The Tree Of Life

Hi everyone, trying to learn more about this life Yahweh has within himself, stumbled across this cool blog;
thatlifeyahwehhas.blogspot.com...
Maybe someone might know more about this life Yahweh has, which is the same life, that tree of life produced, that life is cool stuff; thanks for any insights.

reply to post by newnature


I think we've been missing the point. Firstly, should we believe a word this serpent says? When our eyes open we will be like god and know good from evil!! More like we have been deceived by the serpent. God is all loving, he knows all but does not judge.
The serpent introduced us to a false kind of knowledge.

Blame the serpent, blame Eve, blame god for throwing us out of paradise.
None of these are to blame.
It's that bloody tree. What sort of fruit was it?
Knowledge!

What is knowledge?
Is it the same as truth?
God is truth.
Knowledge is not truth.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Blame the serpent, blame Eve, blame god for throwing us out of paradise.
None of these are to blame.
It's that bloody tree. What sort of fruit was it?
Knowledge!

What is knowledge?
Is it the same as truth?
God is truth.
Knowledge is not truth.

That is the craziest fruit tree, one will die, if one eats off that crazy fruit tree; death to mankind?
Blame the humans, but for the human to have true freedom of will, the human has to have the freedom to rebel?

reply to post by newnature


The knowledge is what changed Adam and Eve.
They believed a serpent. They believed that knowledge would make them gods.
It did. Mind made gods.
The serpent implied that they would be one with god if they had the knowledge.
He lied.
Knowledge will only ever make us feel separate from god.
There is only one god, we can never be gods.

post 1
If one really thinks about it, having that good and bad knowledge is no guarantee that one will choose or incline towards the good. After all, that’s what the serpent omitted in his speech, before Eve ate off the tree of knowledge of good and bad. The serpent said, “You are not going to die, but Yahweh knows that as soon as you eat of it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like divine beings, who know good and bad.” It’s true in one sense, but false in another; the serpent sort of omitted to point out, that its the power of moral choice alone, that is Yahweh like. The very action that brought Adam and Eve a Yahweh like awareness of their mortal autonomy, was an action that was taken in opposition to Yahweh. Yahweh knows that, that human beings will become like Yahweh, knowing good and bad; it’s one of the things about Yahweh, he knows good and bad, and has chosen the good. For Adam and Eve to have true freedom of will, Adam and Eve have to have the freedom to rebel. This is why this tree is in the garden, next to the tree of life; instead, evil will come about as a result of the clash of the will of Yahweh, and the will of humans, who happen to have the freedom to rebel. Human beings, and only human beings are the potential source of evil, responsibility for evil will lie in the hands of human beings. Yet, evil is represented not as a physical reality, it’s not built into the structure of Eden, evil is a condition of human existence, and to assert that evil stems from human behavior. The drama of Adam and Eve’s life should revolve not around the search for eternal life, nor preoccupation with immortality; it was not in Yahweh’s design for this kind of drama. It was Yahweh’s design for the tree of life to have been eaten of, there was no danger to Adam and Eve going on eternally, being immortal. The eating off the tree of knowledge of good and bad, has caused a moral conflict and tension between Yahweh’s good design for creation, and the free will of human beings that can corrupt that good design. Evil is a product of human behavior, not a principal inherent in the cosmos. Man’s disobedience is the cause of the human predicament. Human freedom can be at one and the same time an omen of disaster, and a challenge, and opportunity.

So despite Adam and Eve’s newfound mortality, humans are going to be a force to be reckoned with. They’re unpredictable to the very Yahweh who created them. Yahweh has to modify his plan, by barring access to the tree of life; that was not something presumably Yahweh planned to do. Adam and Eve had access to this tree up to that point, as long as their will conformed to the will of Yahweh, there was no danger to their going on eternally, being immortal. Once they discovered their moral freedom, once they discovered that they could thwart Yahweh and work evil in the world, and abuse and corrupt all that Yahweh had created, then Yahweh could not afford to allow them access to the tree of life. That would be tantamount to creating divine enemies, immortal enemies. So Yahweh must maintain the upper hand in his struggle with these humans who have learned to defy him. And Yahweh maintains the upper hand in this, the fact that humans eventually must die. Yahweh stations the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword to guard the way back to the tree of life, once Adam and Eve were banished from the garden. The tree of life is now inaccessible; no humans have access to immortality, and the pursuit of immortality is futile. So it might be then that Yahweh really spoke the truth after all, the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and bad did bring death to humankind.

reply to post by newnature


Being is immortal, eternal.
Human is just something the being is doing for now.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


You wrote:

["The knowledge is what changed Adam and Eve."]

It's never really been established exactly, WHAT this 'knowledge' is.


Quote: ["They believed a serpent."]

And you seem to believe a book ABOUT a serpent (with legs). What's the difference?

Quote: ["They believed that knowledge would make them gods."]

And according to your opinions: Is 'being' like 'gods' a bad thing? Explain.

Quote: ["It did. Mind made gods."]

To me it seems, that most of what's coming from you is made in YOUR mind. You have not a shred of evidence apart from your basic circle-arguments.


Quote: ["The serpent implied that they would be one with god if they had the knowledge."]

Obviously YOU have no knowledge, so how do you know?

Quote: ["He lied."]

Apparantly SOMEBODY lied, and is still lying.

Quote: ["Knowledge will only ever make us feel separate from god."]

Considering you've never tried it, how do you know.

Quote: ["There is only one god, we can never be gods."]

Speak for yourself.

reply to post by bogomil



I do not believe. Believing is the problem.
We can not become gods, i did not say it was a bad thing, we just can't.
God is all.
You are already that.
The belief that you are separate is all that holds you back.

this thread is full of fail

yea guys knowledge is bad... lets all stay ignorant and stupid...

ill pass thank you very much

why are you even on ATS?... DENY IGNORANCE

edit: to op, knowledge is the tree of life, the serpent was letting us know that we dont need a tyrant to tell us what to do, we can be free! yes were better off and safer under god... but you wont be free. just like giving up your constitutional rights for the sake of national security.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil

 

I do not believe. Believing is the problem.
We can not become gods, i did not say it was a bad thing, we just can't.
God is all.
You are already that.
The belief that you are separate is all that holds you back.

edit on 6-3-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

You're just preaching doctrinal 'truths', ....

......which are 'true'. because they are 'true', because you consider them 'true'.

That's called a circle-argument amongst non-believers. If you want to preach with a hope of some success, a church would be a safer bet.

If you want to get around to 'dualism', then do it without any doctrinal 'god'-stuff involved.

reply to post by vjr1113


Basically: Right you are, even if it's perhaps only allegorically.

(I mean, we don't actually NEED the flying spaghetti monster to disprove his 'religion').

reply to post by bogomil


I find you very rude and aggressive.
If you do not want to be open to other ways of looking at life, that's totally up to you.
I do not see the need to attack people.

reply to post by vjr1113


Deny ignorance, even if things are not known, lets all pretend we do.

reply to post by vjr1113


The truth is you do not know.
The truth is, the more that is believed, the less is known.
Believing is trusting someone else, a story, a theory.
Giving power to another, giving authority away.
Looking out there for answers, how will you ever know the truth?
Confusion and anger is all that will be found.

The ultimate truth can not be found.
Search where ever and forever.
Call of the search and the truth shall be revealed.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil

 

I find you very rude and aggressive.
If you do not want to be open to other ways of looking at life, that's totally up to you.
I do not see the need to attack people.

So critical opposition to your unvalidated claims is 'rude and agressive'?

Strangely enough I find dishing out elitist 'absolutes' to be crude and invasive, and calling this "being open to other ways" is rhetoric.

I don't see the need to preach.

Post 2
Patriarchical Covenant

Yahweh learned immediately after creating this unique being, that he will exercise his free will against Yahweh. Yahweh saw that he had to limit the life span of humans, or risk creating an enemy that was nearly equal to him. So he casts the humans out of the garden of Eden, and blocks access to the tree of life. Yet, humans continue their violent and evil ways, and in desperation, Yahweh wipes them out and starts again. After the flood, humans prove to be not much better. They forget Yahweh, they turn to idolatry. Yet, the Noahide covenant, which is universal in scope, it encompasses all life on earth. It stresses the sanctity of life, and in this covenant, Yahweh has promised not to destroy all humankind again. So Yahweh experiments with a single individual of believing; Abraham’s believing withstands many a trial. Yahweh is the owner of the land, Abraham was called to. Yahweh is empowered to set conditions or residency requirements for those who would reside in it, like a landlord. Yahweh is seeking replacement tenants who are going to follow the moral rules of residence that Yahweh has established for his land. Yahweh’s promise to Abraham is formalized in a ritual ceremony called a suzerainty covenant. The patriarchical covenant, which is a covenant in which a superior party, a suzerain dictates the terms of a political treaty usually, and an inferior party obeys them. The arrangement primarily serves the interest of the suzerain, and not the vassal or the subject. So Yahweh is making a land grant to a favored subject, and there’s an ancient ritual that ratifies the oath. In this kind of covenant, the parties to the oath would pass between the split carcass of a sacrificial animal, as if to say, that they agree they will suffer the same fate as this animal, if they violate the covenant. Abraham cuts sacrificial animals in two, and Yahweh, but only Yahweh, passes between the two halves. Only Yahweh seems to be obligated by the covenant, obligated to fulfill the promise that he’s made. Abraham doesn’t appear to have any obligation in return. In this case, it is the subject, Abraham, and not the suzerain, Yahweh, who is benefited by this covenant, and that’s a complete reversal of this ritual ceremony. Their is a moral justification for the grant of land to Abraham, the current inhabitants of the land are polluting it, filling it with bloodshed and idolatry. And when the land becomes so polluted, completely polluted, it will spew out its inhabitants. That process, Yahweh says, isn't complete; so Abraham's offspring through Isaac, they are going to have to wait, the lease isn’t up yet.

Abraham is obedient to Yahweh in a way that no one has been up to this point, but ultimately, the model of blind obedience is rejected, too. When Abraham prepares to slaughter his own son, Yahweh sees that blind believing can be as destructive and evil as disobedience, so Yahweh relinquishes his demand for blind obedience. The only relationship that will work with humans is one in which there is a balance between unchecked independence and blind obedience, and Yahweh seems to finally have found the working relationship with humans that he has been seeking since their creation, with a man named Jacob. When Jacob undergoes a change in name, Israel, meaning one who wrestles, who struggles with Yahweh; Yahweh and humans lock in an eternal struggle, neither prevailing, yet both forever changed by their encounter with one another.

Post 3
The Noahide Covenant

Cain is culpable, and for someone to be culpable of something, we have to assume some principle that they have violated. There seems to be in existence from the beginning of creation this universal moral law, and that is: Yahweh-endowed sanctity of human life. The fact that Yahweh has created humans in his own image, but Yahweh-endowed sanctity of human life is an assumption, and it’s the violation of the assumption which makes Cain culpable. Despite Yahweh’s warning to Cain, that it’s possible to master the urge to violence by an act of will. Yahweh says, “Sin couches at the door; its urge is toward you, yet you can be its master.” The tension between settled areas, and the unsettled desert areas and desert life of the nomads. Abel is a keeper of sheep. He represents the nomadic pastoralist, unlike Cain who is the tiller of soil, so he represents more settled urban life. Yet Cain’s fatal and culpable refusal to reconcile himself to what Yahweh told him; Yahweh prefers the offering of Abel, and as a result Cain’s distressed and jealous to the point of murder. Yahweh’s reference of the offering of Abel valorized the free life of the nomadic pastoralist over urban existence. After the murder, Cain responds to a question Yahweh asked him, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” We are all of us our brothers’ keepers, and the strong implication that all homicide is in fact fratricide. Yahweh yields to Cain’s plea and protects him from the fate he inflicted on Abel. The man who could not tolerate Yahweh’s inscrutable grace, now benefits from it. Yet, the murderous first-born son of Adam, his offspring will not survive the flood.

The world dissolves, corruption, and injustice, and lawlessness, and violence inevitably bring about destruction. When humans destroy the moral basis of society, when they are violent or cruel or unkind, they endanger the very existence of that society. These humans were not being punished for religious sins, for idolatry, for worshipping the wrong god, or anything of that nature. By virtue of having been created by Yahweh in the image of Yahweh-they are bound to a basic moral law that precludes, murder and other forms of oppression and violence. Inhumanity and violence undermine the very foundations of society, Yahweh provides a moral rationale for his actions. The earth is destroyed because of the violence, bloodshed, but also all kinds of injustice and oppression. Noah is saved specifically for his righteousness, he was righteous in his generation. Noah was chosen therefore for moral reasons. Yahweh is not acting capriciously, but according to certain clear standards of justice. This was deserved punishment and the person who was saved was righteous. Yahweh makes the decision to punish humans because the world has corrupted itself through bloodshed and violence. Yahweh selects Noah due to his righteousness and Yahweh issues a direct command to build an ark.

Yahweh realized that he’s going to have to make some concession. Yahweh’s going to have to make a concession to human weakness and the human desire to kill. And Yahweh’s going to have to rectify the circumstances that made his destruction of the earth necessary in the first place. So Yahweh establishes a covenant with Noah, and humankind receives its first set of explicit laws. The Noahide covenant, they apply to all humanity; this covenant explicitly prohibits murder. The spilling of human blood, blood is the symbol of life; life is in the blood. So blood is the biblical symbol of life, but Yahweh is going to make a concession to the human appetite for power and violence. Before the flood humans were to be vegetarian, the portrait was one in which humans and animals did not compete for food, or consume one another. Humans were vegetarian. Now Yahweh is saying humans may kill animals to eat them. But even so, Yahweh says, the animal’s life is to be treated with reverence, and the blood which is the life essence must be poured out on the ground, returned to Yahweh, not consumed. So the animal may be eaten to satisfy the human hunger for flesh, but the life essence itself belongs to Yahweh. It must not be taken, even if it’s for the purposes of nourishment. Genesis 9:4-6, “You must not however, eat flesh with its life-blood in it; but for your own life-blood I will require a reckoning. I will require it of every beast; of man, too, will I require a reckoning for human life, of every man for that of his fellow man! Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in Yahweh’s image did Yahweh make man.” So if you are killed by a beast or a human, there will have to be a reckoning, an accounting. Whoever sheds the blood of a person, in exchange for the person shall his blood be shed, all life, human and animal, is sacred to Yahweh. The Noahide covenant also entails Yahweh’s promise to restore the rhythm of life and nature, and never again to destroy the earth. The rainbow is set up as a symbol of the eternal covenant, a token of the eternal reconciliation between the divine and human realms.

reply to post by bogomil

It's not the opposition, as i see no opposition.
It's the manner it is presented.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil

 

It's not the opposition, as i see no opposition.
It's the manner it is presented.

If you can't see any opposition in my answers to you, it must have been because I expressed myself far to politely to get through to you.

As to the 'manner of presentation' you must have misunderstood the purpose of a debate-forum. It's NOT a pulpit or a message-board, which is intended for monologue-preachings where various religious or ideological 'absolutes' can be delievered one-way. If you preach here, you must be prepared for criticism.

If you put forth non-sense, irrational or propagandistic postulates, or whatever subjective fabrications your personal mindset can produce, you'll be met with counter-arguments requesting you to relate to the 'rational' perspective.

Considering that you don't even can see my opposition to you, it's not surprising, that you can't see the questions I've asked you. As I'm not a zombi myself, I'm not used to the uniform, passiv acceptance amongst zombis, where everything is accepted on 'authority' without questions. I'm used to validating positions.

You've had the option of answering me and starting a dialogue all the time, but obviously you either find this beneath you, or you believe, that you have special privileges making you sacrosanct.