Theosophy: Can we agree that tormenting people for all time is wrong no matter what?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I just do not think we are communicating at all. I see God as punishing humanity in Genesis 3:16-17. Nothing you have said here indicates anything different.

I would suggest then that's because you continue to look from 'within' your paradigm, rather than 'step into' mine, for a moment, as it were, and see it from my perspective.

I have acknowledged yours, which is why I said above I can fully understand why you see things as you do. I'm simply saying that's not the way we see it.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, to contine our flow of ideas:

God punished Adam and Eve because they broke His prohibition against eating from the Tree of Knoweldge. Why? Do Christians see knowledge as bad? Where is the crime of it all?

Theosophists sees knowledge as a good thing. It has been said the best preparation to become a Theosophist is to study as much as possible.

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, you said

"I'm simply saying that's not the way we see it."

--> You see God as a punishing God. I do not. Feel free to put it inside any paradigm you wish.

[AndrewX]

Originally Posted by Nick

God punished Adam and Eve because they broke His prohibition against eating from the Tree of Knoweldge. Why? Do Christians see knowledge as bad? Where is the crime of it all?

Theosophists sees knowledge as a good thing. It has been said the best preparation to become a Theosophist is to study as much as possible.

Indeed, unless we taste of the fruit of the Tree of Gnosis ... we are like a one-winged bird, and will either go around in circles - or will not fly at all. I suppose a Dove is a beautiful, lovely, peaceful bird ... but then, it can also be a dead, bleeding snack for the Eagle which snatches it, unawares, from out of the sky.

Now, if we add to that harmlessness the WISDOM of the `SERPENTS' ... then our one-winged bird is suddenly not so helpless anymore.

I rather think of the Phoenix, as this symbol has multiple connotations.

Or, if you prefer, the mountain goats must eventually move on ahead of the sheep, and scale the Heights directly.

So, it is the USE, to which we put our knowledge, which determines either our foolishness, or our Wisdom. And Wisdom, understood esoterically, is inseparablefrom LOVE ... thus Christ's dual-instruction in Matthew 10:16.

The Ancient Wisdom, of which Theosophy forms a part (or is a synonym, in the broadest sense - Theos Sophia), focuses moreso on the positive aspects of the Serpent symbolism, as also on the Benevolent aspects of Deity (the portions of the Divine Being, or `God,' which correspond to Humanity's own Higher Nature).

Christianity, it seems to me, still has much to teach us about God's LOVE, so long as we confine our scope to ethics ... and to the Good Works of the Saviour of Men, and to the hundreds, even thousands of similar examples which stand as a testimony to the God of LOVE.

The angry, jealous god of vengeance and wrath, tossing down thunderbolts to strike the heathen in their tracks .... THIS is where Churchianity really isn't going to give us any insight. There is too much anthropomorphism, too much human desire, and too much insistence on trying to apply the rules of HUMAN legalism ... and THAT is why I say we end up with a `god' of absurdity - not in fact, a `God' at all!

There is a difference; but when you try and meld these two faces together, it's like fire and ice. There is a Divine dispassion, but the Fire of God will ultimately melt all obstacles, and loosen every last chain that binds us.

Something about temperance here ... Vulcan, or Hephaestus. Let's see, from flesh to Flame - might it take longer than we've realized?
{Perhaps so, but we all started as a METAL, says the Zohar ... as does the Vedic poet. God's Word is good enough for me. From metal we are forged into --- ... and thus the symbolism of the Philosopher's Stone should be that much closer to our grasp. What is `Gold?' How else would be aspire to build the true Temple!?}

Sol Invictus!!!

~Andrew

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Definitely. Whenever I hear of someone attracted to a particular place or time in history, I always say to myself, "I know what they were doing last time." I think it would be fascinating to get a past-life regression on you, and hear about your past-life in Egypt.

Hi Nick

I can't say I believe in past lives but my mind is cetainly open on the subject. When I was about 7 I became obsessed with ancient Egypt and that feeling has never left me - to the point that I sold up and moved there as an adult. Something inside me just says I belong there. I think this issue is really upsetting my mother at the moment because I refer to Egypt as home, rather than here.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Yes. Christians think that their faith gives them the right to terrorize non-Christians. I would say that, several times a year, someone's house or business is burned down in the world merely because they are Christian. And, you have no idea how many times I have personally listened to stories of Christians harrassing non-Christians.

It is so sad that this goes on in all religions, particularlly when G-d teaches us to love our brother as ourselves. Personally I think it is a choice we have to make, I can read the Quran and decide to use the information it holds to hate a vast majority of the world or I can choose to see it for what it is and accept I am not the judge of people and must be tolerent to all of mankind. Very sad the choice some people make.

As Kafka said "there is infinite hope, except for man".

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Have you seen the movie Inherit the Wind? This is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

I have not seen it but shall edeavour to do so, thank you.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> --> It is a two-edged sword. Some people say we should not fight hate with hate.

I didn't mean fight it with hate, I am a great believer in education and re-education.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> I always counsel such people to walk away, avoid hating in return, and never look back.

Maybe I misnderstood what you said about 'secret', I assumed you meant she should stay in her parents home and pretend to still be Christian. When my view is that the parents need to be educated, even to what ther own scripture is teaching them.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> No, this is a common misconception. Allah is the Creator (The "Son"), and is different than the Absolute. The word Darkness is used in Genesis in the Bible to symbolize the Absolute (although I do not know about such symbology in the Quran).

There is no such symbolism in the Quran, Allah is absolute, He is the be all and end all. There is nothing greater than He. We have no 'Son' in Islam.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> That is great to hear. Perhaps she can post a comment or two here on the Forum? I can also suggest several online books, if she is so interested. Here is a nice, short, beginning book called At the Feet of the Master.

Thank you I shall email the link to her and let you know what she makes of it.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Does the Quran say infidels should be killed?

No. The Quran only allows defensive wars and if the enemy asks for peace we must give them peace. Men that were taken as prisoners of war were released if they agreed to teach ten Muslims to read and write. The Quran does not allow forced conversions or the killing of people because they do not convert.

There are verses that talk about 'seek them out and kill them wherever you find them' but you have to understand the context, it was talking about a certain group that had betrayed the Muslims during a war at the time. This is one reason so many fanatics exist in Islam, they do not learn the context or history of the revelations.

There is much about peace treaties with non Muslims in th Quran and doubt those verses would exist if we were told to 'kill the infidels'.

What Muslims throughout the period of Islam have actually done is another matter but humans are often driven by power and greed, not their scriptures.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

I shudder, and I cringe, to think of the rude awakening that plenty of folks are in for, when they discover that ... this was not quite what `God' was expecting of them, or hoping to see, once they `got religion,' or discovered their spiritual calling, or whatever.

Here, here Andrew, I agree completely. I loved your post thank you. Any faith can teach hatred and intolerence if you go looking for it. You have to read the whole of the scriptures and ask yourself what G-d wants from us. Does He want us to take one small verse and make mayhem in the world with it (even though He tells us He hates mayhem) or does He want us to take the Spirit from the teachings and use that to better the world? It is so clear when you see the overall picture but when you read scriptures with tunnel vision you see only what you want to see.

Originally Posted by AndrewX

As has been pointed out, Theosophy teaches, on a firm foundation (based upon direct observation, rather than speculation), that those who insist on ignoring the dictates of their own Conscience (the Voice of the Higher Self, or Soul),

This is a very interesting point Andrew. We must answer to that Higher voice, if that means I go against the 'crowd' then so be it but my soul does not have to answer to that crowd, it must answer to G-d and I for one do not believe G-d will accept "but they said so, so I thought my higher voice was wrong" as an excuse.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

There is a concept called group karma. Unfortunately, all Christians will have to suffer bad karma due to what these Christian mainiacs are doing. The sad thing is, most Christians do not even see it coming. Their inaction will haunt them in the end.

You mean I shall be punished for what other Muslims are doing? - yipes I am in BIG trouble.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Theosophy agrees with Christianity over the idea of a Father-Mother-Son Trinity. Does Islam teach the idea of a Trinity?

Absolutely not, that is the first pillar of Islam, there is only one G-d and He has no partners. We say something called Shahada, which is our declaration of faith (it sounds better in Arabic ):

Ash hadu anlaa ilaaha illallaahu wa ash hadu anna muhammadar-rasulallah

which means

I bear witness that there is no god except G-d and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of G-d

Now I, rather controvercially, belong to a group of Muslims that do not believe in following the hadiths (ie we only follow the Quran) and we believe that mentioning the names of any Prophet in our prayers is blasphemy (as Allah teaches that none shall be worshipped but Allah), so we only say the first posrtion in our prayers but that does not mean we do not believe the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was not one of the Messengers from G-d.

Salaam

[Nick the Pilot]

Muslimwoman, you said,

"When I was about 7 I became obsessed with ancient Egypt and that feeling has never left me - to the point that I sold up and moved there as an adult. Something inside me just says I belong there. I think this issue is really upsetting my mother at the moment because I refer to Egypt as home, rather than here."

--> I know what you were doing in a previous lifetime! Regarding your morhter's attitude, this has alwasy been a big issue with people who are in close contact with a previous lifetime. You may wish to hear from people with similar experiences at the Reincarnation Forum.

Past Life Forum - Powered by vBulletin


Regarding your uncanny feelings of connection, and eventual move to Egypt, your experience is the same as mine & Japan. I developed an unusual fascination with Japan when I was in high school, and eventually moved there. I remember walking into the big Buddha temple just south of Tokyo, and saying to myself, "Home at last." There is no reason for the connections you and I have. Only reincarnation can explain it.

"As Kafka said 'there is infinite hope, except for man'. "

--> Fortunately, Theosophy says 99.99% of all humanity will make it to Heaven, even those who are presently headed straight for Hell. I do not know of any other philosophy or religion that has such a positive outlook.

"Have you seen the movie Inherit the Wind? This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. --> I have not seen it but shall edeavour to do so, thank you."

--> Wow, you have absolutely got to see that movie. That link should help you buy or rent it. Can you get mail-order NetFlix DVD's in Egypt?

"When my view is that the parents need to be educated, even to what ther own scripture is teaching them."

--> The situation with hateful Christian parents is especially difficult. The best thing for teenage non-Christians to do is say nothing, and to keep their non-Christian ides to themselves. It is a horrible situation (and happens a lot more often than you might suspect). I believe this is the best way to handle it.

"We have no 'Son' in Islam."

--> I was wondering about that. Thanks for clearing that up.

"There are verses that talk about 'seek them out and kill them wherever you find them' but you have to understand the context, it was talking about a certain group that had betrayed the Muslims during a war at the time."

--> Thanks for pointing that out. As you know, most Christians think the Quran gives Muslims the right to kill them. Fortunately, you have this opportunity to set the record straight.

"It is so clear when you see the overall picture but when you read scriptures with tunnel vision you see only what you want to see."

--> Your relationship with Muslim radicals seems to be particularly difficult, because they seem to be doing that exact thing on a large scale nowadays.

"...I for one do not believe G-d will accept 'but they said so, so I thought my higher voice was wrong" as an excuse.' "

--> As I have said before, I think a lot of people will be negatively surprised on Judgement Day. Fortunately, I think you will not.

"You mean I shall be punished for what other Muslims are doing? - yipes I am in BIG trouble."

--> Unfortunately, this is a well-known occult teaching. (Perhaps you could could crank up your reforming of Islam another couple of knotches...?)

"...we believe that mentioning the names of any Prophet in our prayers is blasphemy (as Allah teaches that none shall be worshipped but Allah)...."

--> I do not see how mentioning a name is the same as worshipping the person named.


Does Islam teach that Christians will go to Hell for worshipping Jesus? (Theosophy does not.)

"...the Prophet Mohammad (pbuh)...."

--> what does pbuh stand for?

[Thomas]

Hi Nick —

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> You see God as a punishing God. I do not. Feel free to put it inside any paradigm you wish.

Nick — may I ask that you stop putting words into my mouth?

The difference lies not in the ideas, but in the governing hermeneutic, and in your offhand dismissal of the latter, I can only read you have no real interest in what we believe, or why.

As I have arguent cogently and consistently against this viewpoint, I can only conclude you choose to completely ignore what I have been saying. Your tone offers little hope of any reasonable discussion.

In closing, I think I have made my point clear for others here, if not for you ... how you choose to interpret Christian doctrine is your choice, but please refrain from assuming that your interpretation is ours also.

Again, live and let be.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Actually it occurs to me, in light of questions above, that some might be interested in a deeper and more reasoned understanding of the Christian interpretation of Scripture, which is certainly too broad-ranging a topic to be done justice here.

A fine document is:
Interpretation of the Bible

Not only does it supply a comprehensive grounding with regard to the Christian hermeneutic and its accompanying epistemology, even the briefest survey of its outline and contents should indicate just how much value Christianity places on knowledge, engaging fully in a dailogue with the philsophic trends that have shaped history, and continue to shape the Western world today.

To quote the Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth"

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, you said,

"Nick — may I ask that you stop putting words into my mouth?"

--> We are not discussing your words, we are discussing the words of the Bible. Clearly, Genesis 3:16-17 says God punishes humanity with curses and sorrow. You have not really responded, so I can hardly be accused of putting words in your mouth. I did say, "You see God as a punishing God. I do not." You are now saying you do not see God as a punishing God?

"I can only read you have no real interest in what we believe, or why."

--> You have indicated you believe the Christian interpretation of the Bible is superior to the Theosophical interpretation. I am only curious in hearing why.

"Your tone offers little hope of any reasonable discussion."

--> You come here, into my thread, ready to tell us what the truth is. Now, you just insult me. I accuse you of the more faulty tone. Feel free to point out my specific "bad-tone" words that prevent you from explaining why God does not punish humanity.

"...please refrain from assuming that your interpretation is ours also."

--> I assure you, the Theosophical interpretation on this point is quite different.

"Shall we continue walking in circles, or shall we move on?"

--> Well, since, you ask, I have some unfinished business to bring up. I remember you made a remark that, we can lead a horse to water, but we cannot make him drink — with me being the horse. I may think Theosophy makes more sense than Christianity, but I do not go around insinuating that you have the brain-power of a horse. And now, you have the audacity to suggest that you are the picture of innocence, and that I should just forget the negative things you have been saying. Man, I do not understand your ideas of right and wrong.

Every time I ask my question, you respond by avoiding the question, and changing the topic. I will not be deterred. You may switch the topic as often as you like. I will merely switch it back every time.

So, you do see God as punishing us for having knowedge?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thomas, you said,

"Nick — may I ask that you stop putting words into my mouth?"

--> We are not discussing your words, we are discussing the words of the Bible. Clearly, Genesis 3:16-17 says God punishes humanity with curses and sorrow. You have not really responded, so I can hardly be accused of putting words in your mouth. I did say, "You see God as a punishing God. I do not." You are now saying you do not see God as a punishing God?

"I can only read you have no real interest in what we believe, or why."

No, I was referring to you telling me what I believe God to be, at least we have got as far as you realising I do not believe God to be a punishing deity, even if somewhat belatedly.

Let me reiterate,
1:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

You are now saying you do not see God as a punishing God?

I have said so from the beginning.

2:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Clearly, Genesis 3:16-17 says God punishes humanity with curses and sorrow. You have not really responded, so I can hardly be accused of putting words in your mouth.

I have responded, repeatedly, that a Christian understanding of Scripture can only properly be understood within the context of a Christian hermeneutic.

What you present, as a Christian viewpoint, is in fact from a Theosophist reading and hermeneutic, as evidenced by your 'clearly' — clearly according to what, one might ask? Clearly according to the meaning of the words, you might reply. Clearly then, I will answer the words have to be understood in context. You consistly refuse to accept the context, and thereby refuse to accept that Christianity might interpret the meaning in any other manner than your own, when it is patently obvious that we do not share a common hermeneutic or epistemology.

3:
The message of Christianity, its whole doctrine, is founded on the Revelation of the Love of God for His creature, and that humanity's estrangement and subsequent suffering is a self-induced and thereby self-inflicted wound. Without this understanding as a first principle, as a foundation of a faith and hope in the prospect and promise not just of salvation but of theosis, without this, the message can only be utterly nihilistic.

4:
It is in the absence of any reference to this first principle, the over-arching Love and Mercy of the Christian God, the operation of Salvific Grace in bringing humanity and the world to its perfection, and above all the Redemptive Sacrifice of the Son, that cannot but bring about a dark and pessimistic opinion of Christian doctrine.

5:
It is precisely in this first principle that the Christian sees God as Love (1 John 4:8) over and above all other considerations.

+++

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> You have indicated you believe the Christian interpretation of the Bible is superior to the Theosophical interpretation.

Where?

I believe I have only indicated that the Christian interpretation is different to the Theosophical interpretation. Whether it is superior is a matter of individual choice, and I have in fact honoured your choice.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> You come here, into my thread, ready to tell us what the truth is.

Not quite. I came here to point out a somewhat inaccurate presentation of Christian doctrine — one that you now appear to acknowledge when I asked "...please refrain from assuming that your interpretation is ours also" to which you now reply:

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> I assure you, the Theosophical interpretation on this point is quite different.

That is the only point I have been trying to bring out. It is a pity it has taken this long to get there, but thank you for honouring that intention.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

I have pointed out something in the Bible that I see as disagreeable, and I await your interpretation. You respond by posting a link to another web page. Should you wish to discuss the Bible here, I will be waiting.

I would have thought from what you say above I have made myself clear on that point. And I have acknowledged and accepted why, as a Theosophist, you might find some aspects of Scripture disagreeable. What I cannot understand is why you cannot accept that a Christian doesn't find it disagreeable.

But it seems that heat is creeping into the discussion. I think I have said all that I needed to say, and will withdraw.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, you said,

"You are now saying you do not see God as a punishing God? --> I have said so from the beginning."

--> Thanks for clearing that up. However, I see God's treating of Adam and Eve as, well, punishment. (you do not?) If you do not see God as a punishing God, yet God punished Adam and eve, I see a contradiction. I am hoping you can clear up this contradiction.

"You consistly refuse to accept the context, and thereby refuse to accept that Christianity might interpret the meaning in any other manner than your own...."

--> That is not true. Clearly, Christians interpret the Bible in a way than Theosophists. It is these differing interpretations I wish to discuss. For example, in this ongoing discussion, you see Adam and Eve's actions as basically evil, in the sense they needed to be punished. I do not see that. I would like to hear why you see it that way. We do not need to share a common hermeneutic or epistemology, in order to for you to explain the inherent evil contained within Adan and Eve's actions. Our commonality in the English language is enough.

"The message of Christianity, its whole doctrine, is founded on the Revelation of the Love of God for His creature, and that humanity's estrangement and subsequent suffering is a self-induced and thereby self-inflicted wound."

--> Clearly, Genesis 3:16-17 indicates Adam and Eve self-inflicting their wounds, and I suppose their refusal to follow God's rule caused their estrangement. But why was what they did evil? Why was eating the apple against God's law?

"Without this understanding as a first principle, as a foundation of a faith and hope in the prospect and promise not just of salvation but of theosis, without this, the message can only be utterly nihilistic."

--> I understand the idea of God's love, so my understanding of it (according to you) will allow me to understand the second idea, that the eating of the apple was evil. However, I do not see a connection. What is the connection?

"It is in the absence of any reference to this first principle, the over-arching Love and Mercy of the Christian God, the operation of Salvific Grace in bringing humanity and the world to its perfection, and above all the Redemptive Sacrifice of the Son, that cannot but bring about a dark and pessimistic opinion of Christian doctrine."

--> I have referred to this first principle quite nicely, so my understanding of it does not lead to my having a dark and pessimistic opinion of Christian doctrine. Thus, this first principle allows to press on, and ask how eating an apple is evil.

"It is precisely in this first principle that the Christian sees God as Love (1 John 4:8) over and above all other considerations."

--> So this principle overrides the evil within eating the apple?

"I came here to point out a somewhat inaccurate presentation of Christian doctrine..."

--> This is all I want. It seems only natural my rejection of the apple as a symbol is evil would be construed as "a somewhat inaccurate presentation of Christian doctrine..." Please clarify why it is inaccurate.

"I assure you, the Theosophical interpretation on this point is quite different. --> That is the only point I have been trying to bring out. It is a pity it has taken this long to get there, but thank you for honouring that intention."

--> It has always been my meaning that Theosophical interpretations of the Bible are quite different than Christian ones. I was not aware you saw it any differently. I am glad we got this cleared up.

"What I cannot understand is why you cannot accept that a Christian doesn't find it disagreeable."

--> It is clear to me that Christians agree with their interpretations of the Bible. I just want you to explain those interpretations (as they do not make sense to me). You certainly think the eating of the apple was against God's law. I am just curious as to why that law was there in the first place. Why did God forbid Adam and Eve to eat the apple?

"But it seems that heat is creeping into the discussion. I think I have said all that I needed to say, and will withdraw."

--> Perhaps the one-way name-calling has ceased. Now we can get back to the issues, which is all that I am after:

Why did God forbid Adam and Eve to eat the apple? Why was it against God's law?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Thanks for clearing that up. However, I see God's treating of Adam and Eve as, well, punishment. (you do not?) If you do not see God as a punishing God, yet God punished Adam and eve, I see a contradiction. I am hoping you can clear up this contradiction.[indent]

Allow a classic analogy — a surgeon removes a patient's leg in an operation. Is it a good thing, or a bad thing? On the surface, a bad thing. But the patient had gangrene, and would have died, so the amputation serves the good, although it is not a good thing in itself.

I'm saying your contradiction is a classic 'can't see the wood for the trees' scenario. You need to step back from the examination of individual aspects, and get a feeling for the big picture.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Clearly, Christians interpret the Bible in a way (other? word missing) than Theosophists. It is these differing interpretations I wish to discuss.

Sadly time and prior committments do not allow me the freedom to engage in what would inevitably be long discussions. I joined this thread purely to signal that Theosophists and Christians do not interpret Scripture the same way. Hopefully there might be others here who can answer your queries.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

For example, in this ongoing discussion, you see Adam and Eve's actions as basically evil, in the sense they needed to be punished. I do not see that.

Once again, you appear to be making a statement about what I believe, when I have said nothing, and indicated nothing, of the sort. So the contradiction for me lies in your a priori assumptions. If I were of a mind to continue, I would suggest we need tackle that before we even begin to look at Scripture.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

We do not need to share a common hermeneutic or epistemology, in order to for you to explain the inherent evil contained within Adan and Eve's actions. Our commonality in the English language is enough.

Actually, that is not the case. It is the assumption of such that often leads to misunderstandings. The conversation would involve philosophical terms, and the definitions of such terms alter according to the philosophical paradigm. A Platonist and an Aristotelian share the same terms, but signify different things.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> Clearly, Genesis 3:16-17 indicates Adam and Eve self-inflicting their wounds,

Well that was an advance I wasn't expecting!

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

and I suppose their refusal to follow God's rule caused their estrangement.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

But why was what they did evil?

How can estrangement from God, be considered anything other than good?

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Why was eating the apple against God's law?

Many assume that the Tree of Knowledge is the tree of knowledge per se, when closer attention to the text clearly says otherwise. The Tree of Knowledge is of the knowledge of good and evil specifically, not knowledge as such: "But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat" (Gen 2:17).

'Good and evil' immediately sets up a duality, whereas before there was harmony: "And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed" (2:25). This is not simple schoolboy nudity, but a profound indication of a full and unalloyed experience of the interiority of all things — they are in Paradise after all, and the paradisical state rules out any 'glamour' or 'illusion' of the superficiality of things.

"And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death. For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil." Well this is patently an illusion and metaphysically impossible. There can only be one Absolute, and no contingent being can be Absolute ... but it signifies the egoic desire to take control of one's own destiny and thereby order the world according to oneself ... man enjoyed life in Paradise, a Divine Gift (it was God who put him there) and enjoys Divvine Graces (free communion with his Creator) but man wanted to be like God ... he wanted to appropriate that which was superadded to his nature by grace, as if it was his by right.

"For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death." (Gen 2:17)
This is not a threat by God, He is not saying 'eat that and I'll kill you', He is saying that if one eats the fruit, that is if one actualises a possibility (the inherent possibility that makes freedom for a contingent being a reality) then one actualises a possibility that is not real, is not true, is not good, and so forth ... and so what one actually realises is the privation of or separaation from the real, the good and the true, a separation from the Unity of All in the One, and the ultimate end of this trajectory is the privation of everything — death.

The evil might seem to be born of the fruit, but a contemplation of the case will show that the evil lies in the free choice to do other than the Divine Will, — that is other than the good, the real, the true, etc., — in short in his pride man thought he knew better than God.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> I understand the idea of God's love, so my understanding of it (according to you) will allow me to understand the second idea, that the eating of the apple was evil. However, I do not see a connection. What is the connection?

The eating of the fruit was the rejection of that love.

I might add, for example, that I would say, from prior exchange, that the Theosophist's notion of God's love is 'limited' from the Christian perspective. You have said, in discussions on grace and karma, that God cannot overcome karma. We believe He can — there is no limit on what God can do. I only raise this point to highlight we share a comon term, 'love', but a markedly different epistemology.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

--> I have referred to this first principle quite nicely, so my understanding of it does not lead to my having a dark and pessimistic opinion of Christian doctrine.

I would say 'quite nicely' according to your own opinion, not mine.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

Thus, this first principle allows to press on,

Whoa, Nick! I know you like to keep the upper hand in these things, but really we are by no means ready to press on ... it is your assumption, and once again I am faced with a flat statement on your part that you know all there is to know on the topic. I suggest that if the first principle was properly understood, you could answer all subsequent questions yourself.

Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot

This is all I want. It seems only natural my rejection of the apple as a symbol is evil would be construed as "a somewhat inaccurate presentation of Christian doctrine..." Please clarify why it is inaccurate.

Because the fruit is only fruit (not an apple, by the way, nowhere is the fruit identified). Because a mushroom is toxic, that does not make it 'evil' — evil lies in the free choice to feed it to someone, knowing it is toxic.

The evil lies in the self-willed choice to do other than the Good.

To fully understand why a Christian thinks the way they do will require a systematic and guided approach ... a book is the least-best case, but if you're really interested I can recommend a couple.

Thomas

[Nick the Pilot]

Thomas, you said,

"Allow a classic analogy — a surgeon removes a patient's leg in an operation. Is it a good thing, or a bad thing?"

--> Why would eating an apple require surgery?

"I'm saying your contradiction is a classic 'can't see the wood for the trees' scenario."

--> I disagree. This is a classic 'there is no connection between the two.' scenario.

"For example, in this ongoing discussion, you see Adam and Eve's actions as basically evil, in the sense they needed to be punished. I do not see that. --> Once again, you appear to be making a statement about what I believe, when I have said nothing, and indicated nothing, of the sort."

--> Fortunately, later on in your post, you show how you believe their actions were something requiring punishment. Thanks for clearing that up.

"Actually, that is not the case. It is the assumption of such that often leads to misunderstandings. The conversation would involve philosophical terms, and the definitions of such terms alter according to the philosophical paradigm. A Platonist and an Aristotelian share the same terms, but signify different things."

--> Feel free to define terms. Feel free to show differences between philosophies. It can be done. These are not reasons for you to turn down the chance to explain how an apple is evil.

"Clearly, Genesis 3:16-17 indicates Adam and Eve self-inflicting their wounds. --> Well that was an advance I wasn't expecting!"

--> So, you see, we CAN have a "cross-paradigm" discussion. Later on in your post, you started addressing the issue at hand. I told you you could do it.

"...and I suppose their refusal to follow God's rule caused their estrangement. --> Yes."

--> Now we are getting somewhere. Why did God have that rule in the first place?

"But why was what they did evil? --> How can estrangement from God, be considered anything other than good?"

--> How can eating from the Tree of Knowledge be considered estrangement from God?

"The Tree of Knowledge is of the knowledge of good and evil specifically, not knowledge as such...."

--> So the Bible is saying possession of the knowledge of good and evil specifically is inherently a bad thing?


Also, I do not see where a disctinction between (1) knowledge, and (2) the knowledge of good and evil specifically, is relevant in this case.

"...your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil."

--> How does eating an apple open one's eyes? What type of information gets transferred during such an act? How does eating an apple cause declusions of divinity? How does an apple cause a sudden understanding of good and evil?

"...it signifies the egoic desire to take control of one's own destiny and thereby order the world according to oneself...."

--> So eating an apple makes us want to ignore the Divine Plan?

"...he wanted to appropriate that which was superadded to his nature by grace, as if it was his by right."

--> Eating an apple is the improper appropriating of things?

"For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death." --> This is not a threat by God...."

--> I sounds like a threat to me. Death is death, and Adam and Eve did not die that day. (According to the Bible, they should have died within 24 hours.) This non-death strikes me as another contraction in the Bible. Thanks for pointing that out.

"He is not saying 'eat that and I'll kill you'...."

--> I think he is.

"...He is saying that if one ... actualises a possibility that is not real, is not true, is not good...."

How is eating from the Tree of Knowledge actualising a possibility that is not real? This seems to be an unwarranted deductive leap.

"...separation from the real, the good and the true...."

--> How does eating from the Tree of Knowledge separate us from the real, the good and the true?

"...a separation from the Unity of All in the One...."

--> How does eating from the Tree of Knowledge separate us from the Unity of All in the One...."?

"...the evil lies in the free choice to do other than the Divine Will...."

--> Theosophy agrees with this statement as it stands by itself, but Theosophists wonder how eating an apple plunges one into free choice away from God.

"The eating of the fruit was the rejection of that love."

--> What innate characteristic of fruit causes a rejection of divine love?

"You have said, in discussions on grace and karma, that God cannot overcome karma. We believe He can — there is no limit on what God can do."

--> If I were to use your monotheistic terminology, I would change your phrasing to: God does not want to overcome karma. It is not a question of what God can do, it is a question of what is fair. Theosophists pull away from Christianity, because its God does unfair things. Such unfairness is impossible in the Theosophical theory.

"... we are by no means ready to press on...."

--> If you mean in the sense you have not showed how eating fruit gives us knowedge that isolates us from divinity, I agree.

"I suggest that if the first principle was properly understood, you could answer all subsequent questions yourself."

--> The very purpose of Theosophy is to show that this statement is wrong.

"...not an apple, by the way, nowhere is the fruit identified...."

--> I think it is safe to say trees bear apples. Since you have declared it was not an apple, what kind of fruit was it?

"Because a mushroom is toxic, that does not make it 'evil' — evil lies in the free choice to feed it to someone, knowing it is toxic. The evil lies in the self-willed choice to do other than the Good."

--> It is true that toxicity in itself is not evil. Why does God see eating an apple as a toxic movement away from God? How is an apple inherently toxic?

~~~

It comes down to these questions:

How does eating an apple cause a sudden understanding of good and evil?

Why does God see a sudden understanding of good and evil as a movement away from God?

What kind of fruit was it, since you say it was not an apple?