WT world is the representation of the world outside. For example Einstein found out that: “Our separation of each other is an optical illusion of consciousness.” Though Einstein’s insights revolutionized physicists’ view of space/time “reality”, we haven’t yet changed our way of thinking about such “reality”. Until now, most of Humanity has mistakenly kept behaving as if we are separated from each other and from Nature, and not part of it. This behavior has resulted in continuing selfishness, cruelty, wars and unsustainable and disharmonious exploitation of our precious planet. JWs feel they were specially blessed by God while others are pagans. They appeal to the individual’s sense of importance. They preach that you are special and your life has a grand purpose while the world is in darkness ….
Posts by venus
-
22Who holds the Burden Of Proof?
by stuckinarut2 inwhen we as former witnesses wake up and choose to leave the society, it is mainly because we value truth and honesty.. the society tries to make out that we are in the wrong.
that we have "left the truth".. but, who really holds the burden of proof?
do we (who leave) need to prove that the society is not the "truth", or does the society need to prove that it is the "truth".. thoughts?.
-
-
-
22
Who holds the Burden Of Proof?
by stuckinarut2 inwhen we as former witnesses wake up and choose to leave the society, it is mainly because we value truth and honesty.. the society tries to make out that we are in the wrong.
that we have "left the truth".. but, who really holds the burden of proof?
do we (who leave) need to prove that the society is not the "truth", or does the society need to prove that it is the "truth".. thoughts?.
-
-
venus
They will not accept the proof. For example, try giving one example of a bible verse which every knows as "not being inspired"! They would not accept it.
Hence no point in proving them wrong.
-
42
“Tree of good and bad” means what?
by venus inif “tree of good and bad” were literal, it would mean adam and eve would know what is “good and bad” only after eating of that tree.
however, even before eating of it, they would think “it is good for us to eat of this tree” which means they are already endowed knowledge of “good and bad.” that means “tree of good and bad” is symbolic of something.. since religious organizations interpret this differently, each reader has to adopt his own conclusion.
for me it looks like this: one thinks of good and bad in relation to himself—if something is beneficial for him he would say it is good for him, and bad for him if it is not beneficial.
-
-
venus
David_Jay,
That means through this allegorical story, Moses was preparing a mind-set in Jews that ‘disobedience to God’s first law brought calamity, hence ensure obedience to the Law that is going to be given now which would only benefit you.’
Thank you very much for this really great insight you gave. This understanding through the minds of Jews help to understand other parts of the Bible too.
-
3
“Evil,” according to Jesus
by venus injesus defines “evil” in mathew 7:21-23: .
“not everyone who says to me, ‘lord, lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my father who is in heaven.
many will say to me on that day, ‘lord, lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ then i will tell them plainly, ‘i never knew you.
-
-
venus
Jesus defines “evil” in Mathew 7:21-23:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ [“you who practice evil, International Standard Version]”
Thus Evil means:
Calling Jesus “Lord,” prophesying/preaching in his name, driving out demons and performing many miracles in ignorance of Father’s will [treating every human being as child of God, not as pagan—Mathew 7:12].
This definition is understood by ordinary people only (Mathew 11:25)
-
42
“Tree of good and bad” means what?
by venus inif “tree of good and bad” were literal, it would mean adam and eve would know what is “good and bad” only after eating of that tree.
however, even before eating of it, they would think “it is good for us to eat of this tree” which means they are already endowed knowledge of “good and bad.” that means “tree of good and bad” is symbolic of something.. since religious organizations interpret this differently, each reader has to adopt his own conclusion.
for me it looks like this: one thinks of good and bad in relation to himself—if something is beneficial for him he would say it is good for him, and bad for him if it is not beneficial.
-
-
venus
I agree with you—story is the best humans could think of as the reason behind their fall. God is no where in the picture.
-
42
“Tree of good and bad” means what?
by venus inif “tree of good and bad” were literal, it would mean adam and eve would know what is “good and bad” only after eating of that tree.
however, even before eating of it, they would think “it is good for us to eat of this tree” which means they are already endowed knowledge of “good and bad.” that means “tree of good and bad” is symbolic of something.. since religious organizations interpret this differently, each reader has to adopt his own conclusion.
for me it looks like this: one thinks of good and bad in relation to himself—if something is beneficial for him he would say it is good for him, and bad for him if it is not beneficial.
-
-
venus
Deegee,
Nice point: “God did not alert Adam and Eve to the presence of the snake or instruct them to avoid it.”
If account is really from God, He would have included that valid point too. That shows account of tree of good and bad is the imagination humans who best thought of the reason behind humans’ fall—and that is the best they could think of.
If man is really created His image, God doesn’t have to instruct him about any matter—humans will do exactly what God would do if He were on earth.
If tree were not literal, then snake also could not have been literal. Snake may be symbol of sin which has access to man wherever he is.
-
42
“Tree of good and bad” means what?
by venus inif “tree of good and bad” were literal, it would mean adam and eve would know what is “good and bad” only after eating of that tree.
however, even before eating of it, they would think “it is good for us to eat of this tree” which means they are already endowed knowledge of “good and bad.” that means “tree of good and bad” is symbolic of something.. since religious organizations interpret this differently, each reader has to adopt his own conclusion.
for me it looks like this: one thinks of good and bad in relation to himself—if something is beneficial for him he would say it is good for him, and bad for him if it is not beneficial.
-
-
venus
Halfbana,
Myths are like traffic lights--Red, Green, Amber. which are not simply physical objects. They carry specific messages. A story doesn't have to be historical, but the point is that it should carry some message.
Tree of good and bad carry the message how humanity had a fall. They fell when they listened to their ego and gone into exile of unhappiness and suffering.
That means:
Ego creates suffering (as shown by First Adam)
Suffering destroys ego (as shown by Second Adam--Jesus)
-
42
“Tree of good and bad” means what?
by venus inif “tree of good and bad” were literal, it would mean adam and eve would know what is “good and bad” only after eating of that tree.
however, even before eating of it, they would think “it is good for us to eat of this tree” which means they are already endowed knowledge of “good and bad.” that means “tree of good and bad” is symbolic of something.. since religious organizations interpret this differently, each reader has to adopt his own conclusion.
for me it looks like this: one thinks of good and bad in relation to himself—if something is beneficial for him he would say it is good for him, and bad for him if it is not beneficial.
-
-
venus
Irishdub wrote: "I think the whole point of the story (real or myth) is who do we trust ?"
If one's life is compared to a garden, his ego stands "in the middle of the garden," around which all his intentions revolve.
In the OP, I have suggested EGO is the tree of good and bad.
Hence question is: Whom should we listen to--God or ego?
-
42
“Tree of good and bad” means what?
by venus inif “tree of good and bad” were literal, it would mean adam and eve would know what is “good and bad” only after eating of that tree.
however, even before eating of it, they would think “it is good for us to eat of this tree” which means they are already endowed knowledge of “good and bad.” that means “tree of good and bad” is symbolic of something.. since religious organizations interpret this differently, each reader has to adopt his own conclusion.
for me it looks like this: one thinks of good and bad in relation to himself—if something is beneficial for him he would say it is good for him, and bad for him if it is not beneficial.
-
-
venus
notalone,
You brought an excellent point: "The term 'of good and bad' could also mean 'everything'.
That would mean they were forbidden from doing anything. This is an indication that story was poorly copied from other cultures.
-
7
The Resurrection narrative can make perfect sense if you consider it to be a lie.
by Island Man inthere are aspects to the resurrection story that seem unnecessary but make perfect sense if you consider them as patches to shore up the lie of jesus' resurrection.. (1) why did there have to be angels present at jesus' resurrection?
there is no other resurrection account in the bible that mentions the involvement of angels.. possible explanation: jesus' disciples really did steal jesus' body from the tomb.
two or three of them ambushed and knocked/drugged unconscious the guards on the scene before stealing the body.
-
-
venus
If his resurrection was historical, all the four gospels would have given exactly the same details about it. Mark 16:8 shows the first ones who were told of his resurrection were "Trembling and bewildered" rather than being overjoyed and empowered. Yet John 20:18 gives a totally different picture about the same.
Mathew 28:15 shows that resurrection account was written many years later.