and non-believers on the other hand, even as they may have some pre-conceived notions, tend to be more open to a change of mind. This makes an interesting discussion where an end point and agreement might be gained for whatever issue is being discussed. Wisdom and insight can then be sought without having to contend with some ancient God’s feelings or ancient edicts coming into play.

It is quite possible that my own fundamentalism for my religion has given me too big of a bias to judge this issue well so I seek confirmation on this issue from others here.

Have you found it more pleasant to discuss with non-believers and seekers as compared to literalist Christians and Muslims who are idol worshipers?

Is literalism applicable to such old writings at all?

Is the wisdom of the old myths lost through literal reading?

Regards
DL

Any who do not see the absurdity of what I say but do see the absurdity of literal reading of myths. That would not be you I take it.

Regards
DL

Who is the "we" who is supposed to "know" the absurd thesis you promote?

Any who do not see the absurdity of what I say but do see the absurdity of literal reading of myths. That would not be you I take it.

 

[RandomVariable]

When you say old writings and old myths are you referring to the NT?

Yes. Both the new and the old testaments.
I see all scriptures and Gods as myths regardless of the religion.

Regards
DL

New Testament and Old Testament are two completely different books. I can only speak to the Old Testament.

Please do so. Was seeking God pleasant before literalism?

Are you a literalist? If not, do you see Eden as man's elevation the way the Jews do?

Regards
DL

A little background is in order I guess. God spoke to me a few times in my life but I did not know who he was. Last spring he told me to read the OT and I discovered his name is YWHW. Through the OT I have gained some understanding of his ways. I do not claim to be wise, have understanding, knowledge, or any super powers. I am very new not just to the bible but religion as a whole. So when you say 'elevation of man' I have to do an online search to find out what that means. So as far as my religion I am none of the above. I am just some person who talks to God and reads the OT. (KJV or course.)

This is just as I understand what I read. Adam and Eve seem to have been this master plan of man with whom God strolled around the garden. The apple drove a kind of wedge between God and his creations. God would still walk and talk but men were becoming less familiar with God. Maybe it was the number of people there were. I do not know what it means but Genesis 4:26 "... then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." is very significant. Then 5:24 "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not: for God took him." is another milestone in our connection with God. After that comes the flood. I take the flood very literally. Not in that 'water' might have been 'water' but in the actual flood mechanisms. (If that makes sense.) The other side of the flood is a new beginning with God's relation with man and I feel we are getting farther and farther away now. Abraham talked with God, Isaac talked with God, but if you read Jacob's relation with God it was much more disconnected. That then gets us to Joseph. Who was something more of a prophet than one who spoke with God. Next is, drum roll please: Moses! God spoke with Moses the same perhaps as with Isaac but it was very clear, as when God spoke with Moses, Aaron, and Aaron's sister (forgot her name), that Moses was something special. After Moses from what I can tell God never really talks directly to anyone but Samuel but even that seems of a different nature. So what was the question? Oh, yeah. I think God made Adam and Eve as the ideal but gave them will the free will to open the garden gate, so to speak. I think we have been going further and further out to pasture ever since.

So that was rushed and off the top of my head. I might retract in all next post. Seems to make sense to me though.

 

[GreatestIam]

When you say old writings and old myths are you referring to the NT?

Yes. Both the new and the old testaments.
I see all scriptures and Gods as myths regardless of the religion.

Regards
DL

New Testament and Old Testament are two completely different books. I can only speak to the Old Testament.

Please do so. Was seeking God pleasant before literalism?

Are you a literalist? If not, do you see Eden as man's elevation the way the Jews do?

Regards
DL

A little background is in order I guess. God spoke to me a few times in my life but I did not know who he was. Last spring he told me to read the OT and I discovered his name is YWHW. Through the OT I have gained some understanding of his ways. I do not claim to be wise, have understanding, knowledge, or any super powers. I am very new not just to the bible but religion as a whole. So when you say 'elevation of man' I have to do an online search to find out what that means. So as far as my religion I am none of the above. I am just some person who talks to God and reads the OT. (KJV or course.)

This is just as I understand what I read. Adam and Eve seem to have been this master plan of man with whom God strolled around the garden. The apple drove a kind of wedge between God and his creations. God would still walk and talk but men were becoming less familiar with God. Maybe it was the number of people there were. I do not know what it means but Genesis 4:26 "... then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." is very significant. Then 5:24 "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not: for God took him." is another milestone in our connection with God. After that comes the flood. I take the flood very literally. Not in that 'water' might have been 'water' but in the actual flood mechanisms. (If that makes sense.) The other side of the flood is a new beginning with God's relation with man and I feel we are getting farther and farther away now. Abraham talked with God, Isaac talked with God, but if you read Jacob's relation with God it was much more disconnected. That then gets us to Joseph. Who was something more of a prophet than one who spoke with God. Next is, drum roll please: Moses! God spoke with Moses the same perhaps as with Isaac but it was very clear, as when God spoke with Moses, Aaron, and Aaron's sister (forgot her name), that Moses was something special. After Moses from what I can tell God never really talks directly to anyone but Samuel but even that seems of a different nature. So what was the question? Oh, yeah. I think God made Adam and Eve as the ideal but gave them will the free will to open the garden gate, so to speak. I think we have been going further and further out to pasture ever since.

So that was rushed and off the top of my head. I might retract in all next post. Seems to make sense to me though.

"The apple drove a kind of wedge between God and his creations. God would still walk and talk but men were becoming less familiar with God."

???

How is A & E becoming as Gods, God's own words, a wedge between God and man or man becoming less familiar with God?

Regards
DL

 

[RandomVariable]

When you say old writings and old myths are you referring to the NT?

Yes. Both the new and the old testaments.
I see all scriptures and Gods as myths regardless of the religion.

Regards
DL

New Testament and Old Testament are two completely different books. I can only speak to the Old Testament.

Please do so. Was seeking God pleasant before literalism?

Are you a literalist? If not, do you see Eden as man's elevation the way the Jews do?

Regards
DL

A little background is in order I guess. God spoke to me a few times in my life but I did not know who he was. Last spring he told me to read the OT and I discovered his name is YWHW. Through the OT I have gained some understanding of his ways. I do not claim to be wise, have understanding, knowledge, or any super powers. I am very new not just to the bible but religion as a whole. So when you say 'elevation of man' I have to do an online search to find out what that means. So as far as my religion I am none of the above. I am just some person who talks to God and reads the OT. (KJV or course.)

This is just as I understand what I read. Adam and Eve seem to have been this master plan of man with whom God strolled around the garden. The apple drove a kind of wedge between God and his creations. God would still walk and talk but men were becoming less familiar with God. Maybe it was the number of people there were. I do not know what it means but Genesis 4:26 "... then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." is very significant. Then 5:24 "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not: for God took him." is another milestone in our connection with God. After that comes the flood. I take the flood very literally. Not in that 'water' might have been 'water' but in the actual flood mechanisms. (If that makes sense.) The other side of the flood is a new beginning with God's relation with man and I feel we are getting farther and farther away now. Abraham talked with God, Isaac talked with God, but if you read Jacob's relation with God it was much more disconnected. That then gets us to Joseph. Who was something more of a prophet than one who spoke with God. Next is, drum roll please: Moses! God spoke with Moses the same perhaps as with Isaac but it was very clear, as when God spoke with Moses, Aaron, and Aaron's sister (forgot her name), that Moses was something special. After Moses from what I can tell God never really talks directly to anyone but Samuel but even that seems of a different nature. So what was the question? Oh, yeah. I think God made Adam and Eve as the ideal but gave them will the free will to open the garden gate, so to speak. I think we have been going further and further out to pasture ever since.

So that was rushed and off the top of my head. I might retract in all next post. Seems to make sense to me though.

"The apple drove a kind of wedge between God and his creations. God would still walk and talk but men were becoming less familiar with God."

???

How is A & E becoming as Gods, God's own words, a wedge between God and man or man becoming less familiar with God?

Regards
DL

Look again at who was speaking.

 

[sealybobo]

Was seeking God pleasant before literalism?

We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition. Before this hard line of locked thinking, various religions lived quite comfortably side by side. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.

As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.

In discussions with those who are idol worshipers, discussions are often strained as adherents to a literal God are not allowing themselves the benefits of thinking that is unhindered by what they are told they must believe. This often stifles any good discussion.

Seeker and non-believers on the other hand, even as they may have some pre-conceived notions, tend to be more open to a change of mind. This makes an interesting discussion where an end point and agreement might be gained for whatever issue is being discussed. Wisdom and insight can then be sought without having to contend with some ancient God’s feelings or ancient edicts coming into play.

It is quite possible that my own fundamentalism for my religion has given me too big of a bias to judge this issue well so I seek confirmation on this issue from others here.

Have you found it more pleasant to discuss with non-believers and seekers as compared to literalist Christians and Muslims who are idol worshipers?

Is literalism applicable to such old writings at all?

Is the wisdom of the old myths lost through literal reading?

Regards
DL

How can you, after knowing about all the ancient religions, still not get it that we made up god a long time ago when we were a very primitive species? Isn't it obvious we made him up a long time ago, long before the Abraham religions? Or do you think Zeus was real? If we made him up, why couldn't we have made up Jesus?

Forget the old myths. Start a new.

(1) Question authority. No idea is true just because someone says so, including me.

(2) Think for yourself. Question yourself. Don't believe anything just because you want to. Believing something doesn't make it so.

(3) Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment. If a favorite idea fails a well-designed test, it's wrong. Get over it.

(4) Follow the evidence wherever it leads. If you have no evidence, reserve judgment.

And perhaps the most important rule of all...

(5) Remember: you could be wrong. Even the best scientists have been wrong about some things. Newton, Einstein, and every other great scientist in history -- they all made mistakes. Of course they did. They were human.

Science is a way to keep from fooling ourselves, and each other.

How can any religion pass this test? You've never met god and neither did your ancestors.

 

[GreatestIam]

Yes. Both the new and the old testaments.
I see all scriptures and Gods as myths regardless of the religion.

Regards
DL

New Testament and Old Testament are two completely different books. I can only speak to the Old Testament.

Please do so. Was seeking God pleasant before literalism?

Are you a literalist? If not, do you see Eden as man's elevation the way the Jews do?

Regards
DL

A little background is in order I guess. God spoke to me a few times in my life but I did not know who he was. Last spring he told me to read the OT and I discovered his name is YWHW. Through the OT I have gained some understanding of his ways. I do not claim to be wise, have understanding, knowledge, or any super powers. I am very new not just to the bible but religion as a whole. So when you say 'elevation of man' I have to do an online search to find out what that means. So as far as my religion I am none of the above. I am just some person who talks to God and reads the OT. (KJV or course.)

This is just as I understand what I read. Adam and Eve seem to have been this master plan of man with whom God strolled around the garden. The apple drove a kind of wedge between God and his creations. God would still walk and talk but men were becoming less familiar with God. Maybe it was the number of people there were. I do not know what it means but Genesis 4:26 "... then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." is very significant. Then 5:24 "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not: for God took him." is another milestone in our connection with God. After that comes the flood. I take the flood very literally. Not in that 'water' might have been 'water' but in the actual flood mechanisms. (If that makes sense.) The other side of the flood is a new beginning with God's relation with man and I feel we are getting farther and farther away now. Abraham talked with God, Isaac talked with God, but if you read Jacob's relation with God it was much more disconnected. That then gets us to Joseph. Who was something more of a prophet than one who spoke with God. Next is, drum roll please: Moses! God spoke with Moses the same perhaps as with Isaac but it was very clear, as when God spoke with Moses, Aaron, and Aaron's sister (forgot her name), that Moses was something special. After Moses from what I can tell God never really talks directly to anyone but Samuel but even that seems of a different nature. So what was the question? Oh, yeah. I think God made Adam and Eve as the ideal but gave them will the free will to open the garden gate, so to speak. I think we have been going further and further out to pasture ever since.

So that was rushed and off the top of my head. I might retract in all next post. Seems to make sense to me though.

"The apple drove a kind of wedge between God and his creations. God would still walk and talk but men were becoming less familiar with God."

???

How is A & E becoming as Gods, God's own words, a wedge between God and man or man becoming less familiar with God?

Regards
DL

Look again at who was speaking.

Your child murdering God was.

Answer the question?

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Was seeking God pleasant before literalism?

We know that Christian literalism helped to usher in the Dark Ages and Inquisition. Before this hard line of locked thinking, various religions lived quite comfortably side by side. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.

As a Gnostic Christian who, even after apotheosis, continues to seek God perpetually, I see literalism as idol worship of either the bible or of the God shown in the scriptures. Muslims are also literalists and thus idol worshipers of Allah. This idol worship is often an inhibitor to decent dialog. It seems that the Abrahamic cults have almost all become idol worshipers of their Godinabook.

In discussions with those who are idol worshipers, discussions are often strained as adherents to a literal God are not allowing themselves the benefits of thinking that is unhindered by what they are told they must believe. This often stifles any good discussion.

Seeker and non-believers on the other hand, even as they may have some pre-conceived notions, tend to be more open to a change of mind. This makes an interesting discussion where an end point and agreement might be gained for whatever issue is being discussed. Wisdom and insight can then be sought without having to contend with some ancient God’s feelings or ancient edicts coming into play.

It is quite possible that my own fundamentalism for my religion has given me too big of a bias to judge this issue well so I seek confirmation on this issue from others here.

Have you found it more pleasant to discuss with non-believers and seekers as compared to literalist Christians and Muslims who are idol worshipers?

Is literalism applicable to such old writings at all?

Is the wisdom of the old myths lost through literal reading?

Regards
DL

How can you, after knowing about all the ancient religions, still not get it that we made up god a long time ago when we were a very primitive species? Isn't it obvious we made him up a long time ago, long before the Abraham religions? Or do you think Zeus was real? If we made him up, why couldn't we have made up Jesus?

Forget the old myths. Start a new.

(1) Question authority. No idea is true just because someone says so, including me.

(2) Think for yourself. Question yourself. Don't believe anything just because you want to. Believing something doesn't make it so.

(3) Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment. If a favorite idea fails a well-designed test, it's wrong. Get over it.

(4) Follow the evidence wherever it leads. If you have no evidence, reserve judgment.

And perhaps the most important rule of all...

(5) Remember: you could be wrong. Even the best scientists have been wrong about some things. Newton, Einstein, and every other great scientist in history -- they all made mistakes. Of course they did. They were human.

Science is a way to keep from fooling ourselves, and each other.

How can any religion pass this test? You've never met god and neither did your ancestors.

I am a Gnostic Christian and esoteric ecumenist who recognizes that the only God fit to rule man is a man.

So you preach to the quire my friend. This aside, man creating Gods I think might be a natural thing. Google Father Complex, from Freud and Jung and you will see how it is our instincts that strive to create us the fittest that is at work.

Regards
DL

 

[September]

I asked a Rabbi once how he'd feel if one of his sons converted to Islam, and he said he'd praise God because he believed his child would have found another path to God.

I thought that was badass.

Every Baptist preacher I asked, however, said something along the lines of: "Oh I'd pray that my child wakes up from that evil religion and accepts Jesus as their personal lord and savior instead of that false prophet Muhammad, and praise God instead of Allah so that they don't burn in Hell when they die!"

I believe, whether what was said was to be taken literally or not, that the Rabbi had the stronger, wiser, more accurate mindset.

​

 

[GreatestIam]

I asked a Rabbi once how he'd feel if one of his sons converted to Islam, and he said he'd praise God because he believed his child would have found another path to God.

I thought that was badass.

Every Baptist preacher I asked, however, said something along the lines of: "Oh I'd pray that my child wakes up from that evil religion and accepts Jesus as their personal lord and savior instead of that false prophet Muhammad, and praise God instead of Allah so that they don't burn in Hell when they die!"

I believe, whether what was said was to be taken literally or not, that the Rabbi had the stronger, wiser, more accurate mindset.

​

To be happy that a child goes from one tribe to another but still remain a sheep instead of a goat shows a father who cannot think for himself and wants the same defect within his child.

Such a father is not worthy of that title. He should want a free son and not a slave to a fantasy God of any kind. He should want a leader in his child and not a follower.

Regards
DL

 

[RandomVariable]

New Testament and Old Testament are two completely different books. I can only speak to the Old Testament.

Please do so. Was seeking God pleasant before literalism?

Are you a literalist? If not, do you see Eden as man's elevation the way the Jews do?

Regards
DL

A little background is in order I guess. God spoke to me a few times in my life but I did not know who he was. Last spring he told me to read the OT and I discovered his name is YWHW. Through the OT I have gained some understanding of his ways. I do not claim to be wise, have understanding, knowledge, or any super powers. I am very new not just to the bible but religion as a whole. So when you say 'elevation of man' I have to do an online search to find out what that means. So as far as my religion I am none of the above. I am just some person who talks to God and reads the OT. (KJV or course.)

This is just as I understand what I read. Adam and Eve seem to have been this master plan of man with whom God strolled around the garden. The apple drove a kind of wedge between God and his creations. God would still walk and talk but men were becoming less familiar with God. Maybe it was the number of people there were. I do not know what it means but Genesis 4:26 "... then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." is very significant. Then 5:24 "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not: for God took him." is another milestone in our connection with God. After that comes the flood. I take the flood very literally. Not in that 'water' might have been 'water' but in the actual flood mechanisms. (If that makes sense.) The other side of the flood is a new beginning with God's relation with man and I feel we are getting farther and farther away now. Abraham talked with God, Isaac talked with God, but if you read Jacob's relation with God it was much more disconnected. That then gets us to Joseph. Who was something more of a prophet than one who spoke with God. Next is, drum roll please: Moses! God spoke with Moses the same perhaps as with Isaac but it was very clear, as when God spoke with Moses, Aaron, and Aaron's sister (forgot her name), that Moses was something special. After Moses from what I can tell God never really talks directly to anyone but Samuel but even that seems of a different nature. So what was the question? Oh, yeah. I think God made Adam and Eve as the ideal but gave them will the free will to open the garden gate, so to speak. I think we have been going further and further out to pasture ever since.

So that was rushed and off the top of my head. I might retract in all next post. Seems to make sense to me though.

"The apple drove a kind of wedge between God and his creations. God would still walk and talk but men were becoming less familiar with God."

???

How is A & E becoming as Gods, God's own words, a wedge between God and man or man becoming less familiar with God?

Regards
DL

Look again at who was speaking.

Your child murdering God was.

Answer the question?

Regards
DL

Genesis 3:4-5

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.​

 

[GreatestIam]

Please do so. Was seeking God pleasant before literalism?

Are you a literalist? If not, do you see Eden as man's elevation the way the Jews do?

Regards
DL

A little background is in order I guess. God spoke to me a few times in my life but I did not know who he was. Last spring he told me to read the OT and I discovered his name is YWHW. Through the OT I have gained some understanding of his ways. I do not claim to be wise, have understanding, knowledge, or any super powers. I am very new not just to the bible but religion as a whole. So when you say 'elevation of man' I have to do an online search to find out what that means. So as far as my religion I am none of the above. I am just some person who talks to God and reads the OT. (KJV or course.)

This is just as I understand what I read. Adam and Eve seem to have been this master plan of man with whom God strolled around the garden. The apple drove a kind of wedge between God and his creations. God would still walk and talk but men were becoming less familiar with God. Maybe it was the number of people there were. I do not know what it means but Genesis 4:26 "... then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." is very significant. Then 5:24 "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not: for God took him." is another milestone in our connection with God. After that comes the flood. I take the flood very literally. Not in that 'water' might have been 'water' but in the actual flood mechanisms. (If that makes sense.) The other side of the flood is a new beginning with God's relation with man and I feel we are getting farther and farther away now. Abraham talked with God, Isaac talked with God, but if you read Jacob's relation with God it was much more disconnected. That then gets us to Joseph. Who was something more of a prophet than one who spoke with God. Next is, drum roll please: Moses! God spoke with Moses the same perhaps as with Isaac but it was very clear, as when God spoke with Moses, Aaron, and Aaron's sister (forgot her name), that Moses was something special. After Moses from what I can tell God never really talks directly to anyone but Samuel but even that seems of a different nature. So what was the question? Oh, yeah. I think God made Adam and Eve as the ideal but gave them will the free will to open the garden gate, so to speak. I think we have been going further and further out to pasture ever since.

So that was rushed and off the top of my head. I might retract in all next post. Seems to make sense to me though.

"The apple drove a kind of wedge between God and his creations. God would still walk and talk but men were becoming less familiar with God."

???

How is A & E becoming as Gods, God's own words, a wedge between God and man or man becoming less familiar with God?

Regards
DL

Look again at who was speaking.

Your child murdering God was.

Answer the question?

Regards
DL

Genesis 3:4-5

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.​

Is it good to have ones mental eyes open?

How is A & E becoming as Gods, God's own words, a wedge between God and man or man becoming less familiar with God?

We have gone full circle so start communicating or get lost.

Regards
DL

 

[RandomVariable]

A little background is in order I guess. God spoke to me a few times in my life but I did not know who he was. Last spring he told me to read the OT and I discovered his name is YWHW. Through the OT I have gained some understanding of his ways. I do not claim to be wise, have understanding, knowledge, or any super powers. I am very new not just to the bible but religion as a whole. So when you say 'elevation of man' I have to do an online search to find out what that means. So as far as my religion I am none of the above. I am just some person who talks to God and reads the OT. (KJV or course.)

This is just as I understand what I read. Adam and Eve seem to have been this master plan of man with whom God strolled around the garden. The apple drove a kind of wedge between God and his creations. God would still walk and talk but men were becoming less familiar with God. Maybe it was the number of people there were. I do not know what it means but Genesis 4:26 "... then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." is very significant. Then 5:24 "And Enoch walked with God: and he was not: for God took him." is another milestone in our connection with God. After that comes the flood. I take the flood very literally. Not in that 'water' might have been 'water' but in the actual flood mechanisms. (If that makes sense.) The other side of the flood is a new beginning with God's relation with man and I feel we are getting farther and farther away now. Abraham talked with God, Isaac talked with God, but if you read Jacob's relation with God it was much more disconnected. That then gets us to Joseph. Who was something more of a prophet than one who spoke with God. Next is, drum roll please: Moses! God spoke with Moses the same perhaps as with Isaac but it was very clear, as when God spoke with Moses, Aaron, and Aaron's sister (forgot her name), that Moses was something special. After Moses from what I can tell God never really talks directly to anyone but Samuel but even that seems of a different nature. So what was the question? Oh, yeah. I think God made Adam and Eve as the ideal but gave them will the free will to open the garden gate, so to speak. I think we have been going further and further out to pasture ever since.

So that was rushed and off the top of my head. I might retract in all next post. Seems to make sense to me though.

"The apple drove a kind of wedge between God and his creations. God would still walk and talk but men were becoming less familiar with God."

???

How is A & E becoming as Gods, God's own words, a wedge between God and man or man becoming less familiar with God?

Regards
DL

Look again at who was speaking.

Your child murdering God was.

Answer the question?

Regards
DL

Genesis 3:4-5

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.​

Is it good to have ones mental eyes open?

How is A & E becoming as Gods, God's own words, a wedge between God and man or man becoming less familiar with God?

We have gone full circle so start communicating or get lost.

Regards
DL

I have given this question some thought and study. You are correct that Genesis 3:22 states that God does say A&E has become as us. I would not be too quick to make assumptions however. A horse is as us as in we are both mammals. I believe most people are unfamiliar with the OT except the stories in Genesis and bits of Exodus. People run to Genesis to understand God and man. They make very blunt conclusions and then pass judgement on God based on what they think they just read in Genesis. I also have gone through Genesis looking for the nature of God and the meaning of life but have given that up. I am looking for something else.

You want to draw blunt conclusions from the first three chapters, maybe four, of the bible. You do not want to think of yourself as a child and you seem to have some family issues you really need to deal with. The only thing you are asking from others is to prove yourself right. Congratulations, you are right. Now go happily live your life without God.

The only thing I think I did learn from chasing shadows through the pages of the bible was when I had come full circle (nice term) and back to Job was I realized Job was a trader. He had 7 thousand sheep, 3 thousand camel, 500 oxen, and 500 asses. That many camels and he had to be in the transportation business, i.e. trader. Not the meaning of life, or the nature of God, but it was something. Thanks I guess.

 

[GreatestIam]

"The apple drove a kind of wedge between God and his creations. God would still walk and talk but men were becoming less familiar with God."

???

How is A & E becoming as Gods, God's own words, a wedge between God and man or man becoming less familiar with God?

Regards
DL

Look again at who was speaking.

Your child murdering God was.

Answer the question?

Regards
DL

Genesis 3:4-5

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.​

Is it good to have ones mental eyes open?

How is A & E becoming as Gods, God's own words, a wedge between God and man or man becoming less familiar with God?

We have gone full circle so start communicating or get lost.

Regards
DL

I have given this question some thought and study. You are correct that Genesis 3:22 states that God does say A&E has become as us. I would not be too quick to make assumptions however. A horse is as us as in we are both mammals.
.

Yes but you forget that God said --- And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

We are not livestock.

Seems your thoughts do not run too deep.

Let me help you.

Regards
DL

 

[RandomVariable]

Look again at who was speaking.

Your child murdering God was.

Answer the question?

Regards
DL

Genesis 3:4-5

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.​

Is it good to have ones mental eyes open?

How is A & E becoming as Gods, God's own words, a wedge between God and man or man becoming less familiar with God?

We have gone full circle so start communicating or get lost.

Regards
DL

I have given this question some thought and study. You are correct that Genesis 3:22 states that God does say A&E has become as us. I would not be too quick to make assumptions however. A horse is as us as in we are both mammals.
.

Yes but you forget that God said --- And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

We are not livestock.

Seems your thoughts do not run too deep.

Let me help you.

Regards
DL

(Why do I get the distinct impress that this is going to go back and forth for a while and then you will insult me and put me on ignore. If so please do it now and save both of us some time and effort.)

Yes, I mentioned the "as one of us". I did not address the "to know good and evil" but I do not see what the point of that would be but to muddle the issue.

We are not livestock but neither are we gods and neither were A&E.

Deep thoughts require digging to find. When I am working on something I try to keep everything I need in short term memory.

Please help away. I welcome anything which will either directly or even indirectly unlock one more piece of the puzzle.