₦airaland Forum

I like to think the garden of Eden was situated somewhere in Africa, and possible the Sahara desert, it just mere assumptions though out of curiosity.

phatriqk:
I like to think the garden of Eden was situated somewhere in Africa, and possible the Sahara desert, it just mere assumptions though out of curiosity.

It was Mars. When they got kicked out of the garden, the garden and the planet dried up and became red to signify the defection of that great red dragon, the devil. The four rivers were given earthly names to make the story more familiar to humans in their new abode.

phatriqk:
I like to think the garden of Eden was situated somewhere in Africa, and possible the Sahara desert, it just mere assumptions though out of curiosity.

Nobody can say for now but it's definitely on planet earth but the deluge in Noah's days washed it away!

phatriqk:
I like to think the garden of Eden was situated somewhere in Africa, and possible the Sahara desert, it just mere assumptions though out of curiosity.

The story is an allegory that encapsulate certain moral truth. It shouldn't be taken as a literal account of something that happened in the past.

It's only religious fundamentalist, who due to indoctrination, take it as something that actually happened.

Most moderate Christians know the story for what it is; an allegory. But they won't admit it openly.

triplechoice:
The story is an allegory that encapsulate certain moral truth. It shouldn't be taken as a literal account of something that happened in the past.

It's only religious fundamentalist, who due to indoctrination, take it as something that actually happened.

Most moderate Christians know the story for what it is; an allegory. But they won't admit it openly.

That is because all the people who you are talking about never found it.

Obviously you guys do not know that David found it.

Dtruthspeaker:
That is because all the people who you are talking about never found it.

Obviously you guys do not know that David found it.

Is it in the scripture??

phatriqk:
Is it in the scripture??

What do you think Psalms and Proverbs is all about eg famous Psalm 23, and other reports of people who got there even if momentarily, eh Solomon, Hezekiah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc

triplechoice:
The story is an allegory that encapsulate certain moral truth. It shouldn't be taken as a literal account of something that happened in the past.

What is the encapsulated “moral truth” of the allegory?

triplechoice:
It's only religious fundamentalist, who due to indoctrination, take it as something that actually happened.

Most moderate Christians know the story for what it is; an allegory. But they won't admit it openly.

What is a moderate Christian? Are there levels of severity in Christianity?

If it’s an allegory, what is the “original sin” that Jesus supposedly died for to forgive and them? If the naked simpletons didn’t literally eat a fruit and Hebrew god didn’t get angry, why did the ghost impregnate the virgin in order to give birth to the sacrificial lamb?
Is Jesus also an allegory? What do s he symbolize?

phatriqk:
I like to think the garden of Eden was situated somewhere in Africa, and possible the Sahara desert, it just mere assumptions though out of curiosity.

Iraq

Maynman:
Iraq

I use to look at the beauty of Africa as an attribute inherited from being the location of the garden of eden

phatriqk:
I use to look at the beauty of Africa as an attribute inherited from being the location of the garden of eden

The Bible never mentioned any specific place so after the global deluge Noah's Ark rested on mountain Ararat and that's where people began spreading all over the earth.

Maybe turkey... Maybe Iraq

phatriqk:
I use to look at the beauty of Africa as an attribute inherited from being the location of the garden of eden

When was “africa” created?

phatriqk:
I like to think the garden of Eden was situated somewhere in Africa, and possible the Sahara desert, it just mere assumptions though out of curiosity.

Heaven and hell indeed exist as separate upper worlds. After the death of a soul on earth, the soul enjoys the fruits of its meritorious and sinful deeds in those worlds respectively, for a stipulated period of time. Thereafter, the soul takes a fresh birth on earth.

The person’s life span on earth is separate from the time period spent by the soul in heaven and hell. Earth, heaven, and hell are all separate places. The places are different and the times spent by the soul in each place are also different. So, none is disturbed by the other. Earth is meant for doing deeds with full freedom.

Hence, it is known as the world of actions (karma loka). Heaven and hell are known as worlds of enjoyment (bhoga lokas), where the fruits of the deeds done by the soul on earth are merely enjoyed. There is no freedom in those worlds. The fruits have to be enjoyed for the stipulated period, without any choice. No new deeds are done in those worlds.

On earth, while the person is performing deeds, the enjoyment of the fruits of the deeds should not disturb the person. Similarly, while the soul is enjoying the fruits in the upper worlds, the performance of deeds should not disturb the soul’s enjoyment.

Hence, the deed and its fruit are kept separate in place and time so that they do not interfere with each other. This is the general rule but there are some exceptions. One exception is that the fruits of very intensive deeds of a soul are to be enjoyed by the soul on earth itself. Another major and overall exception is that God can draw any fruit from the life cycle of a soul and grant it to the soul to enjoy at any particular time.

This is done with a view to reforming the soul. The soul is the disciple and God is the Divine Spiritual Preacher. Hence, God closely attends to the activity of reforming the soul.

So, the separation of the deed and its fruit in place and time is not a hard and fast rule. The place and time of delivery of the fruits of the soul’s deeds is ultimately decided by God, who is the Supermost Authority and the possessor of the supermost knowledge. His decision is most effective for reforming the soul and for providing eternal benefit to the soul.

Every soul on earth is made of the three fundamental qualities: sattvam, rajas and tamas. Sattvam represents knowledge, softness of nature and devotion to God. Rajas represents ego, greed and activity. Tamas represents ignorance, rigid attachment to worldly enjoyment and inactivity. Each soul has its own specific ratio of these three qualities which remains approximately fixed although there might be slight changes.

These three qualities are very intense on earth. Let us take an example of a soul having ratio of 60:25:15 in sattvam, rajas and tamas respectively. Let us say that the quantity of each of these qualities is in kilograms to indicate their high intensities. When the soul returns to earth after going to heaven and hell, this ratio does not change. However, the intensities of each of the three qualities greatly reduce.

Thus, the soul which has just taken birth on earth has the same ratio (60:25:15) of the three qualities. The only difference is that now the quantity of each of the three qualities is in grams instead of kilograms. How did the quantity or intensity of each of the qualities reduce? The punishments in hell reduced the intensities of the soul’s rajas and tamas.

Similarly, the enjoyment in heaven reduced the soul’s desire for happiness, which means, it reduced the intensity of sattvam. This ratio of the three qualities, as the soul returns to earth, is called sañcita.

In the case of this example chosen by us, the soul’s predominant quality is sattvam (60%). It will give a birth to the soul in the family of scholars of spiritual knowledge providing a congenial environment to the soul. This predominant quality (60% sattvam) causing that particular birth is called prārabdha. As the soul lives on earth, the quantities of each of the qualities will increase from grams to kilograms.

The ratio will still usually remain approximately the same (60:25:15). Occasionally, this ratio may even change to a large extent. It may change to a new ratio such as 80:15:5. It means that sattvam increased a lot in that particular birth of the soul. This happens when the soul comes in contact with a divine spiritual preacher. The added and deleted amounts of the three qualities leading to a large change in the ratio is called āgāmi.

There is full freedom given to the soul on earth to change this ratio by acquiring spiritual knowledge and performing good deeds. Hence, it is said that even angels are eager to take human birth on earth! If the soul wastes or misuses the precious time of this rare human birth by spending it all in petty worldly matters, such a soul must indeed be given the rare title ‘the most unfortunate soul’.
Go to the following website and read the divine knowledge from there,

dattaswami1:
Heaven and hell indeed exist as separate upper worlds. After the death of a soul on earth, the soul enjoys the fruits of its meritorious and sinful deeds in those worlds respectively, for a stipulated period of time. Thereafter, the soul takes a fresh birth on earth.

The person’s life span on earth is separate from the time period spent by the soul in heaven and hell. Earth, heaven, and hell are all separate places. The places are different and the times spent by the soul in each place are also different. So, none is disturbed by the other. Earth is meant for doing deeds with full freedom.

Hence, it is known as the world of actions (karma loka). Heaven and hell are known as worlds of enjoyment (bhoga lokas), where the fruits of the deeds done by the soul on earth are merely enjoyed. There is no freedom in those worlds. The fruits have to be enjoyed for the stipulated period, without any choice. No new deeds are done in those worlds.

On earth, while the person is performing deeds, the enjoyment of the fruits of the deeds should not disturb the person. Similarly, while the soul is enjoying the fruits in the upper worlds, the performance of deeds should not disturb the soul’s enjoyment.

Hence, the deed and its fruit are kept separate in place and time so that they do not interfere with each other. This is the general rule but there are some exceptions. One exception is that the fruits of very intensive deeds of a soul are to be enjoyed by the soul on earth itself. Another major and overall exception is that God can draw any fruit from the life cycle of a soul and grant it to the soul to enjoy at any particular time.

This is done with a view to reforming the soul. The soul is the disciple and God is the Divine Spiritual Preacher. Hence, God closely attends to the activity of reforming the soul.

So, the separation of the deed and its fruit in place and time is not a hard and fast rule. The place and time of delivery of the fruits of the soul’s deeds is ultimately decided by God, who is the Supermost Authority and the possessor of the supermost knowledge. His decision is most effective for reforming the soul and for providing eternal benefit to the soul.

Every soul on earth is made of the three fundamental qualities: sattvam, rajas and tamas. Sattvam represents knowledge, softness of nature and devotion to God. Rajas represents ego, greed and activity. Tamas represents ignorance, rigid attachment to worldly enjoyment and inactivity. Each soul has its own specific ratio of these three qualities which remains approximately fixed although there might be slight changes.

These three qualities are very intense on earth. Let us take an example of a soul having ratio of 60:25:15 in sattvam, rajas and tamas respectively. Let us say that the quantity of each of these qualities is in kilograms to indicate their high intensities. When the soul returns to earth after going to heaven and hell, this ratio does not change. However, the intensities of each of the three qualities greatly reduce.

Thus, the soul which has just taken birth on earth has the same ratio (60:25:15) of the three qualities. The only difference is that now the quantity of each of the three qualities is in grams instead of kilograms. How did the quantity or intensity of each of the qualities reduce? The punishments in hell reduced the intensities of the soul’s rajas and tamas.

Similarly, the enjoyment in heaven reduced the soul’s desire for happiness, which means, it reduced the intensity of sattvam. This ratio of the three qualities, as the soul returns to earth, is called sañcita.

In the case of this example chosen by us, the soul’s predominant quality is sattvam (60%). It will give a birth to the soul in the family of scholars of spiritual knowledge providing a congenial environment to the soul. This predominant quality (60% sattvam) causing that particular birth is called prārabdha. As the soul lives on earth, the quantities of each of the qualities will increase from grams to kilograms.

The ratio will still usually remain approximately the same (60:25:15). Occasionally, this ratio may even change to a large extent. It may change to a new ratio such as 80:15:5. It means that sattvam increased a lot in that particular birth of the soul. This happens when the soul comes in contact with a divine spiritual preacher. The added and deleted amounts of the three qualities leading to a large change in the ratio is called āgāmi.

There is full freedom given to the soul on earth to change this ratio by acquiring spiritual knowledge and performing good deeds. Hence, it is said that even angels are eager to take human birth on earth! If the soul wastes or misuses the precious time of this rare human birth by spending it all in petty worldly matters, such a soul must indeed be given the rare title ‘the most unfortunate soul’.
Go to the following website and read the divine knowledge from there,

Ignorance is not bliss.

KnownUnknown:
What is the encapsulated “moral truth” of the allegory?

One should seek for knowledge or truth at any cost. They ate the forbidden fruit( knowledge) and their"eyes became open" .

It's an origin myth and also an allegory. Anyone who reads it without bias can find other themes running through it.

What is a moderate Christian? Are there levels of severity in Christianity?

Very surprised you're asking this sort of question. It's common knowledge that every religious group has it's moderate believers; The non fundamentalist.

If it’s an allegory, what is the “original sin” that Jesus supposedly died for to forgive and them?

The concept of the "original sin' is church doctrine meant to instill guilt in the minds of people for something that doesn't concern them in order to make them seek desperately for forgiveness from a saviour or anyone they believe can take the away the burden of guilt.

If the naked simpletons didn’t literally eat a fruit and Hebrew god didn’t get angry, why did the ghost impregnate the virgin in order to give birth to the sacrificial lamb?
Is Jesus also an allegory? What do s he symbolize?

The Adam and Eve story is not unique to Christianity. There are other versions of the allegory in other religious groups; Judaism and Islam, for instance.

It's only in Christianity you will find the concept of "original sin" linked to it.

If there's no original sin (there's non), then nobody needs to be saved from anything by anyone. We are the only ones to bear the consequences of whatever choice we make in life.

Keep searching for the location of the garden of Eden. You'll find what you're looking for one day.


Instead of you to create a peaceful Eden in your home, you're there asking for the location of what we're not even sure is real.

triplechoice:
One should seek for knowledge or truth at any cost. They ate the forbidden fruit( knowledge) and their"eyes became open" .

It's an origin myth and also an allegory. Anyone who reads it without bias can find other themes running through it.

Definitely part of an origin myth and I understand your “moral truth” but I disagree.

triplechoice:
Very surprised you're asking this sort of question. It's common knowledge that every religious group has it's moderate believers; The non fundamentalist.

It’s not common knowledge but a common assumption. Who decides where the moderates end and the fundamentalist begin. You say that as if there is a clear line between a moderate and a fundamentalist when it’s totally subjective.

triplechoice:
The concept of the "original sin' is church doctrine meant to instill guilt in the minds of people for something that doesn't concern them in order to make them seek desperately for forgiveness from a saviour or anyone they believe can take the away the burden of guilt.

The church doctrine that may be the greatest scam ever perpetrated. However, there is an “original sin” in the story that is utterly useless to the church.

triplechoice:
The Adam and Eve story is not unique to Christianity. There are other versions of the allegory in other religious groups; Judaism and Islam, for instance.

It's only in Christianity you will find the concept of "original sin" linked to it.

If there's no original sin (there's non), then nobody needs to be saved from anything by anyone. We are the only ones to bear the consequences of whatever choice we make in life.

Judaism and its offshoots share the same Adam and Eve, just different interpretations. All wrong by the way. But you are right, what is salvation to one without sin?

triplechoice:
The story is an allegory that encapsulate certain moral truth. It shouldn't be taken as a literal account of something that happened in the past.

It's only religious fundamentalist, who due to indoctrination, take it as something that actually happened.

Most moderate Christians know the story for what it is; an allegory. But they won't admit it openly.

Kudo

You are woke...

KnownUnknown:
What is the encapsulated “moral truth” of the allegory?



What is a moderate Christian? Are there levels of severity in Christianity?

If it’s an allegory, what is the “original sin” that Jesus supposedly died for to forgive and them? If the naked simpletons didn’t literally eat a fruit and Hebrew god didn’t get angry, why did the ghost impregnate the virgin in order to give birth to the sacrificial lamb?
Is Jesus also an allegory? What do s he symbolize?

Forget about Jesus..

He is just a creation of the Roman empire.

There is no such thing like original sin...

The story is allegorical.

KnownUnknown:
Definitely part of an origin myth and I understand your “moral truth” but I disagree.



It’s not common knowledge but a common assumption. Who decides where the moderates end and the fundamentalist begin. You say that as if there is a clear line between a moderate and a fundamentalist when it’s totally subjective.



The church doctrine that may be the greatest scam ever perpetrated. However, there is an “original sin” in the story that is utterly useless to the church.



Judaism and its offshoots share the same Adam and Eve, just different interpretations. All wrong by the way. But you are right, what is salvation to one without sin?

Your problem be say you no dey piss for one place..

Piss for one place, make them see the foam..

I think it is an allegory for our mind...

sonmvayina:
Forget about Jesus..
He is just a creation of the Roman empire.

Jesus is not a creation of the Roman Empire. Just because they organized their state religion around the figure of Jesus doesn’t mean they created it. The creators, or at least the custodians of the system of allegory that led to Jesus, are in the story of the gospels if you know what you’re looking at. They organized the oldest known form of Christianity but they didn’t create Jesus.
As usual you’re quick to say Jesus was a creation of whatever empire but somehow unable to extend the same criticism to your beloved Judaism. Why is the god of the Jews any more real than the god of the Incas?

sonmvayina:
There is no such thing like original sin...

There is no such thing as literal sin anyway regardless if it’s original or subsequent. That said there is an allegorical meaning.

sonmvayina:
The story is allegorical.

Preaching to the choir.

sonmvayina:
Your problem be say you no dey piss for one place..
Piss for one place, make them see the foam..

I guess you think you’ve written something clever.

KnownUnknown:
Definitely part of an origin myth and I understand your “moral truth” but I disagree.

Why do you disagree? Is seeking for knowledge at any cost not worth it?

It’s not common knowledge but a common assumption. Who decides where the moderates end and the fundamentalist begin. You say that as if there is a clear line between a moderate and a fundamentalist when it’s totally subjective.

It is not an assumption that there are moderate religious people. It is critics of religion, who are pushing for its complete eradication, that deny this fact. Moderate believers are more tolerant of non believers. This can't be said of the fundamentalist. Even amongst atheist there are moderate atheist and atheist fundamentalist. The later are very intolerant, and are everywhere on the net engaged in psychological terrorism of religious people .So it is not subjective but an explicit behavior that anyone can observe and make the distinction.

The church doctrine that may be the greatest scam ever perpetrated. However, there is an “original sin” in the story that is utterly useless to the church.

Well, I see it as an effective recruitment tactics to get new members, and not useless. It has been working and will continue to work

No matter how we want to look at it, religion will continue to be part of our collective reality.It can't be completely eradicated now or in the future.

Religion as we all know, function as a coping mechanism for some people. Not everyone is mentally tough to cope with the challenges of life. It may be easy for some persons to cope, but for others not an easy thing.

Judaism and its offshoots share the same Adam and Eve, just different interpretations.

Not exactly the same. For instance, the version of the story in the Koran is not exactly the same in the Bible. Also in judaic methology, the first wife of Adam was Lilith. She failed to obey Adam and was banished from the garden.
Whatever the case, it doesn't make sense for anyone to inherit "original sin" from a story that is fiction.

KnownUnknown:
I guess you think you’ve written something clever.

You are neither here nor there...

No where wey person fit hold you...

triplechoice:
Why do you disagree? Is seeking for knowledge at any cost not worth it?

I just disagree that your interpretation is the meaning of the story not that seeking knowledge is not worth it.

triplechoice:
It is not an assumption that there are moderate religious people. It is critics of religion, who are pushing for its complete eradication, that deny this fact.

The only people who ever push for the eradication of religion are those with ideologies that view religion as the competitor. Those types usually have the power of the State behind them. Critics of religion just want the socially incompatible ideas of religion to be kept out of the public sphere.

triplechoice:
Moderate believers are more tolerant of non believers. This can't be said of the fundamentalist.

You’d be better served to give examples of “moderate” believers and the “fundamentalist” believers from a couple of religions. Saying moderates are more tolerant of non believers doesn’t say much. Why is toleration on the part of religious people the difference between moderates and fundamentalists? They get their ideas from the same source regardless if you call them moderates or fundamentalists.

triplechoice:
Even amongst atheist there are moderate atheist and atheist fundamentalist. The later are very intolerant, and are everywhere on the net engaged in psychological terrorism of religious people.

This is why I said that dichotomy of moderates and fundamentalists is totally subjective. Your definition has to do with atheists on the internet mocking religion.

triplechoice:
So it is not subjective but an explicit behavior that anyone can observe and make the distinction.

No, it is very subjective as you’ve shown already.

triplechoice:
Well, I see it as an effective recruitment tactics to get new members, and not useless. It has been working and will continue to work

I didn’t say it was useless. I said the actual interpretation of “original sin” is useless to the church not the interpretation they tell their believers, which is obviously very effective.

triplechoice:
No matter how we want to look at it, religion will continue to be part of our collective reality.It can't be completely eradicated now or in the future.

Why the eradication straw man? No one said anything about eradication.

triplechoice:
Religion as we all know, function as a coping mechanism for some people. Not everyone is mentally tough to cope with the challenges of life. It may be easy for some persons to cope, but for others not an easy thing.

Of course.

triplechoice:
Not exactly the same. For instance, the version of the story in the Koran is not exactly the same in the Bible. Also in judaic methology, the first wife of Adam was Lilith. She failed to obey Adam and was banished from the garden.
Whatever the case, it doesn't make sense for anyone to inherit "original sin" from a story that is fiction.

Regardless, the one in the Bible has a specific meaning allegorically called “original sin”, which refers to a natural phenomenon.

sonmvayina:
You are neither here nor there...

No where wey person fit hold you...

Ah, I am a God!

KnownUnknown:
Jesus is not a creation of the Roman Empire. Just because they organized their state religion around the figure of Jesus doesn’t mean they created it. The creators, or at least the custodians of the system of allegory that led to Jesus, are in the story of the gospels if you know what you’re looking at. They organized the oldest known form of Christianity but they didn’t create Jesus.
As usual you’re quick to say Jesus was a creation of whatever empire but somehow unable to extend the same criticism to your beloved Judaism. Why is the god of the Jews any more real than the god of the Incas?

I have never said so...same God different nomenclature. Different allegorical story, but same idea and message .

There is no such thing as literal sin anyway regardless if it’s original or subsequent. That said there is an allegorical meaning.[/quote)
Yes, I concur



[quote]Preaching to the choir.

Lol

KnownUnknown:
Ah, I am a God!

Lol...no be so I mean.

I know you gerrit

sonmvayina:
I have never said so...same God different nomenclature. Different allegorical story, but same idea and message .

No, they are various mythological characters conveying various ideas.

KnownUnknown:
No, they are various mythological characters conveying various ideas.

Then you have not taking the time to study them like I did..

If you did, you would arrive at same conclusion..