22jumpstreet:


Like inappropriate sexual relations, incest, sex with animals, Murder, creating Gods from things that where also created, establishing a competent ministry of justice(to protect the weak and poor), stealing,respect for elders ..etc.

The main purpose of laws is for us to live in peace..

Just to reduce chaos and for humans to live in peace..

Do we need a god to create or uphold these laws?

budaatum:


By "the law", I mean that which points to conduct which benefits the human race and extends its existence on the land that the Lord hath given to it.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history

What do you mean by the Lord?

KnownUnknown:


Do we need a god to create or uphold these laws?

NO..


Not at all.

Kobojunkie:
Sin is direct disobedience of God's commandments and Law. These laws define the relationship between God and mankind..

Sin has nothing to do with the creation of the universe as it instead defines a relationship between God and men.

Do you even read before you post ?
The jews operated a theocracy and God was their king. Any violation of the law is described as sin.
But here in Nigeria we operate a democracy. And any violation of the law is called a crime
That is why we must have a competent and functional ministry of justice.
Sin is disobeying divine laws......
Sin/crime insure consequences and punishments..BUT
God solution to the problem of sin is sincere repentance . Confess and forsake, and he will forgive and restore...

22jumpstreet:
1. Do you even read before you post ?
The jews operated a theocracy and God was their king. Any violation of the law is described as sin.


2. But here in Nigeria we operate a democracy. And any violation of the law is called a crime
That is why we must have a competent and functional ministry of justice.

3. Sin is disobeying divine laws......
Sin/crime insure consequences and punishments..BUT
God solution to the problem of sin is sincere repentance . Confess and forsake, and he will forgive and restore...

1. Well, duh! The Law was given them as a National Constitution by God.

2. Um... again....duh! .. the Nigerian Constitution was not given it by God hence the reason why a violation of the law cannot be considered sin against God.

3. You just like to argue meaninglessly is the problem with you.

KnownUnknown:


What do you mean by the Lord?

Nothing in particular really.

It's more whatever you make of the entire sentence than what I might mean by any one particular word. This after all can't be the first time you've heard "the Lord", so you must have your own meaning or opinion of it through which you can understand the entire sentence.

Kobojunkie:
1. Well, duh! The Law was given them as a National Constitution by God.

2. Um... again....duh! .. the Nigerian Constitution was not given it by God hence the reason why a violation of the law cannot be considered sin against God.

3. You just like to argue meaninglessly is the problem with you.

Do you understand my post or you just want to be the first to respond?

KnownUnknown:


Do we need a god to create or uphold these laws?

No god's uphold any laws, Unknown. Laws are for humans to uphold or not, just that in ancient days the fear of the gods made humans uphold the laws more as we learn from Adam whom we read choose to remain ignorant rather than use his own senses for fear of a lie he was told.

22jumpstreet:
Do you understand my post or you just want to be the first to respond?

Did you even ùnderstand the questions you asked to begin with?

budaatum:


No god's uphold any laws, Unknown. Laws are for humans to uphold or not, just that in ancient days the fear of the gods made humans uphold the laws more as we learn from Adam whom we read choose to remain ignorant rather than use his own senses for fear of a lie he was told.

The fear of gods deters some from their worst inclinations and some invoke gods to justify their worst inclinations. Still, some will chose to obey or disobey regardless of god while some discount god altogether. Do you think there is a difference between modern and olden times?

Is Adam a good example to illustrate your point?
If you take Adam to be literal, I can understand the fear of god making him uphold “the law”. If you take Adam as allegory then what you wrote is just your interpretation.

In your interpretation you say Adam didn’t use his senses but is that accurate?

Adam chose to obey the lord while Eve chose to obey the serpent in the heat of the moment. If the serpent had accosted Adam instead of Eve, what makes you think he wouldn’t have “used his senses”?

Was Eve using her senses by eating a potentially dangerous fruit? Or was she just obeying like she obeyed when the lord told her to eat the other fruits?

budaatum:

Nothing in particular really.

It's more whatever you make of the entire sentence than what I might mean by any one particular word. This after all can't be the first time you've heard "the Lord", so you must have your own meaning or opinion of it through which you can understand the entire sentence.

Of course I’ve heard about “the lord” but just like you’ve proven, it depends on the interlocutor, most of whom are only versed in the exoteric. You say “nothing in particular”, which I think is a way to escape defining terms and clarifying what you mean.

If it means nothing, why add it?
By "the law", I mean that which points to conduct which benefits the human race and extends its existence [s]on the land that the Lord hath given to it.[/s]

KnownUnknown:


Of course I’ve heard about “the lord” but just like you’ve proven, it depends on the interlocutor, most of whom are only versed in the exoteric.

I did not know I had to prove that meaning depends on the "interlocutor". I mean, when I say a thing it obviously means something to me, and might mean a different thing to you depending on your own learning.

I added it because you are not the only one I am communicating with even if I quoted you. Take what you want from it and strike out the rest if you want Unknown. The main point, that by "the law, I mean that which points to conduct which benefits the human race and extends its existence", works pretty well too without you being given any land by any lords or gods.

People in nations that live rightly, as in, those that obey the laws of existence, which includes, do not litter, and do not remain ignorant and such, live much longer than those who disregard the laws of existence.

KnownUnknown:

The fear of gods deters some from their worst inclinations and some invoke gods to justify their worst inclinations. Still, some will chose to obey or disobey regardless of god while some discount god altogether. Do you think there is a difference between modern and olden times?

No. Some still fear gods while some don't give a damn just like in olden times.

KnownUnknown:

Is Adam a good example to illustrate your point?
If you take Adam to be literal, I can understand the fear of god making him uphold “the law”. If you take Adam as allegory then what you wrote is just your interpretation.

I do think Adam is a very good example of religious ignorance however you wish to take it. Other examples would have been How Almanjeris are Created, or Plato's Cave, where the ignorant cave dwellers prefer their ignorance, but I prefer to stick to a common text here

Adam ignorantly believed (as in, he never bothered to check if) he would die on the day that he eats of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which would have opened his eyes and given him wisdom so he could have freed himself from slavery. Thankfully, Eve was his exact opposite.

Do note that taking it as allegory or literally is blindness. You don't have such problems when you read Things Fall Apart you'd find, and should wonder why.

And yes, you may call it my own interpretation, which is based on my own understanding, as opposed to what one might have been told to ignorantly believe. Hopefully, you don't mind me using my own mind to understand what I read.

KnownUnknown:
In your interpretation you say Adam didn’t use his senses but is that accurate?

In your own opinion, did Adam use his senses?

Did Eve use her senses?

KnownUnknown:
Adam chose to obey the lord while Eve chose to obey the serpent in the heat of the moment. If the serpent had accosted Adam instead of Eve, what makes you think he wouldn’t have “used his senses”?

Poor ignorant obedient Adam. Do you know he also believed Eve was his rib? Makes me wonder about the serpent to be honest. Poor Eve sits there using her own mind to think and reason, but the 'men' who wrote the story tell you a serpent spoke to her and you believe it.

If Adam had used his senses he would have been far too busy Being fruitful and increasing in number; filling the earth and subduing it. Ruling over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground", and wouldn't have been enslaved and naked in the tiny poxy Garden of Eden by some lord who desired his ignorance.

KnownUnknown:
Was Eve using her senses by eating a potentially dangerous fruit? Or was she just obeying like she obeyed when the lord told her to eat the other fruits?

You would find that no lord directly instructed her, but please explain what the potential danger about the fruit was.

budaatum:


I added it because you are not the only one I am communicating with even if I quoted you. Take what you want from it and strike out the rest if you want Unknown. The main point, that by "the law, I mean that which points to conduct which benefits the human race and extends its existence", works pretty well too without you being given any land by any lords or gods.

Okay. No need for lords and gods.

budaatum:

No. Some still fear gods while some don't give a damn just like in olden times.


I do think Adam is a very good example of religious ignorance however you wish to take it.

What is religious ignorance?

budaatum:

Do note that taking it as allegory or literally is blindness.

Understanding the allegory is the cure to the blindness.

budaatum:

You don't have such problems when you read Things Fall Apart you'd find, and should wonder why.

Things fall apart does not represent the foundation of religious belief and it doesn’t fal under the confusion of allegory or literal classification

budaatum:

And yes, you may call it my own interpretation, which is based on my own understanding, as opposed to what one might have been told to ignorantly believe. Hopefully, you don't mind me using my own mind to understand what I read.

They can be slaves or freemen. Makes no difference as long as you don’t insist that your interpretation is right, which you’ve argued with people about.

budaatum:

In your own opinion, did Adam use his senses?
Did Eve use her senses?

Neither were using their senses if you are referring to critical thinking because they are both presented as simpletons to be commanded.

budaatum:

You would find that no lord directly instructed her, but please explain what the potential danger about the fruit was.

The fruit could as well have been poisoned. It could have triggered the decay that eventually killed them.
It’s not like they got smarter after eating the fruit. They realized they were naked but still didn’t make clothes and the Lord had to make them clothes and basically instruction to till the land. One can interpret the story anyway that’s suitable if one doesn’t stick to the actual meaning of the allegory.

So one can say that the fruit was poisonous and that Eve clearly wasn’t “using her senses”.

KnownUnknown:


Okay. No need for lords and gods.

For you, perhaps. We can't exactly discuss Adam and Eve without them, and we should not discard them without first working hard to make the unknown known.

What is your understanding of "lords and gods", KnownUnknown?

Dtruthspeaker:
Men people are so unjust and evil.

Clearly, God created a perfect world then by the doing the will of Satan, man ruined it.

But now seeing this ruin, this evil is now speaking upside down.

The way you see your god sha. So your god created a perfect world and Satan(his creation) ruined it for him? How is that perfection? That means he created a perfect world with imperfect beings in charge who ruined it? Ok after he found out his error, he then wiped the surface clean with "the flood" only for the world to slip back into imperfection? This kind God una dey worship are you sure he is the real one?

budaatum:


For you, perhaps. We can't exactly discuss Adam and Eve without them, and we should not discard them without first working hard to make the unknown known.

We weren’t discussing Adam and Eve when we first mentioned the Lord and the “nothing in particular” definition can’t work in the Adam and Eve story.

budaatum:

What is your understanding of "lords and gods", KnownUnknown?

The luminaries.

KnownUnknown:

What is religious ignorance?

Believing, mostly. When one lacks understanding of religious texts.

KnownUnknown:

Understanding the allegory is the cure to the blindness.

I'd say, "understanding the text", since calling it an allegory kind of implies anything but. After all, it could be a story or mythology too, or "the foundation of religious belief" of some, though, to me it's words in a book to be understood.

KnownUnknown:
Things fall apart does not represent the foundation of religious belief and it doesn’t fal under the confusion of allegory or literal classification.

Oh how so little you seem to know that some study Things Fall Apart for different reasons like trying to understand the foundations of the religious beliefs of some.

KnownUnknown:
They can be slaves or freemen. Makes no difference as long as you don’t insist that your interpretation is right, which you’ve argued with people about.

Known. How can I possibly be insisting that my own understanding must be your own understanding? Is my mind your mind? Don't you have a mind if your own to use to get your own understanding?

You will notice that while you keep insisting it is my own interpretation, I keep correcting you that it is my understanding of a text we claim to have read.

Please know that buda is stating buda's understanding of the text, specifically with the insistence that you use your own eyes and mind like Eve did to get an understanding of your own as opposed believing like ignorant Adam did

KnownUnknown:
Neither were using their senses if you are referring to critical thinking because they are both presented as simpletons to be commanded.

Did Eve not disobey a commandment when she used her own senses to test if she would die on the day that she ate or not?

KnownUnknown:
The fruit could as well have been poisoned. It could have triggered the decay that eventually killed them.

But it wasn't poisoned nor triggered the decay that eventually killed them, so what's your point?

Should they not have bothered to check instead of making "could have" crap up in their own heads?

KnownUnknown:

It’s not like they got smarter after eating the fruit.

Is that your own understanding of the following:

"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom".

I can't see how your allegory lense or any lense at all makes you think that's not "smarter".

KnownUnknown:
So one can say that the fruit was poisonous and that Eve clearly wasn’t “using her senses”.

There are indeed people on this earth who say that the fruits of trees of knowledge are poisonous, but usually they eat it themselves and deprive others of it's benefits, to wit Christ is written to have said, [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023&version=ESV]Woe[/url]!

oluwaahmed:

The way you see your god sha. So your god created a perfect world and Satan(his creation) ruined it for him? How is that perfection?

Is that greatly unjust you people have become? Yet you cry "injustice", "injustice", whereas it is your yous giving and doing the injustice.

The mere fact your sister poured water into your mother's soup making you all complain, is clear proof that the soup was perfect before.

oluwaahmed:

That means he created a perfect world with imperfect beings in charge who ruined it?

Correction!

It was one perfect being among the other perfect beings, who destroyed his own perfection and has gone about destroying every perfect thing he can find, which is no different from your sister pouring water into your mother's perfect soup.

oluwaahmed:

Ok after he found out his error, he then wiped the surface clean with "the flood" only for the world to slip back into imperfection? This kind God una dey worship are you sure he is the real one?

When plates, clothes, cars and children get dirty, do we not first Wash them?

So is there anything bad in Washing afresh a thing?

Is it not rather Good?

You guys are just unreasonable, unfair, unjust and evil people who because of your evil, you are just looking to fabricate untrue accusations up to grasping at air, just to say that He Who is All Good, has done something you would like to say is wrong.

WHEREAS, THRRE IS NONE!

KnownUnknown:


We weren’t discussing Adam and Eve when we first mentioned the Lord and the “nothing in particular” definition can’t work in the Adam and Eve story.

The luminaries.

We are discussing God. It's in the topic of the thread, known. And creation does include Adam and Eve and the entire God books and a lot more, if one asked me.

What is your meaning of luminaries, please?

budaatum:

Believing, mostly. When one lacks understanding of religious texts.

What do you mean understanding?

budaatum:
Oh how so little you seem to know that some study Things Fall Apart for different reasons like trying to understand the foundations of the religious beliefs of some.

Oh well, you can assume what I seem to know but nothing I said implies what you assume.

budaatum:

I'd say, "understanding the text", since calling it an allegory kind of implies anything but. After all, it could be a story or mythology too, or "the foundation of religious belief" of some, though, to me it's words in a book to be understood
Known. How can I possibly be insisting that my own understanding must be your own understanding? Is my mind your mind? Don't you have a mind if your own to use to get your own understanding?

You will notice that while you keep insisting it is my own interpretation, I keep correcting you that it is my understanding of a text we claim to have read.

I never said anything you are claiming. I didn't tell you not to call it understanding so why are you up in arms because I called it your interpretation when you can't show your interpretation to be the intended meaning anyway. Call it understanding all you want.

budaatum:

Please know that buda is stating buda's understanding of the text, specifically with the insistence that you use your own eyes and mind like Eve did to get an understanding of your own as opposed believing like ignorant Adam did

You are the one treating your interpretation like a fact so maybe you're believing like ignorant Adam.

budaatum:

Did Eve not disobey a commandment when she used her own senses to test if she would die on the day that she ate or not?

budaatum:

But it wasn't poisoned nor triggered the decay that eventually killed them, so what's your point?

I can say it was poison in the fruit that triggered the decay that eventually killed them just like you can say that they were slaves in the garden to prove your point.

budaatum:

Should they not have bothered to check instead of making "could have" crap up in their own heads?

I'm sure you can use your senses to increase the amount of choices instead of the two you have decided on.

budaatum:

"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom".
I can't see how your allegory lense or any lense at all makes you think that's not "smarter".

Isn't the above supporting the claim that's its an allegory for pursuing knowledge/wisdom?
The story is also more than the eating of the fruit but your interpretation doesn't take that into account. Also, she saw that it was desirable for gaining wisdom prior to eating it.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

budaatum:


We are discussing God. It's in the topic of the thread, known. And creation does include Adam and Eve and the entire God books and a lot more, if one asked me.

What is your meaning of luminaries, please?

We weren't discussing God and topics often veer of the OP so don't act brand new. I asked specifically about the lord you referred to in your response to me not any god. And you did say “nothing in particular” but if you mean God, fine.

Luminaries as in the orbs that doth the sky.

KnownUnknown:

You are the one treating your interpretation like a fact so maybe you're believing like ignorant Adam.

I can say it was poison in the fruit that triggered the decay that eventually killed them just like you can say that they were slaves in the garden to prove your point.

We are discussing what we can both clearly read in a book, unknown. Not what we make up in our heads, but if you want to convince yourself "poison in the fruit that triggered the decay that eventually killed them" 800 or so years after they ate it, so be it for you, but pease know I do not hold that understanding with you.

KnownUnknown:

Isn't the above supporting the claim that's its an allegory for pursuing knowledge/wisdom?
The story is also more than the eating of the fruit but your interpretation doesn't take that into account. Also, she saw that it was desirable for gaining wisdom prior to eating it.

It is way more than just an allegory to me, is my own point. And my so called interpretation as you see it, has not yet begun to cover my understanding of it which you have not yet explored, mind.

KnownUnknown:
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Now, does that not sound like they got smarter, to you? They even made clothes of fig leaves to cover their ignorance, or rather, unclothedness.

KnownUnknown:


We weren't discussing God and topics often veer of the OP so don't act brand new. I asked specifically about the lord you referred to in your response to me not any god. And you did say “nothing in particular” but if you mean God, fine.sky.

You asked a question and got God in response. Deal with it or not unknown.

KnownUnknown:

Luminaries as in the orbs that doth the sky.

What "orbs" "doth the sky"?

KnownUnknown:


What do you mean understanding?

Understanding is a comprehension gotten through the in depth study of a thing.

With religious texts, for instance, a deeper understanding would be gotten by those who consider the text historically, sociologically, mythologically, anthropologically, hermeneutically, philosophically, psychologically, mindfully, spiritually, humanely, etc etc etc, than one who reads the text and merely believes it.

Nice one. GOD has given the secret of this world to true Jewish Rabbis. The New Testament is a SCAM but GOD brought good out of it to give us access to the Old Testament where we can find HIM and for us to make the Old Testament perfect.

Here is the Full Transcript on youtube:

Transcript 00:00 i need you to hear this 00:01 because we could do an entire lecture on 00:03 just this idea but we'll condense it you 00:06 know that there are people who believe 00:08 to this day and who believed in ancient 00:10 times that practicing medicine was a sin 00:15 why christian science 00:17 god made you sick because god does 00:19 everything god is responsible for 00:20 everything if you're sick it must be 00:21 because god wants you to be sick so who 00:23 are you to make somebody well 00:26 you're going against god's will 00:28 you understand that with that logic you 00:30 could negate all of science all of 00:32 progress 00:34 wright brothers who were you who met the 00:36 plane if god would have wanted you to 00:37 fly he would have been in your wings 00:39 right you don't have wings you shouldn't 00:40 fly 00:42 whatever is and hence the will of god 00:46 and hence who are you to tamper with it 00:48 and what does the jews say 00:50 whatever is isn't 00:53 the ideal because god leaves a role for 00:56 us to play as partners with god in the 00:59 divine drama 01:02 of bringing about 01:03 perfection of the world which is called 01:06 tikkun olam 01:08 perfecting the universe there is a 01:10 remarkable 01:12 series of stories in the midrash about 01:15 events that essentially took place 01:16 between turnus rufus and roman governor 01:19 and rabbi akiva and the roman governor 01:22 in one instance says to rabbi akiva how 01:25 dare you give charity to the poor god 01:27 obviously wanted them to be poor if they 01:29 are poor 01:30 how dare you 01:32 change what god intended and in another 01:35 version of the story 01:37 he says to him how dare you practice 01:39 medicine 01:40 if god didn't want to be sick you 01:41 wouldn't be sick and in the third 01:43 version of the story which is the most 01:45 fascinating he says to him you people 01:47 are a very stupid people who are 01:49 rebellious against god because the very 01:51 first thing you do when god presents you 01:53 with a male child is 01:55 to snip off a little peace 01:57 how dare you alter 01:59 what god has given you and the response 02:01 to that is well god 02:03 told us 02:04 he didn't finish 02:06 creating human beings 02:08 we are meant 02:10 to complete ourselves 02:12 and therefore god 02:14 left a task for us as a symbol of the 02:17 fact 02:18 that the world is unfinished on what day 02:22 is britt mila 02:24 and why is that because in seven days 02:28 god created the world 02:30 and on the eighth day god says now 02:34 you take over and now you continue the 02:36 task of creation 02:40 ani 02:43 i'm mispronouncing it purposely 02:46 i am the god shall omar die who said 02:48 enough at a certain point i didn't 02:50 finish the job because i leave the rest 02:52 for you to complete 02:57 so being a doctor is a mitzvah but how 02:58 could you heal the sick 03:00 because that's what god wants us to do 03:02 to become partners with him in the act 03:05 of creation that is a quote from the 03:07 talmud you will show me the jerusalem 03:09 talmud amazing 03:11 so jews are doctors 03:14 and jews 03:17 said when they looked at the world 03:21 this is the way it is 03:23 but not the way it should be 03:25 and the reason it isn't the way it 03:27 should be yet is because god said no 03:30 i went as far as i wanted to go 03:34 let's see what you can do and let's see 03:35 how you can become a partner with me in 03:37 bringing about perfection 03:40 the roar jewish learning institute has 03:42 the largest collection of Jewish media 03:44 online hit subscribe for more


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQthe2ZJTYs

The old testament is even worse than the new testament. An almighty God requiring animal sacrifice, what make him dfr from Ogun? Or sango? He orders his children- israel to go and wipe out other humans whom are supposedly his children. He orders them to wipe out old, young and infants wtf? I mean how u can u blame putin for invading Ukraine and accept Israel for killing all the amelekites including their infants. Isn't such a person daft? The old testament that he ordered ezekiel to make food with shìt(literal shit-human feaces) and ezekiel refused yhen he changed his mind. When will you wake up and realise the god of the old testament is the jewish god of war and not the eternal father who has no name and who can't be jealous, angry, requiring sacrifice becos he is entirely perfect.

KnownUnknown:


I never said anything you are claiming. I didn't tell you not to call it understanding so why are you up in arms because I called it your interpretation when you can't show your interpretation to be the intended meaning anyway.

I am not claiming my understanding is the intended meaning, and that's why I make a distinction between interpretation and understanding. Interpretation implies that the text is only saying what I claim, while my understanding is entirely my own, errors included.

I trust you, you see. I trust that you can read the text yourself and see that the huge job that the humans created in Genesis 1 were written to have been given requires that they eat the fruits of trees of knowledge because if they don't, they could not possibly be in the image of the powerful intelligent creating God that we read created them nor would they be up to the task they were given because they would not have had the knowledge for it. I also expect it is obvious that Genesis 2 Adam and Eve have been demoted to naked gardeners, from "be fruitful rule over" Genesis 1 humans.

Known. If I put you in a garden, naked, and say, don't eat the fruits of knowledge, would I not be enslaving you?

And if I told you you'd surely die on the day you do eat it, have I not lied if you don't die that day?

It's always good to ask questions but the best thing to do is patiently wait for answers!

oluwaahmed:

The old testament is even worse than the new testament. An almighty God requiring animal sacrifice, what make him dfr from Ogun? Or sango? He orders his children- israel to go and wipe out other humans whom are supposedly his children. He orders them to wipe out old, young and infants wtf? I mean how u can u blame putin for invading Ukraine and accept Israel for killing all the amelekites including their infants. Isn't such a person daft? The old testament that he ordered ezekiel to make food with shìt(literal shit-human feaces) and ezekiel refused yhen he changed his mind. When will you wake up and realise the god of the old testament is the jewish god of war and not the eternal father who has no name and who can't be jealous, angry, requiring sacrifice becos he is entirely perfect.

oluwaahmed:


The old testament is even worse than the new testament. An almighty God requiring animal sacrifice, what make him dfr from Ogun? Or sango? He orders his children- israel ......

Not true, Sir. The truth is that you read it in a book, same as an Ogun or Sango worshipper would claim to have heard it in iron or thunder if we wrote books about it. And therein lies the beauty of the book in explaining early human nature, after all, it has numerous stories of talking serpents and bushes and fires and angels and demons and things for you to learn about human use of the mind and its evolution.

No God ordered anyone. People of those days just thought so because they had not yet discovered their own mind. Yet, we should delight in the record of their journey and avoid the mistakes they made.

[sup][/sup]

budaatum:


I am not claiming my understanding is the intended meaning, and that's why I make a distinction between interpretation and understanding. Interpretation implies that the text is only saying what I claim, while my understanding is entirely my own, errors included.

I trust you, you see. I trust that you can read the text yourself and see that the huge job that the humans created in Genesis 1 were written to have been given requires that they eat the fruits of trees of knowledge because if they don't, they could not possibly be in the image of the powerful intelligent creating God that we read created them nor would they be up to the task they were given because they would not have had the knowledge for it. I also expect it is obvious that Genesis 2 Adam and Eve have been demoted to naked gardeners, from "be fruitful rule over" Genesis 1 humans.

Known. If I put you in a garden, naked, and say, don't eat the fruits of knowledge, would I not be enslaving you?

And if I told you you'd surely die on the day you do eat it, have I not lied if you don't die that day?

I’m not really interested in your interpretation.

budaatum:


Understanding is a comprehension gotten through the in depth study of a thing.

With religious texts, for instance, a deeper understanding would be gotten by those who consider the text historically, sociologically, mythologically, anthropologically, hermeneutically, philosophically, psychologically, mindfully, spiritually, humanely, etc etc etc, than one who reads the text and merely believes it.

Understanding just means grasping the actual meaning and intents if the authors.