Chili

He would never be a hermaphrodite because only the essence of existence was created in Gen. 1. This would make man (Adam was not created until Gen.3) androgyne with the potential to become either male or female.

It is also true that upon our return to Eden our sexuality is left behind as part of our human condition that only came to us after we left Eden.

Thomas II

The "essence" of existence?
Androgyne? Who? What "man" if not Adam?
Please explain a bit more.

Dharma

no the sexual nature was there in Eden represented by the snake. The Elohim put the snake there so that man may not become God, which is what the elohim fears most.

22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Chili

"God said" of Gen.1 as opposed to "Lord God formed" in Gen.2 clearly suggests that God created the essence of existence that was to be formed by Lord God in Gen.2. It was after this image that man was formed and it was from his same image that woman was taken to be the imprint of God in man --even after his banishment from Eden when man was God. This imprint makes redemption possible (from re-deem) wherein eventually the woman is crowned queen of heaven to which earth is added by way of atonement.

I would say that Man is the created image between human and woman with hu-man being the hunter and woman the gatherer, who without an image of her own takes all desirables to heart in effort to beautify that which is not. That is to say, the image of God actually 'is' not but must find existence in Lord God who's richess are accumilated and retained by the woman in the TOL. This is from Gen.3:6 where the woman saw that our human condition would be good for gaining power wealth and beauty. I also think that the beatification of God (who himself 'is' not) is the reason why it is said that only beauty and truth is real and thus the adornment of Mary is evidence of the manifestaton of God in man (cough, cough).

Anyway, this human condition was identified by God and was called Adam by name as the second identity of man. We call it our ego identity that emerged between the shame-no shame distinction made between Gen.2:25 (where man was still naked to wit) and Gen.3:10 where the concept shame was introduced after the TOK was engaged to know the difference.

So yes, man has an ego and that makes two of us in each of us.

Chili

No it was not there because it takes two to tango. It was potentially there and man was God but hu-man was not. There is a difference between "man" and "the man" in that the man has an identity other than man wherein he has purpose (= human with a desire) and will put forth his hand to eat from both trees. This would be a contradiction since we cannot be, or should not be, temporal and eternal at the same time which would be equal to hell on earth. It was therefore best that the man was banned from Eden where the earthly or human nature is free to explore the world around himself.

Chili

Dharma, I recognize the serpent in Eden and also the fertile earth of Eden but deny that intercourse ever took place there. The snake was the woman who herself is the womb of God as if she was a clone of God to which neither could make a contribution. The rape of [this] woman is done from outside Eden and that is where God is not wherefore this act will not bear fruit inside Eden.

But there were two snakes there and it is the lesser snake that Adam took to be his wife and called here Eve. Eve was a subordinate of the woman who would and will strike at the head of Eve who in her turn strikes at the heel of Adam to motivate him while outside of Eden where gold, bdellium and lapis lazuli are found.

Dharma

I think the Wizard of Oz is perhaps the most correct interpretation of the Bible and God in the west.

They tell Dorothy and Toto that they have to find the all powerful and super mighty "wizard of Oz", in their voyage they meet a dumb scarecrow, a cowardly lion and that tin man. Once they reach this Mighty "Wizard of Oz" they realize it's just another old power hungry man hiding behind a screen, who is as scared of the truth as you are.

In the end you realize that you never needed the Wizard of Oz, all the strength was inside you all along -- f*ck Oz (Eden) and their stupid slave green munchkins (blind beleivers in an all mighty and powerful God)!

Chili

That might be so but if there is an end there must be a beginning and since very few people become the actual Wizard they were intended to be not all beginnings lead to this desired end. It just is not good enugh to say f*ck Eden if Eden is where it is at.

lpetrich

I don't think it's worth the effort to try to interpret what Chili/Amos posts -- the most charitable interpretation of his posts is that they represent murky allegories.

But I think that the two creation stories in Genesis are best understood separately, rather than as parts of one story.

Dharma

Eden is just like Oz, who wants to go to Oz after you realize the wizard is a fake? It's also not a very nice place, colorful yes, but not a very nice place with a whole bunch of believing green munchkins who are the wizard's ready and willing slaves. Do you really want to see those munchkins? Perhaps some Americans would like to invade Oz and bring democracy to the little munchkins. :rolling:

Kansas seemed better. I guess magic just happens if you're good.