Community > General Religion Chat

Topic: Right and wrong, vs "sin."
Solace84 Joined Mon 04/30/12 Posts: 322	Thu 07/04/13 12:35 AM
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man’s] Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man. Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body. The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html Who told you that man never existed without mind,values and love? God loved man with an infinite love...God created man as a free moral being hence Adam in the Garden of Eden had the choice of weather to eat the forbiden fruit or not...So Eve chose to eat the fruit because she wanted to know what the Devil claimed she never knew....Do you make decisions when you are not conscious? If NO,,,then he had minds because he was dead conscious....

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Thu 07/04/13 12:38 AM Edited by Conrad_73 on Thu 07/04/13 12:39 AM
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man’s] Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man. Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body. The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html Who told you that man never existed without mind,values and love? God loved man with an infinite love...God created man as a free moral being hence Adam in the Garden of Eden had the choice of weather to eat the forbiden fruit or not...So Eve chose to eat the fruit because she wanted to know what the Devil claimed she never knew....Do you make decisions when you are not conscious? If NO,,,then he had minds because he was dead conscious.... the Truth hurts,doesn't it? Just look around yourself,and see where your Doctrine has brought you!

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Thu 07/04/13 10:10 AM Edited by Jeanniebean on Thu 07/04/13 10:11 AM
everyone is told what is 'right' and 'wrong',,,,children dont come in the world knowing those things for themself This is only your assumption. Morals are innate and instinctive in some cases. Even if you think "everyone" is told what is right or wrong, this happens over time. The information does not just get presented to a child all at once. As a small child I had a sense of right and wrong about things that no one ever 'told' me about, so I know yours is an assumption based on what you think you know. never said what time it took, or that it happened all at once so unless the claim is noones ever taught you anything about right and wrong,,,, I guess we agree Nevertheless, your statement is an assumption, not a fact. (Or maybe its just your opinion.) Also, "being taught" and "learning" something ..... are sometimes very different things. Being "told" what is right and wrong, is not the same as "learning from experience" and 'feeling' the difference between right and wrong. and being 'told' doesnt exclude 'learning from experience',, either so I dont get the point,,, Your statement was: "children dont come in the world knowing those things for themself" This is an assumption. Who taught Jesus right from wrong? Give our personal connection to GOD a little credit for a change. the statement wasnt about children having a conscious or knowing SOME Things the point was children are raised and TAUGHT right and wrong,,,not EVERYTHING concerning right and wrong,, but they are absolutely told about what things are right and wrong,,,period. yes, we have a conscious, but we also have LOGIC that is developed through LEARNING,, and when we LEARN right from wrong,, rather from our experience, or someone elses experiences,,,,we learn it just like we learn healthy and unhealthy, or safe and unsafe it doesnt ALL come from some innate knowledge, somewhere along the way we are TAUGHT some of these things somewhere,,, Yes it does. Morals are innate for humans. It is because of human consciousness. We are connected to the divine. Because we are HUMAN we have the capacity of knowing the difference between good and evil. An animal has no knowledge of good and evil. They can only be trained to avoid consequences and they can only follow their natural instincts and programming. really? so you think a newborn already will, for instance, know it is 'wrong' to lie? Since a newborn cannot even talk, then lying would be a moot point. even if they are never corrected and never caught in the act of doing it,,? or they will know it is wrong to take what isn't theirs? even if no one corrects them when they do it or catches them? ,,you believe there is just an innate knowledge that requires no additional lesson from experience (Theirs or others)? ,,,,interesting perspective,,,, Yes I do. Interesting perspective? Not to me. It is the truth. A human knows right from wrong. When they learn about ownership and truthfulness they will learn what stealing and lying is, and they will know it is wrong. From there, they only learn about the possible the consequences for their "wrong" behavior. That is what they will learn. and religion aside, if a non religious child , teen, adult, knows it is against the law to steal,, why do they still do it? Because they have not learned that there could be consequences and they think they can get away with it. The same goes for a religious child. They think they are smart enough to get away with it. Im going to guess there is a list of things that drive people to do things they may 'know' aren't permissible,,,,,but why that human weakness should be any more expired in a Christian than a non Christian I don't know humans don't always get it right or do right, regardless of what laws they 'know' about,,, temptation, immediate gratification, the sense of 'no harm' ,,,can often blur their judgement and lead them to excuse their way into wrong anyhow,,, Criminals who believe they can get away with something will commit crimes, even if they know they are doing wrong to others. Religious criminals probably just think they can repent later and be forgiven by God. They all know right from wrong unless they are mentally disabled and incapable. That is why when a man goes to trial for a crime the court has to determine if he was in a well enough or conscious enough state to know right from wrong. A dog who bites a man while protecting his home has no concept of right and wrong. He is "innocent" because he was following his instinct and nature.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 07/04/13 10:15 AM Edited by msharmony on Thu 07/04/13 10:17 AM
When they learn about ownership and truthfulness ,,yes, first they LEARN about truthfulness,, (which is a 'right'thing) so they can discern from that lesson that lying is wrong its not an innate and subconscious knowledge, its not a natural occurrence that just happens like breathing,,, its a deduction from having been taught by someone,,, and many do face 'grey area' of confusion when it comes to KNOWING right from wrong,, rather they are religious or not,,,

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Thu 07/04/13 10:17 AM
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man’s] Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man. Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body. The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html Who told you that man never existed without mind,values and love? God loved man with an infinite love...God created man as a free moral being hence Adam in the Garden of Eden had the choice of weather to eat the forbiden fruit or not...So Eve chose to eat the fruit because she wanted to know what the Devil claimed she never knew....Do you make decisions when you are not conscious? If NO,,,then he had minds because he was dead conscious.... An animal is conscious, and yet it does not know right from wrong. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve had no concept of what is right or wrong, therefore any decision they made is an innocent decision. Place a steak in front of a dog who has not been trained and tell him not to eat it and see what happens. If he eats it, he does so from instinct. To punish him would be cruel and unfair. Why did God not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge of good and evil anyway? With no knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, then humans are no better than animals. Were humans simply God's pets? Did God just want naked animals to breed in the garden? The myth makes little sense when you take it literally. It stresses only obedience. Do as I say or else! Don't question me! That is the only lesson in that mythical story.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 07/04/13 10:22 AM
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man’s] Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man. Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body. The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html Who told you that man never existed without mind,values and love? God loved man with an infinite love...God created man as a free moral being hence Adam in the Garden of Eden had the choice of weather to eat the forbiden fruit or not...So Eve chose to eat the fruit because she wanted to know what the Devil claimed she never knew....Do you make decisions when you are not conscious? If NO,,,then he had minds because he was dead conscious.... An animal is conscious, and yet it does not know right from wrong. According to the Bible, Adam and Eve had no concept of what is right or wrong, therefore any decision they made is an innocent decision. Place a steak in front of a dog who has not been trained and tell him not to eat it and see what happens. If he eats it, he does so from instinct. To punish him would be cruel and unfair. Why did God not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge of good and evil anyway? With no knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, then humans are no better than animals. Were humans simply God's pets? Did God just want naked animals to breed in the garden? The myth makes little sense when you take it literally. It stresses only obedience. Do as I say or else! Don't question me! That is the only lesson in that mythical story. there is nothing about knowing right from wrong,,, they were instructed not to do something,, they were given a paradise in which to live with only ONE RULE,, but like humans will do, Eve was convinced that this wasn't 'fair' and there was 'no harm' in breaking that rule,,, GOOD AND EVIl is a moral standard that is not the exact same thing as right and wrong my belief is humans were made in HIS IMAGE, to live in the holy manner that HE LIVES, and the best way for them to do that would be to have a life free from EVIL,,,, once one knows what EVIL Is, they are accountable for it,,,

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Thu 07/04/13 10:24 AM
When they learn about ownership and truthfulness ,,yes, first they LEARN about truthfulness,, (which is a 'right'thing) so they can discern from that lesson that lying is wrong its not an innate and subconscious knowledge, its not a natural occurrence that just happens like breathing,,, its a deduction from having been taught by someone,,, and many do face 'grey area' of confusion when it comes to KNOWING right from wrong,, rather they are religious or not,,, Let me explain it a little differently. You can "teach" a dog to obey commands, but you can't teach them right from wrong, or how to have knowledge of good and evil. The ability to know right from wrong is INNATE in humans. The only exception might be psychopaths who will learn the laws and rules of society, but emotionally, they do not have a conscience and they cannot sense right from wrong. And there are more psychopaths in the world than people realize. If you are dealing with a psychopath, then they truly need to be trained like a dog to learn the rules. However they must believe that they can't get away with crimes and breaking the rules to keep them on the strait and narrow. Unfortunately, psychopaths, like a lot of other humans think they are smarter than the average bear and if they think they can get away with something illegal or wrong, they will do it. But if a person know right from wrong and listens to his conscience he does not have to know the rules and laws. He will function better than most in society.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Thu 07/04/13 10:28 AM
GOOD AND EVIl is a moral standard that is not the exact same thing as right and wrong Seriously? Good and evil are opinions. They have more of a relationship to religions. Right and wrong have to do with morals and conscience which are innate within human consciousness via our connection to SPIRIT/GOD.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Thu 07/04/13 10:29 AM Edited by Jeanniebean on Thu 07/04/13 10:30 AM
OOPS

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Mon 07/08/13 09:16 AM
GOOD AND EVIl is a moral standard that is not the exact same thing as right and wrong Seriously? Good and evil are opinions. They have more of a relationship to religions. Right and wrong have to do with morals and conscience which are innate within human consciousness via our connection to SPIRIT/GOD. right and wrong are opinions which have a consensus,,,,, what is 'right' in one culture may not be in another,,,, its all subjective to culture and consensus,,,,,,,unlike, say, the bodys INNATE abilities to breathe or cough or sneeze, which will be HUMAN Traits across cultures , regardless of any written law or consensus,,,,

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 07/08/13 09:35 AM Edited by Jeanniebean on Mon 07/08/13 09:37 AM
GOOD AND EVIl is a moral standard that is not the exact same thing as right and wrong Seriously? Good and evil are opinions. They have more of a relationship to religions. Right and wrong have to do with morals and conscience which are innate within human consciousness via our connection to SPIRIT/GOD. right and wrong are opinions which have a consensus,,,,, what is 'right' in one culture may not be in another,,,, its all subjective to culture and consensus,,,,,,,unlike, say, the bodys INNATE abilities to breathe or cough or sneeze, which will be HUMAN Traits across cultures , regardless of any written law or consensus,,,, People do have opinions about what is right or wrong. I totally agree with that. But moral right and wrong always comes from the individual, not society or culture. There are certain acts that are always wrong. Intent and malice also play a part. Intentional Torture, murder, cruelty etc. To rationalize these 'wrong' things and call them 'right' is the opinion.

hardenman Joined Mon 07/08/13 Posts: 15	Sat 07/13/13 05:49 AM Edited by hardenman on Sat 07/13/13 06:06 AM
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man’s] Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man. Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body. The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html Awesome! Love it! You might say that man's original sin is that he became aware and conscious. Perhaps some inner dimensional alien beings genetically engineered the human body to be a non thinking clone, to be used and possessed as a vehicle. In order to operate in this third density world they needed physical bodies. These inner dimensional beings can enter and possess these bodies, just as we use an automobile. They were not supposed to be more than dumb animals or mindless clones. They had souls, consciousness, morals and knowledge of right and wrong. The original man was not a robot but a much more superior being above everything on earth both in power,widom and majesty,full of love,compassion and trust,which the serpent took advantage of to bring him down. It was He,who gave names to every living thing on earth ,even woman? Don't think a senseless robot can do that?

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Sat 07/13/13 06:47 AM Edited by Conrad_73 on Sat 07/13/13 07:08 AM
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man’s] Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man. Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body. The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html Awesome! Love it! You might say that man's original sin is that he became aware and conscious. Perhaps some inner dimensional alien beings genetically engineered the human body to be a non thinking clone, to be used and possessed as a vehicle. In order to operate in this third density world they needed physical bodies. These inner dimensional beings can enter and possess these bodies, just as we use an automobile. They were not supposed to be more than dumb animals or mindless clones. They had souls, consciousness, morals and knowledge of right and wrong. The original man was not a robot but a much more superior being above everything on earth both in power,widom and majesty,full of love,compassion and trust,which the serpent took advantage of to bring him down. It was He,who gave names to every living thing on earth ,even woman? Don't think a senseless robot can do that? Be wise as Serpents! Now,who said that? Someone totally rewrote that Book before they handed it down to you!

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sun 07/14/13 03:11 PM
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man’s] Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man. Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body. The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html Awesome! Love it! You might say that man's original sin is that he became aware and conscious. Perhaps some inner dimensional alien beings genetically engineered the human body to be a non thinking clone, to be used and possessed as a vehicle. In order to operate in this third density world they needed physical bodies. These inner dimensional beings can enter and possess these bodies, just as we use an automobile. They were not supposed to be more than dumb animals or mindless clones. They had souls, consciousness, morals and knowledge of right and wrong. The original man was not a robot but a much more superior being above everything on earth both in power,widom and majesty,full of love,compassion and trust,which the serpent took advantage of to bring him down. It was He,who gave names to every living thing on earth ,even woman? Don't think a senseless robot can do that? Outsmarted by a serpent man? You call that superior? An animal has no concept of right and wrong. According to the Bible, neither did Adam and Eve. They may have been perfect specimens of humanoids but they were like new born children...innocent and not too wise.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 07/14/13 03:52 PM
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man’s] Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man. Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body. The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html Awesome! Love it! You might say that man's original sin is that he became aware and conscious. Perhaps some inner dimensional alien beings genetically engineered the human body to be a non thinking clone, to be used and possessed as a vehicle. In order to operate in this third density world they needed physical bodies. These inner dimensional beings can enter and possess these bodies, just as we use an automobile. They were not supposed to be more than dumb animals or mindless clones. They had souls, consciousness, morals and knowledge of right and wrong. The original man was not a robot but a much more superior being above everything on earth both in power,widom and majesty,full of love,compassion and trust,which the serpent took advantage of to bring him down. It was He,who gave names to every living thing on earth ,even woman? Don't think a senseless robot can do that? Outsmarted by a serpent man? You call that superior? An animal has no concept of right and wrong. According to the Bible, neither did Adam and Eve. They may have been perfect specimens of humanoids but they were like new born children...innocent and not too wise. that's interjecting modern ideas with what the bible said it says they didn't know GOOD AND EVIL,, it doesn't say they didn't know right and wrong, or how to be obedient or disobedient Eve was persuaded, after clearly stating the knowledge that she was not to eat from the tree,,,,KNOWLEDGE of what she was not supposed to do,,,

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sun 07/14/13 03:55 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Sun 07/14/13 03:56 PM
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man’s] Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man. Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body. The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html Awesome! Love it! You might say that man's original sin is that he became aware and conscious. Perhaps some inner dimensional alien beings genetically engineered the human body to be a non thinking clone, to be used and possessed as a vehicle. In order to operate in this third density world they needed physical bodies. These inner dimensional beings can enter and possess these bodies, just as we use an automobile. They were not supposed to be more than dumb animals or mindless clones. They had souls, consciousness, morals and knowledge of right and wrong. The original man was not a robot but a much more superior being above everything on earth both in power,widom and majesty,full of love,compassion and trust,which the serpent took advantage of to bring him down. It was He,who gave names to every living thing on earth ,even woman? Don't think a senseless robot can do that? Outsmarted by a serpent man? You call that superior? An animal has no concept of right and wrong. According to the Bible, neither did Adam and Eve. They may have been perfect specimens of humanoids but they were like new born children...innocent and not too wise. that's interjecting modern ideas with what the bible said it says they didn't know GOOD AND EVIL,, it doesn't say they didn't know right and wrong, or how to be obedient or disobedient Eve was persuaded, after clearly stating the knowledge that she was not to eat from the tree,,,,KNOWLEDGE of what she was not supposed to do,,, I repeat. An ANIMAL does not know right from wrong or good from evil. They were like dumb innocent animals. And what is wrong with interjecting modern ideas with what the Bible said? Hopefully we humans are a bit more conscious and wise than the dumb animals that were Adam and Eve. Good and evil, right and wrong..... not much difference.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 07/14/13 03:57 PM
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man’s] Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man. Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body. The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html Awesome! Love it! You might say that man's original sin is that he became aware and conscious. Perhaps some inner dimensional alien beings genetically engineered the human body to be a non thinking clone, to be used and possessed as a vehicle. In order to operate in this third density world they needed physical bodies. These inner dimensional beings can enter and possess these bodies, just as we use an automobile. They were not supposed to be more than dumb animals or mindless clones. They had souls, consciousness, morals and knowledge of right and wrong. The original man was not a robot but a much more superior being above everything on earth both in power,widom and majesty,full of love,compassion and trust,which the serpent took advantage of to bring him down. It was He,who gave names to every living thing on earth ,even woman? Don't think a senseless robot can do that? Outsmarted by a serpent man? You call that superior? An animal has no concept of right and wrong. According to the Bible, neither did Adam and Eve. They may have been perfect specimens of humanoids but they were like new born children...innocent and not too wise. that's interjecting modern ideas with what the bible said it says they didn't know GOOD AND EVIL,, it doesn't say they didn't know right and wrong, or how to be obedient or disobedient Eve was persuaded, after clearly stating the knowledge that she was not to eat from the tree,,,,KNOWLEDGE of what she was not supposed to do,,, I repeat. An ANIMAL does not know right from wrong or good from evil. They were like dumb innocent animals. And what is wrong with interjecting modern ideas with what the Bible said? Hopefully we humans are a bit more conscious and wise than the dumb animals that were Adam and Eve. Good and evil, right and wrong..... not much difference. man knows obedient from disobedient,, whatever other labels man assigns it and adam and eve were not like dumb animals because they knew obedient from disobedient too,,,,

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sun 07/14/13 04:02 PM
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man’s] Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man. Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body. The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html Awesome! Love it! You might say that man's original sin is that he became aware and conscious. Perhaps some inner dimensional alien beings genetically engineered the human body to be a non thinking clone, to be used and possessed as a vehicle. In order to operate in this third density world they needed physical bodies. These inner dimensional beings can enter and possess these bodies, just as we use an automobile. They were not supposed to be more than dumb animals or mindless clones. They had souls, consciousness, morals and knowledge of right and wrong. The original man was not a robot but a much more superior being above everything on earth both in power,widom and majesty,full of love,compassion and trust,which the serpent took advantage of to bring him down. It was He,who gave names to every living thing on earth ,even woman? Don't think a senseless robot can do that? Outsmarted by a serpent man? You call that superior? An animal has no concept of right and wrong. According to the Bible, neither did Adam and Eve. They may have been perfect specimens of humanoids but they were like new born children...innocent and not too wise. that's interjecting modern ideas with what the bible said it says they didn't know GOOD AND EVIL,, it doesn't say they didn't know right and wrong, or how to be obedient or disobedient Eve was persuaded, after clearly stating the knowledge that she was not to eat from the tree,,,,KNOWLEDGE of what she was not supposed to do,,, I repeat. An ANIMAL does not know right from wrong or good from evil. They were like dumb innocent animals. And what is wrong with interjecting modern ideas with what the Bible said? Hopefully we humans are a bit more conscious and wise than the dumb animals that were Adam and Eve. Good and evil, right and wrong..... not much difference. man knows obedient from disobedient,, whatever other labels man assigns it and adam and eve were not like dumb animals because they knew obedient from disobedient too,,,, Slaves and trained pets know obedient from disobedient, and maybe some children, that has nothing to do with right and wrong or good or evil. If your master or commanding officer ordered you to murder a child, would you obey? Or would you consider right and wrong?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 07/14/13 04:15 PM
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call [man’s] Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man. Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain—and they point at the torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body. The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. . . . Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. . . . Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith . . . The purpose of man’s life . . . is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html Awesome! Love it! You might say that man's original sin is that he became aware and conscious. Perhaps some inner dimensional alien beings genetically engineered the human body to be a non thinking clone, to be used and possessed as a vehicle. In order to operate in this third density world they needed physical bodies. These inner dimensional beings can enter and possess these bodies, just as we use an automobile. They were not supposed to be more than dumb animals or mindless clones. They had souls, consciousness, morals and knowledge of right and wrong. The original man was not a robot but a much more superior being above everything on earth both in power,widom and majesty,full of love,compassion and trust,which the serpent took advantage of to bring him down. It was He,who gave names to every living thing on earth ,even woman? Don't think a senseless robot can do that? Outsmarted by a serpent man? You call that superior? An animal has no concept of right and wrong. According to the Bible, neither did Adam and Eve. They may have been perfect specimens of humanoids but they were like new born children...innocent and not too wise. that's interjecting modern ideas with what the bible said it says they didn't know GOOD AND EVIL,, it doesn't say they didn't know right and wrong, or how to be obedient or disobedient Eve was persuaded, after clearly stating the knowledge that she was not to eat from the tree,,,,KNOWLEDGE of what she was not supposed to do,,, I repeat. An ANIMAL does not know right from wrong or good from evil. They were like dumb innocent animals. And what is wrong with interjecting modern ideas with what the Bible said? Hopefully we humans are a bit more conscious and wise than the dumb animals that were Adam and Eve. Good and evil, right and wrong..... not much difference. man knows obedient from disobedient,, whatever other labels man assigns it and adam and eve were not like dumb animals because they knew obedient from disobedient too,,,, Slaves and trained pets know obedient from disobedient, and maybe some children, that has nothing to do with right and wrong or good or evil. If your master or commanding officer ordered you to murder a child, would you obey? Or would you consider right and wrong? ya know, sometimes dodo gives good advise,, IM remembering some right now so I will leave people to 'obey' whatever 'masters' they choose to,, and let the consequences be their own,,,,

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sun 07/14/13 04:24 PM
If people would wake up and become conscious, their purpose in life would be clear and their connection to the divine creator would be natural and obvious. The problem is, the idea of having a "master" outside of their own connection to the divine leads them to the belief that there is a God that is separate from them, and in believing this, they can't recognize the God within themselves and they worship and obey the impostors.