The adversary is within

@josephw said
Correction; both disobeyed.

Ok, to answer your question; assuming you won't go off on me because you think I'm nuts for believing the creation account given in Genesis, I'll give it my best shot. Please try not to let your eyes glaze over because I realize how difficult it is for someone to accept bibliology as credible.

A being of infinite perfection. The only one of H ...[text shortened]... we have an incredible opportunity to be a part of it.

There will be a new heaven and a new earth.

No, I don't think you're nuts. But here's the bit I don't get. God creates a lesser being in His own image, with a certain capacity (freewill, a capacity for making choices), but then He says to the lesser being, in effect, 'Here, I give you this marvelous capacity, in My image, but I forbid you to exercise it. You must continue to do as I tell you, you must continue to follow My rules and not make up your own.'

I quote from the Book of Genesis, after God has interrogated them about eating the forbidden fruit of the knowledge of good and evil:

[3:22] Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil;

https://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/genesis/documents/bible_genesis_en.html

The man has become "like one of us" knowing good and evil -- us what? or who? Like us immortals, obviously, us gods and angels.

But God made the man to be like Him, in His image in the first place, with a capacity for making good and evil choices; and now the God condemns the man for just that capacity (which God gave him). It makes no sense.

Furthermore,

[3:22] ... "and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" [God speaking]
[3:23] therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.


God realizes that the man, having gained a knowledge of good and evil, might gain something even greater: he might gain immortality, by eating of a second tree, of which God had not previously spoken or forbidden the man to eat of.

Whoa, nelly! Eternal life was possible for the man in paradise, but God forbade it him -- and then some generations later, after a lot of sinning, Jesus shows up and promises what was previously made inaccessible to Adam, to make his progeny both god-like in a knowledge of good and evil and immortal? This is incoherent. I mean really incoherent. Please don't leap to the conclusion that I think God made a mistake. I'm saying the story is massively incoherent. So incoherent, that it cannot be taken to be a factual, literal history of events which really happened as described.

It makes sense, as @fmf contends, only as some kind of fairy tale, as an allegory with a moral.

@moonbus said
No, I don't think you're nuts. But here's the bit I don't get. God creates a lesser being in His own image, with a certain capacity (freewill, a capacity for making choices), but then He says to the lesser being, in effect, 'Here, I give you this marvelous capacity, in My image, but I forbid you to exercise it. You must continue to do as I tell you, you must continue to follo ...[text shortened]... .

It makes sense, as @fmf contends, only as some kind of fairy tale, as an allegory with a moral.

Yours are reasonable doubts and questions, and I will respond, but it's getting late in the day.

I hope you'll find my reply here in this thread in the next few days. Probably Thursday. I need more time.

@fmf said
"There is no being called "Satan".

No being is leading a "rebellion" and there are no "willing accomplices" etc.

It's all metaphor wrapped up in a gruesome fairytale intended for superstitious minds.

None of that.

The adversary is within."

Thoughts?

Leaving the notion of Satan aside, there is something to this.

I vaguely remember some quotation about something something, but someone who conquers themself something something.

In Islam, jihad is also a struggle against one's worst tendencies, not just waging war against infidels.

In the Tanya of Judaism, the struggle between lower and higher somethings seems to be the core topic.

Leaving religions aside, one might still struggle to be kind and considerate instead of rapacious and self-serving, even aside from having to struggle against the potentially deranging influences of whatever techo-blizzards one invites (or passively allows) into one's mind.

But as the Essenes reportedly or at least putatively advised, "Don't let yourself get whirled around by events."

@kevin-eleven said
Leaving the notion of Satan aside, there is something to this.

I vaguely remember some quotation about something something, but someone who conquers themself something something.

In Islam, jihad is also a struggle against one's worst tendencies, not just waging war against infidels.

In the Tanya of Judaism, the struggle between lower and higher somethings seems ...[text shortened]... ssenes reportedly or at least putatively advised, "Don't let yourself get whirled around by events."

On the other hand, stubbornly thinking "I'm a person of integrity and I'm gonna maintain this core of my personally cultivated personality despite the whirlwind of events and the blizzards of techno-mental clutter" might be considered overly egocentric -- but by whom?

@moonbus said
No, I don't think you're nuts. But here's the bit I don't get. God creates a lesser being in His own image, with a certain capacity (freewill, a capacity for making choices), but then He says to the lesser being, in effect, 'Here, I give you this marvelous capacity, in My image, but I forbid you to exercise it. You must continue to do as I tell you, you must continue to follo ...[text shortened]... .

It makes sense, as @fmf contends, only as some kind of fairy tale, as an allegory with a moral.

I want a chance to respond to this if it is okay?

God gave them free will and only restricted one thing out of everything else, just one. That is not forbidding it to be exercised except trusting what God said would happen if they did the only thing God told them not to do. Following the rules of the One who created them and everything else seems to be wise. But the tempter gave them cause to disobey by simply doubting God at His Word, in a creation made by God. It wasn't an issue of not having faith in God, who was who they knew Him to be; they had no doubt about God and still fell.

Concerning denying them eternal life, that was a blessing because they would have lived forever in a corrupt state, while with death, we could be redeemed. Unlike the heavenly host that rebelled, they were locked into their state because they were immortal, which means their punishment would be along those lines.

@kevin-eleven said
Leaving the notion of Satan aside, there is something to this.

I vaguely remember some quotation about something something, but someone who conquers themself something something.

In Islam, jihad is also a struggle against one's worst tendencies, not just waging war against infidels.

In the Tanya of Judaism, the struggle between lower and higher somethings seems ...[text shortened]... ssenes reportedly or at least putatively advised, "Don't let yourself get whirled around by events."

Sorry to practitioners and the devout of non-Christian religions, such as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jain -- sure, I'm a self-damaging idiot for ever participating in this forum, but I do appreciate the mature example of others who play chess on this site and at least stay out of this deeply benighted forum in particular. You have the right idea.

80:01

@kellyjay said
I want a chance to respond to this if it is okay?

Why are you asking Moonbus for his permission to post?

@josephw said
Been there, done that, and you even refused to look at the evidence.

The mere fact of your denial of the veracity of the scriptures alone is evidence for your own incoherency.

When you left behind the scriptures you opened yourself up to error.

Give me the page and post number of that thread and you have my word that I’ll go look at it.

But we both know that all you did was bluster and accuse.

@josephw said
🙉 lalalalala I can't hear you!

Could be your epitaph.

@josephw said
Yours are reasonable doubts and questions, and I will respond, but it's getting late in the day.

I hope you'll find my reply here in this thread in the next few days. Probably Thursday. I need more time.

No hurry.

@FMF

The adversary is within."

So what is the adversarial relationship with the person in whom the adversary is and the adversary ?

What are they adverse with each other ABOUT ?

@sonship said
@FMF

The adversary is within."

So what is the adversarial relationship with the person in whom the adversary is and the adversary ?

Everyone wrestles with their conscience at times.

@FMF

Everyone wrestles with their conscience at times.

Of a truth.
Well, you won that argument.

Now, why is it that we are not totally at peace all the time with this conscience?

Would someone else then more directly answer this question ?

So what is the adversarial relationship with the person in whom the adversary is and the adversary ?

What are they adverse with each other ABOUT ?

What the advaserial relationship arise between a man and the concscience of that man?

What is the adversity about?
What are they adveserial sometimes about ?

@sonship said
Now, why is it that we are not totally at peace all the time with this conscience?

It is human nature. We have our moral compasses to guide us, but sometimes when we weigh the benefit [to us] of an action against its detriment to others, it creates a dilemma that our conscience wrestles with.