In taken the story literally or symbolically
Without conscience (from witch the main knowledge is based on experiences) of what is “REALLY” right/good or wrong/bad anybody is still a kid = not mature.
I don’t think that there is a kid who did not disobey even to the best loving mom or dad out of conscience of insignificants to heavy consequences (lucky is the one who only had to deal with insignificant consequences and had the time to know and become conscious by maturity from other peoples experiences about what can have heavy consequences).
No doubt I would have eaten that fruit – and the main reason is that I’m curious (and kids not knowing much feel that there is so much more even from basic stuff to discovers and participate than adults).
Note that in this story in being adult and perfect PHYSICALLY from the start (no pregnancy - no kid before the bug) and I doubt that they wouldn't have been curious about sex (since they were supposed to have lots of example on the what and how from beasts ... LOL)
Curiosity is inherent to creativity and the first thing witch comes in mind regarding God is it’s creativity – if made out of IT nor at his image – as long as not conscious of the need to be careful by experience in any matter we can fail and have to deal (ourselves and anybody who is concerned) with the consequences.
So anyway any have to reach maturity by experiences (his and others ones – all together) and experience leads to set priorities which lead to best choices regarding to the main purpose of our heart (it’s nature).
Still we are not alone in the universe and will never be, if our purpose is only related to ourselves (means without conscience about others) we are still missing too much maturity which inevitably can lead us to be a bug in the matrix (LOL) and cumulating the consequences of what we did/do, with the consequences of what others did/do.
Through that most do learn and grow up in understanding that our interdependance doesn't allow us to be selfish/Egocentric at least - and everything else comes along about the need of everyone about everything to pay attention to each other that's a part of justice = balance witch have to include understanding that : we aren't the same (globally), we do not have the same experiences, the same level of maturity, natural gifls and potential in everything and that therefore not only we can't force anyone to be exacly like us (even God didn't in this story).but it wouldn't be really exiting to be all the same in too much matters.
So every spirit worth to existe regarding their potential to bring something different/new (creativity) wich is an absolute need regarding eternity (LOL - you really have to considare that point in this case) weither you think it's would be on earth as human, wherever as a spirit, a spirit in essence in multiple peaces all mixed together (same needs - peace for maximum good creativity). Also dividing all the potential in multiple spirits is the only way to make sure we really want to share them all to get it allexponentially. We really need to know that we are all worthy (when not selfish/Egocentric). That's why the only principle wich stands for good is love others as yoursef (it makes so much sense).
a Christian (about your post) Very good shot (to me)
everything you said from :
But because we can do wrong and often do, and because God can't do wrong and never does …I would have loved to elaborate in a less religious and most spiritual meaning - what it means to me - (not for Christians but for atheists and agnostics – since to me everything in this book is at first symbolic – to the point be declinable religiously to conceptually for what is material to immaterial and spiritually for what is consciousness which leads to conscience = aware consciousness). Just because the religious way in talking too much about being sinners is hiding that we really need to know that we are all worthy (when not selfish/Egocentric). If you keep on telling a kid or anyone that he is not worthy ... guess what ? their much risk that he won't bother to show you what he is capable of ... or will but for have been hold or being held in contempt he might not show the best part of his capacities (and feel right about that).
Still I don’t think that there is an efficient way to do it without bothering them with hundreds sentences in lines … LOL … so no attempt … I guess there will be some occasions to put it by peaces.
That's too long already !!!
Posts by RAF
-
-
-
RAF
-
384
A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."
by Terry inon what basis did god so love the world?.
the world of mankind had been condemned to death by god's curse in eden!.
god viewed mankind as "dust on the scales".
-
-
RAF
Langage barrier ? ...
This post Terry is to let know that I've read your answer ... I feel that I shouldn't go further on this after what you've said (in a very nice way) - I was about to give up anyway at some point there no good to insist ... Still remember it's not a personal matter, I truly like to scrutenize arguments (it's a very good exercice) ...
Read you soon probably (on an other thread) -
36
Is "consciousness" overrated?
by Narkissos indisclaimer: this is the rambling of a french mind, where the single word conscience embraces what the english language distinguishes as "conscience," "consciousness," "awareness," and is closely related to connaissance, "knowledge".. to this french mind "consciousness" appears as a wonderful yet bittersweet product of reflection (the specular or "mirror" metaphor being central to it).
although it is objectively related to animal sentience, our view of consciousness, i think, is entirely dependent on the seminal technique (the "technique of techniques," as french theologian gabriel vahanian put it) of language / symbolism (the ability to point to "things" even though absent or non-existent) and imagination (representing "things" on our inner and cultural "mind map"), from which both memory and anticipation as we know it derive.
functionally it serves a practical purpose, which is precisely technique: through this way of dealing with "things" we can "change" them.
-
-
RAF
Thanks
Always pleased to read NARK ... as well as to meet you (my sister would like either - whenever you feel like ... my coordinates by PM)
-
384
A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."
by Terry inon what basis did god so love the world?.
the world of mankind had been condemned to death by god's curse in eden!.
god viewed mankind as "dust on the scales".
-
-
RAF
I've' already replied Terry (why i'm only talking about what I'm talking about) but you do not aknowlegde (deny) ... You want me to elaborate on a subject wich is discussed over and over on this board since years ? And dealing from A to Z on this subject with distorted arguments like yours ... Oh no please ... (what I did, takes me already too much time but it's still ok til now so there I am answering again) ...
About "fooling" you forgot the other possibility,but I guess you don't feel concerned again. Note that I've talked about conscious or inconcious ways ... Since your ways doesn't change - for instance :
after your : I can't be wrong (without proving it but with sophism or pure denials - do you ever call into question your arguments ?), now its about why are you so fascinated by me and why are you picking on me especially ... (Terry this have nothing to do with fascination, think about it ...), its not "all" about you (but you are concerned since you've wrote what I'm talking about). I'm just sharing my opinion on whatever I want to (you can ignore it, just as you'd like me to ignore yours) - but I won't, if I want to voice my opinion. And why often on your thread, because you like to tell people to think from your arguments, so I give you and others the output of my thinkings.
But if you want to know, about you to me, it is not about what is distorted in your ways and arguments (and about arguments I just need to read and think objectivily to get the point on that) the only question is aboutwhy your ways and arguments are distorted but that's about you exactly and I don't know you for real (I may have an idea but nothing will tell me if its right or wrong without knowing you for real and even then not sure I could have the answer either) but I won't make it something I need to know.Still I feel that the reason(s) is/are deep, I just hope for you that it is not painfull.
-
36
Is "consciousness" overrated?
by Narkissos indisclaimer: this is the rambling of a french mind, where the single word conscience embraces what the english language distinguishes as "conscience," "consciousness," "awareness," and is closely related to connaissance, "knowledge".. to this french mind "consciousness" appears as a wonderful yet bittersweet product of reflection (the specular or "mirror" metaphor being central to it).
although it is objectively related to animal sentience, our view of consciousness, i think, is entirely dependent on the seminal technique (the "technique of techniques," as french theologian gabriel vahanian put it) of language / symbolism (the ability to point to "things" even though absent or non-existent) and imagination (representing "things" on our inner and cultural "mind map"), from which both memory and anticipation as we know it derive.
functionally it serves a practical purpose, which is precisely technique: through this way of dealing with "things" we can "change" them.
-
-
RAF
There are 2 kinds of consciousness
- Perception
Related to what we can feel (objectively/ in concrete terms or subjectively/ in abstract terms) - Discernment
Related to the sincerity which is a form of reality/truth (A) on what we know but also (B)what we ignore, since we can’t know everything and rather be aware of that (and that’s a knowledge somehow).
(A) For instance crisis of consciousness actually means, crisis of sincerity (the contrary of hypocrisy) or as an other example
(B) without proof there is still the benefit of the doubt.So to me : consciousness can be overrated (for being consciousness) by missing experiences (= knowledge) and over racked by influences, but then we are only talking about self/influenced “perception” not “discernment”.
- Perception
-
53
Without God - Questions?
by Blueblades inwithout god, what is left of morality?.
without god, what purpose is there in man's life?.
if we do not believe in god, how can we be certain of anything?
-
-
RAF
I know the answers to these type of questions, do you?
Ok to me :
Replace God by pure Love (= AGAPE = inconditional love = without Ego triping to be objective) and (to me) you've got God's name or let's say God's spirit in action
So it comes out like this :Without pure love, what is left of morality?
Without pure love, what purpose is there in man's life?
If we do not believe in pure love, how can we be certain of anything? (is being certain of certain thing really important out of pure love and pure bullshit ?)
If pure love does not exist, whom can we turn to in a time of crises?
If there is no afterlife, who will reward virtue and punish injustice? (What's interesting in afterlife without pure love to be able to live/share happilly ?)
If pure love (inducing compassion) not exist, what becomes of the worth and dignity of each person?
Without pure love, how can man achieve happiness?
Do we agree or what ?
-
384
A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."
by Terry inon what basis did god so love the world?.
the world of mankind had been condemned to death by god's curse in eden!.
god viewed mankind as "dust on the scales".
-
-
RAF
Oy (Sorry but I feel free, since it doesn't hurt - does it hurt ?),
Just wanted to read today but Ok just one thing because I feel that you don't feel concernedbyyour own WILD assertions (double standard syndrom I guess).
Isn't that a wild assertion ? (Not to mention all the others you generaly do)
Once you destroy theintegrity of your own vocabulary through rhetorical distortions, you cease to be able to think rationally!
That's exactly what you did ... (did you realised that ?) and I won't get into all your rhetorical distortions in wild assertions you do use as answers or examples (so misplaced most of the time to be really accurate that they become sophism) to accomodate them to your own postulates (you've probably learned that from JWland). Also it would have been more right to be very clear on the matter (as a wild right assertion) to say this: When you destroy the integrity of vocabularary through rhetorical distortions, if inconsciouly ; you cease to be able to think rationally ; if consciously : you are trying to fool people(for some reason : any) .
A wild assertion can be right or wrong, if wrong (regarding any matter) I guess there's a reason to put the finger on it "just to make things clear" about the value of "any" argument using IT because then, it have its place in any specific context. -
-
-
RAF
... (LOL)
-
-
-
RAF
I don't know for real, I guess that again it's something that anyone can do and feel in lots of differents ways (all together or only one) depending on how and what any feel about the matter and they're potential hability /natural gifts to be able to accomplish themself as a christian (if we are talking about christianity) ... It looks like in being different to be balanced (for our own needs - to be able to stand and support others needs with detachement and without frustration) we probably don't need the exact same thing and won't act and react the exact same ways regarding the same matter ... that's why I did adhere to Christ doctrine for being based on only one principle ... not that it makes things easier to accomplish ourself but at least easier to get a clue about what's really important when there is something important to pay attention to around us to far from us ... I mean, we won't save the world (that's not an individual job - not even a material job - but a spiritual job - most related to mentality) but we can bring a lot with the little that we are able to give/share and protect.
-
384
A STUNNINGLY simple question about JOHN 3:16 "For God so Loved the world."
by Terry inon what basis did god so love the world?.
the world of mankind had been condemned to death by god's curse in eden!.
god viewed mankind as "dust on the scales".
-
-
RAF
Right ... (about the fact that I've took "this" from a statement ... not regarding to what you were talking about) note that I didn't said I was talking about the subject ... And it doesn't matter ... Why ? because your statement is a sophismregarding to what is a "potential" ... so simply put (regarding to any topic) : whenever you feel like to play a REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM game why doing it with an ABSURD statements (wish doesn't look like, but is absurd/false regarding to the statement itself) ?
And if I jumped on it (that's a way to put it) ... it is just because most of the time when I'm reading you that's what I read : lots of sophisms ... So once in while I guess I feel like to put the finger on it (not everytime when I read those stuffs, it would be tiring) so don't worry I won't spoil your playground very often.