Chili

Original sin is the development of our conscious mind, and later our loyalty to the image of ourselves that we built upon it is wherein we are Adam (or Adam by any other name). This so created second nature is a figment of our imagination and is temporal but very usefull to evaluate the local conditions and environment around us. Hence woman saw that the TOK was good for gaining whatever she needed to survive in a compettitive environment and would accumilate these intrinsic values to enhance the man identity of future generations. We can say here that she will be our collection of richess to be enjoyed in heaven wherefore Mary (in Catholicism) is always local and the perpect image of carnal beauty (may include battlescars).

In Romans it is held that sin entered the world because all of mankind has a conscious and a subconscious mind and therefore all will remember that someday they will die. There is no argument here but because Moses' plan of redemption was not in place the alternative was not known to mankind and therefore death reigned.

The alternative would be to reverse the fall of man in which the conscious mind must be placed subservient to the subconscious mind and that is why Moses placed a negative image upon man's favorite activities with the hope that after many convictions it will bring aquittal to the sorrowful sinner.

Romans is a pastoral letter which points to Jesus Christ but the reality is that we must go throught he same events that Jesus did before we will be a Christ.

Original sin does not create guilt but the laws of Moses will. This is where virtues become assets even in a world where our own conscience is an illusion.

Amlodhi

Hello Chili,

Just happened to read through this thread and saw the above quoted statement. Thought you ought to know that it is complete nonsense. Mary Baker Eddy (who is responsible for the proliferation of this garbage) doesn't seem to understand that English and Hebrew are two very different languages with very different etymological associations.

namaste'

Amlodhi

Chili

Who is Mary Baker Eddy?

If the name Adam has any meaning at all it must be descriptive of the reason for that name and so I may have guessed wrong but if you tell me what it means I will tell you why that is.

Amlodhi

Hi Chili,

Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910), Founder of the Christian Science movement.


The entire purpose of this exercise is to make you understand that we are not dealing with "Adam" but, rather, ×?ד×? (aw-dawm).

×?ד×? is used in four different applications in Genesis, i.e:

×?ד×? = "mankind"; as in Gen. 1:26 ". . . Let us make man in our image." and Gen. 5:2 ". . . male and female He created them, and He blessed them, and He called their name man . . .".

ו×?ד×? = (and) "a man"; as in Gen. 2:5 ". . . and a man was not to till the ground."

×”×?ד×? = "the man"; as in Gen. 1:27 "And created God the man in His image . . ."

Somewhat revealing, I think, is the fact that ×?ד×? is not written as a proper name until the narrative turns to the birth of Seth.

×?ד×? = "Aw-dawm" (proper name) as in Gen. 4:25 "And knew Adam again his wife, and she bore a son and she called his name Seth".

The term ×?ד×? is etymologically related to (at least) two other Hebrew terms:

×?ד×? - (Identical in consonantal form, but is used as a verb with the second vowel shortened, i.e. "aw-dam") - To be red, redden, grow or look red, show redness (or blood in the face) i.e. flush. ["Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon", F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs, Hendrickson Pub., 1999; and "The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon" Benjamin Davidson, Hendrickson Pub. 1981]

×?דמה - ("a-dawm-ah") - Ground (as earth's visible surface), possibly related to the Arabic term for "skin" (as smoothly covering & close fitting), possibly also in relation to the general "redness" of the ground. [ibid.]

Thus, the term ×?ד×? appears to be related linguistically to the narrative of "the man" being formed from the dust of the earth as well as with the concept of "redness".


This is where your methodology deceives you. The term for this methodology is "eisegesis" - the interpretation of a text by reading into it one's own ideas.

Consider: You already made one "guess" (your word) as to "why that is". However, since your eisegesis was based on an erroneous understanding of the English term "Adam", your "guess" as to "why that is" was erroneous also.

This should be more than sufficient precedent to apprise you of the fallibility of your intuition.

As Always, namaste'

Amlodhi

Devilnaut

The difference there is that to Chili the writings are archetypal, whereas to you they are 'something else' and perceived as foreign to your mind. It could be noted (in all simplicity) that the degree to which the latter is true is simply the degree to which you don't understand the work, meaning that eisegesis is the only way to truly apprehend information. That said, I believe I know what bothers you: it appears that he is using external and unverified (from your point of view) laws or rules (expectations) as a filter that is primary to the message contained within the text. But as a suggestion I would say that it is possible (and probably an undistinguishable possibility from the point of view of the foreigner) that an apprehension and comprehension of the text took place primary to the construction of those laws and filters, so perhaps the benefit of the doubt is appropriate here.



I agree but would it be fair to say that she is behind us always? Isn't that why you say she has "no identity of her own"?
Right, so she is never where we look (always behind our eyes).

Chili

Hello Amlodhi and thanks for the elaborate explanation of the word Adam.

I make a distinction between man and Adam. Man was created by God in the image if God and Adam was created by man in the image of man. This reduction made Adam a figment of mans imagination and this ego identity was called Adam in the bible and he became co-creator with God to procreate man in the image of God.

Man is not to till the ground because man is a divine image of God in the neuter form with the potential to become either male or female.

I can understand why Adam has "blood in the face" when he first felt shame and blushed. The "shame-no shame" contrast is presented in Gen.2:25 (no shame) and Gen.3:7 just after the became aware of their own ego identity and felt shame. The lion cloth is a metaphor to cover his humanity but in the end it covered his God identity after Adam (human) was banned from paradise (paradise was his God identity).

The ego would fit each man like a glove because it is our own heritage (blood) that 'colors' (personalizes) our ego and this is true even if we are displaced persons. This feature is a necessary condition to make adaptation possible.

Chili

She IS behind us and it can even be said that she IS us, depends on where we are. At first Mary (woman) is foreign to us, after rebirth Mary is our very own and after Coronation we allow Mary to be in charge of our destiny.

Mary is behind us because she was taken from us (she's our Alpha) and later returns to us in the completion as the Omega. This movement towards completion is why Jesus said that he was the Alpha and the Omega and this same concept is reflected in our Coronation when we elevate Mary as the bride of the lamb in the final end.

Mary is the woman of Gen. with a new identity each generation because she is the God given identity of man that in Gen was called the Tree of Life. This identity (or mind) saw that the conscious mind was good for gaining wisdom, food and beauty and therefore Mary (or woman) will use the conscious mind to "tie down" (or "loose") whatever is "tied or loosed in heaven" (notice how woman shapes our character and that heaven is retained in our own mind).

She IS behind us but between us and Mary is Eve (or Magdalene) who is the mediator between Mary and our Adaminc second nature. That is the reason why Adam took Eve to be his wife when he was banned from Eden (for Mary would never put up with the BS our heroism would hand her, and let me add here our heroic nature is good but not always beyond a one night stand).

In Shakespeare Lady Macbeth was a typical Eve and Virgilia (Coriolanus) was a typical Mary.

She is never where we look or the HS would be redundant. The reason behind this is that Mary is in charge of the angels that are send from heaven until such time as we meet her in person at the royal banquet (rebirth in the Gospels). This is also a natural event that allows the dove to descend for who needs the HS if you have found favor with Mary theotokos who is the author of the HS. So yes, she can become our very own eyes but not until we enter Purgatory (tm) . . . and from there we must find the courage to walk on water (the celestial sea) and crown her queen of heaven and earth to make us "king in the herafter" (that's what Macbeth had in mind but went about it the wrong way).

Amlodhi

Hello again Chili,

Oops, you did it again.

The above quoted portion of Gen. 2:5 does not state that "man is not to till the ground". Your misunderstanding here comes from your unfamiliarity with the order of Hebrew syntax and the content of the text in general.

Read the entire verse:

Gen. 2:5, "And every shrub of the field not yet was it on the earth, and every herb of the field not yet had it sprung up, for not had rain sent YHWH Elohim on the earth, and a man was not to till the ground ."

IOW, the verse is not saying that " man is not to till the ground", it is saying that man did not yet exist to till the ground.

Thus, your eisegesis entailing, "Man is not to till the ground because man is a divine image . . . in the neuter form . . . etc, etc." is nothing more than a new-age style, personal (and incorrect) flight of fancy which has, yet again, been based on a complete misunderstanding of the text.

My regrets if this sounds harsh but you are doing nothing but fooling yourself. And, while you are certainly free to believe whatever makes you feel better, I would think that you would want a more serious and substantial return on the investment of your time and efforts.

namaste'

Amlodhi

Chili

Let me add here that woman is our bare naked soul and once she is dressed we call he Mary, or Sophia, or Krishna and I would expect that each and every civilization has such a female Goddess for it is only through knowing her that we can possibly know ourselves. Needless to say is that each civilization is charmed into existence by the womb of such a man just as our manhood is charmed into existence by woman in the particular (she is always "behind our eyes"). It is interesting to point out that once we know ourselves we will no longer have a soul (nairatmya ?) which makes it impossible for woman to have an identity of her own (silly "Lady Macbeth tried that and got MacBeth in trouble = agony = hell in religous terms; of course we all know that agony cannot exist without a conscience and that is why the captivity of woman leads to hell on earth in a physical way).

I guess could add here that without woman there is no 'charmer' and therefore no marriage in heaven.

Chili

Good point and not really harsh. You are suggesting that since there was no man formed as of yet God was worried that there would be no man to till his soil (only a farmer would sympathise with God here).

It was Lord God who formed the man and he placed the man in the garden which is where the identity of the man is retained. "Man" is the universal here that stands for the essence of existence and "the man" is the particular who is the manifestation of that which is created anew each generation. Hence, man is placed in his garden to display and take care of the handiwork of God.

And there were two trees there, one was to retain that which was created (whence woman was taken) and the other was to gather and preselect that which might be added and retained by the woman (who really was the fruition of the previous generation). Needless to say must that which was to be added have to come from outside of Eden and therefore the fall of man was prefigured with the tree that held the forbidden fruit. To gather outside of Eden an outsider was needed and therefore the fall of man is a necessary condition for man to create and procreate.