By BlogSpotThinker
October 16, 2011 01:36pm
Recommended strategies for achieving individual personal growth appear to include maximizing individual personal honesty and vulnerability regarding personal perspective.
These solutions appear to not take into account the apparently vast and weighty social structure that humanity has developed, apparently, as a tool to help facilitate humanity’s survival. Reports appear to suggest that this structure potentially destructively impacts humanity. Further, this vast, weighty, potentially destructive social structure appears to not necessarily assign the highest value to humanity.
An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that certain parts of this social structure appear to have been designed to not reward the vulnerability and honesty apparently recommended by these strategies. A possibly novel or less-commonly-presented, yet apparently reasonable theory appears to be that the social structure does not reward vulnerability and honesty because vulnerability and honesty appear to reveal that humanity’s knowledge and discernment are limited. Further, these human limitations appear to be reasonably considered to suggest the dramatically grave theory that humanity might not have the qualifications to assume full management of the human experience.
Apparently, human limitation has resulted in the human development of a social structure with construction errors that appear to be reasonably considered to render the outcomes of social structure implementation to be error-prone. Secular history’s reports of harm that humanity has suffered at humanity’s hand appear to be reasonably considered to support this premise. The strategy for survival and even prosperity in this apparently somewhat destructive, humanly-developed social structure appears to be to attempt to jostle oneself away from the destructive and, if necessary, to jostle others toward it.
As a result, honesty and vulnerability appear not to be respected, welcomed and reciprocally treated as they perhaps should be. Instead they appear to be viewed as indication of an opportunity for jostling toward the destructive aspects of humanly-developed social structure, somewhat like padding. Perhaps, this apparently reasonable theory reasonably offers additional explanation for apparent reluctance toward honesty and vulnerability.
I humbly and respectfully submit, as a believer in God, that the Bible appears to suggest that the true solution appears to be (a) voluntary individual recognition that there is a God, (b) voluntary individual acceptance of the premise that God is both the creator of humanity and the sovereign manager of each individual’s human experience, and (c) voluntary restoration of each individual relationship with God.
The Bible appears to suggest that this restored relationship with God is the key to the unpoisoning of human perspective that allows honesty and vulnerability to be valued as traits to be embraced, cherished, protected and reciprocated rather than destroyed.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
God and Slavery
by BlogSpotThinker
October 15, 2011 12:09pm
Overview
Concern appears to have been expressed regarding the guidelines regarding slavery apparently reported in the Bible. I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable theory that the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that these guidelines do not represent the establishment or condoning by God of the practice of slavery. Rather, these guidelines appear reasonably interpreted to comprise a portion of the record of one of many apparently self-destructive phases in the history of the nation of Israel that the Bible appears to offer as part of the most comprehensive portrayal of the human experience that I am yet aware of.
God’s Design for the Human Experience
Part of this portrayal of the human experience includes God’s design for the human experience. That design appears to be well-reflected in Genesis 1 and 2. The Bible appears to suggest In Genesis 1 that, at certain intervals of God’s creation, God reviewed the results and used the term “good” to describe them. After the creation of humanity, the Bible appears to suggest that God broke the pattern and use the term “very good” (King James Version).
This portrayal appears to suggest that there was no instance of any harm. In addition, there was only one explicit restriction: fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not to be consumed. An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that other harmful potential did not occur to Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve’s Alteration of the Human Experience
The Bible appears to suggest that, nonetheless, Adam and Eve traded in God’s sovereignty, apparently for the leadership of another and, apparently, for the promise of self-leadership beyond the limitation imposed by God. As a result, Adam and Eve violated their only explicit restriction.
The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve experienced an immediate change in perspective, rather than an increase in factual knowledge. This deteriorative change or poisoning of their perspective introduced the element of shame to their previously shameless nakedness. An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that this shame was only the first of a stream of other new, “evil” perspectives and resulting ideas that would be subsequently introduced. Biblical support for this theory appears to include the perception by Cain of the new “evil” perspective of envy and the new “evil” idea of murder that the Bible appears to report followed.
God’s Efforts to Restore God’s Relationship with Humanity
The Bible appears to suggest that God’s intent, at least, since Adam and Eve’s rejection of God’s leadership, has been to restore the relationship between God and humanity. The Bible appears to suggest that God’s efforts toward this goal implemented several varied strategies. These strategies appear to include a “new start” attempt featuring Noah and the flood; a “representative people” attempt featuring Abraham and the nation of Israel; rescuing of the “representative people” from the result of their malfeasance featuring Moses and the nation of Israel; heroes priests, prophets, Jesus Christ, the apostles and the church.
Humanity’s Apparent Penchant for Self-Destructive Self-Management
The Bible appears to suggest that humanity eventually reverted back to self-destructive self-direction after each of these attempted strategy implementations by God. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity’s limitations including knowledge and perception disqualify humanity for management of the human experience beyond the level of self-management delegated to humanity by God. The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve’s violation Biblically introduces humanity’s refusal to accept this apparently Biblically-suggested limitation. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity has, instead, developed self-directed, self-destructive social structures such as slavery in an attempt to resolve, on its own, the apparently complex human experience management that is the purview of God. The Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that humanity began to feed upon itself in an attempt to manage its own human experience.
A Possible Purpose of the Guidelines
The Bible appears to suggest that God has continued to attempt to lead humanity back into the balance of restored relationship with God, apparently choosing to even be involved with humanity despite humanity’s apparently self-destructive path and structures. Perhaps, the Biblical guidelines regarding slavery are an example of God being involved with humanity despite even God’s apparently Biblically-suggested “chosen” representative people’s apparent penchant for abandoning God’s standard and adopting the standards, philosophies and practices of other communities. Perhaps, these guidelines are not intended to suggest that such practice is God’s design for humanity. Perhaps, rather, these guidelines constitute an intermediate step of a step-based approach to guiding this representative people back to God’s true design for humanity.
October 15, 2011 12:09pm
Overview
Concern appears to have been expressed regarding the guidelines regarding slavery apparently reported in the Bible. I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable theory that the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that these guidelines do not represent the establishment or condoning by God of the practice of slavery. Rather, these guidelines appear reasonably interpreted to comprise a portion of the record of one of many apparently self-destructive phases in the history of the nation of Israel that the Bible appears to offer as part of the most comprehensive portrayal of the human experience that I am yet aware of.
God’s Design for the Human Experience
Part of this portrayal of the human experience includes God’s design for the human experience. That design appears to be well-reflected in Genesis 1 and 2. The Bible appears to suggest In Genesis 1 that, at certain intervals of God’s creation, God reviewed the results and used the term “good” to describe them. After the creation of humanity, the Bible appears to suggest that God broke the pattern and use the term “very good” (King James Version).
This portrayal appears to suggest that there was no instance of any harm. In addition, there was only one explicit restriction: fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not to be consumed. An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that other harmful potential did not occur to Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve’s Alteration of the Human Experience
The Bible appears to suggest that, nonetheless, Adam and Eve traded in God’s sovereignty, apparently for the leadership of another and, apparently, for the promise of self-leadership beyond the limitation imposed by God. As a result, Adam and Eve violated their only explicit restriction.
The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve experienced an immediate change in perspective, rather than an increase in factual knowledge. This deteriorative change or poisoning of their perspective introduced the element of shame to their previously shameless nakedness. An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that this shame was only the first of a stream of other new, “evil” perspectives and resulting ideas that would be subsequently introduced. Biblical support for this theory appears to include the perception by Cain of the new “evil” perspective of envy and the new “evil” idea of murder that the Bible appears to report followed.
God’s Efforts to Restore God’s Relationship with Humanity
The Bible appears to suggest that God’s intent, at least, since Adam and Eve’s rejection of God’s leadership, has been to restore the relationship between God and humanity. The Bible appears to suggest that God’s efforts toward this goal implemented several varied strategies. These strategies appear to include a “new start” attempt featuring Noah and the flood; a “representative people” attempt featuring Abraham and the nation of Israel; rescuing of the “representative people” from the result of their malfeasance featuring Moses and the nation of Israel; heroes priests, prophets, Jesus Christ, the apostles and the church.
Humanity’s Apparent Penchant for Self-Destructive Self-Management
The Bible appears to suggest that humanity eventually reverted back to self-destructive self-direction after each of these attempted strategy implementations by God. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity’s limitations including knowledge and perception disqualify humanity for management of the human experience beyond the level of self-management delegated to humanity by God. The Bible appears to suggest that Adam and Eve’s violation Biblically introduces humanity’s refusal to accept this apparently Biblically-suggested limitation. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity has, instead, developed self-directed, self-destructive social structures such as slavery in an attempt to resolve, on its own, the apparently complex human experience management that is the purview of God. The Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that humanity began to feed upon itself in an attempt to manage its own human experience.
A Possible Purpose of the Guidelines
The Bible appears to suggest that God has continued to attempt to lead humanity back into the balance of restored relationship with God, apparently choosing to even be involved with humanity despite humanity’s apparently self-destructive path and structures. Perhaps, the Biblical guidelines regarding slavery are an example of God being involved with humanity despite even God’s apparently Biblically-suggested “chosen” representative people’s apparent penchant for abandoning God’s standard and adopting the standards, philosophies and practices of other communities. Perhaps, these guidelines are not intended to suggest that such practice is God’s design for humanity. Perhaps, rather, these guidelines constitute an intermediate step of a step-based approach to guiding this representative people back to God’s true design for humanity.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Accusations Against God: Hyper-severity
by BlogSpotThinker
October 13, 2011
Concern appears to reasonably be considered to have been expressed suggesting the impropriety of certain specific, apparently Biblically-suggested, punishment of humanity, apparently suggested by God with regard to certain specific human violations. I humbly and respectfully submit that, without claiming authoritative understanding of the rationale for God’s decisions, I side with God on the basis of the Bible’s apparent depiction of God as all-knowing, supremely just and supremely interested in the well-being of humanity.
However, I similarly submit that this post appears to not be intended to express either agreement or disagreement with the concerns apparently expressed. The intent of this post appears to be to explore and analyze the issues relevant to the apparently suggested concerns.
Toward that end, therefore, I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable theory that human perspective appears to be reported to be capable of adopting a range of positions regarding, perhaps, any philosophical premise. The positions adopted appear to be reasonably considered to be both potentially related to religious perspective as well as unrelated to religious perspective. This apparently reasonable theory is presented to suggest, purely from a perspective of human logic and reason, that human perception of impropriety appears to be reasonably considered to not necessarily establish impropriety. In other words, purely from a logical perspective, the above-mentioned punishments appear to be reasonably considered to be, at least, potentially appropriate, despite the appearance, from human perspective, of impropriety.
I humbly and respectfully submit that a material difference appears to exist between the context of God’s judgment and that of humanity’s judgment. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity’s sense of judgment is flawed and that God’s sense of judgment is not. The apparent implication appears to be that, if God were to allow humanity to review and understand God’s rationale regarding God’s decision-making, humanity would withdraw any related reservation regarding God’s decision-making. The Bible appears to not be generally considered to indicate that God is to be expected, at any point in time, to divulge said rationale because God is sovereign.
Despite the apparent potential for (a) reasonable human opinion to vary regarding the propriety of the above-mentioned punishments, and for (b) humanity to not fully understand what might be referred to as God’s “rationale” for the above-mentioned punishments, there appears to be humanly-recognizable and understandable logic and reasoning that appears to be reasonably considered to logically and reasonably suggest the propriety of the apparently Biblically-suggested, God-authorized system of punishments.
To clarify, certain other human concerns appear to be expressed regarding malevolent acts apparently suggested to have been committed by humanity. A concern regarding these malevolent acts appears to be that God, despite God’s apparently Biblically-suggested unlimited knowledge and power, appears to have allowed such malevolence to occur and to continue. The apparent goal of behavior-shaping punishment appears to be, to be sufficiently severe to eliminate the behavior by disincentivizing the behavior. The apparent goal of violator-elimination measures appears to be reasonably considered to be elimination of the behavior by eliminating the entity exhibiting the behavior. In light of Bible and secular history’s apparent report that threat of stoning appears not to have totally prevented commission of the acts, the punishments appear to be reasonably considered to not be too severe.
Consequently, the next issue appears to be whether the above-mentioned behaviors merit that level of behavior-shaping or behavior-elimination. Here, again, given incomplete information, I side with God. From a standpoint of human logic and reason, however, given the context of an environment of purely appropriate perspective, the apparent effect on the human experience of those acts, as described in the Bible accounts of the applicable guidelines, and to the extent that those guidelines were in fact prescribed by God, appears to be reasonably considered to be harmful enough to merit their not ever occurring. This appears to be the context in which the guidelines were given.
In summary, the Bible appears to suggest that God had established, on humanity’s behalf, another new start by freeing the Hebrews/nation of Israel from bondage in Egypt. The Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that, in this context, God had apparently gifted this newly-freed community with the opportunity to reestablish an environment of purely appropriate perspective. Violations of the type apparently Biblically-suggested appear to be reasonably considered to be disastrous to this new start. The Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that God was not aiming for a mediocre community experience, but, perhaps was aiming for restoration of the God/humanity experience that God had initially designed. Disregard for the destruction apparently projected to occur to such an environment via such willful violation appears to be reasonably considered to warrant the apparent capital disincentive and occurrence, perhaps even from a human perspective.
Apparently related concerns appear to describe God as having a mutually-exclusive pair of choices: (a) humanity not sinning, and (b) humanity having exercise of free will. I humbly and ultimately refer to God questions regarding God’s intent. However, the following, apparently reasonable theory appears to be appropriately sharable. The Bible appears to suggest that God does not consider these choices to be mutually-exclusive. The Bible appears to suggest that God’s intent is for humanity to exercise its free will to choose to recognize God’s sovereignty and to follow God’s leadership.
October 13, 2011
Concern appears to reasonably be considered to have been expressed suggesting the impropriety of certain specific, apparently Biblically-suggested, punishment of humanity, apparently suggested by God with regard to certain specific human violations. I humbly and respectfully submit that, without claiming authoritative understanding of the rationale for God’s decisions, I side with God on the basis of the Bible’s apparent depiction of God as all-knowing, supremely just and supremely interested in the well-being of humanity.
However, I similarly submit that this post appears to not be intended to express either agreement or disagreement with the concerns apparently expressed. The intent of this post appears to be to explore and analyze the issues relevant to the apparently suggested concerns.
Toward that end, therefore, I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable theory that human perspective appears to be reported to be capable of adopting a range of positions regarding, perhaps, any philosophical premise. The positions adopted appear to be reasonably considered to be both potentially related to religious perspective as well as unrelated to religious perspective. This apparently reasonable theory is presented to suggest, purely from a perspective of human logic and reason, that human perception of impropriety appears to be reasonably considered to not necessarily establish impropriety. In other words, purely from a logical perspective, the above-mentioned punishments appear to be reasonably considered to be, at least, potentially appropriate, despite the appearance, from human perspective, of impropriety.
I humbly and respectfully submit that a material difference appears to exist between the context of God’s judgment and that of humanity’s judgment. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity’s sense of judgment is flawed and that God’s sense of judgment is not. The apparent implication appears to be that, if God were to allow humanity to review and understand God’s rationale regarding God’s decision-making, humanity would withdraw any related reservation regarding God’s decision-making. The Bible appears to not be generally considered to indicate that God is to be expected, at any point in time, to divulge said rationale because God is sovereign.
Despite the apparent potential for (a) reasonable human opinion to vary regarding the propriety of the above-mentioned punishments, and for (b) humanity to not fully understand what might be referred to as God’s “rationale” for the above-mentioned punishments, there appears to be humanly-recognizable and understandable logic and reasoning that appears to be reasonably considered to logically and reasonably suggest the propriety of the apparently Biblically-suggested, God-authorized system of punishments.
To clarify, certain other human concerns appear to be expressed regarding malevolent acts apparently suggested to have been committed by humanity. A concern regarding these malevolent acts appears to be that God, despite God’s apparently Biblically-suggested unlimited knowledge and power, appears to have allowed such malevolence to occur and to continue. The apparent goal of behavior-shaping punishment appears to be, to be sufficiently severe to eliminate the behavior by disincentivizing the behavior. The apparent goal of violator-elimination measures appears to be reasonably considered to be elimination of the behavior by eliminating the entity exhibiting the behavior. In light of Bible and secular history’s apparent report that threat of stoning appears not to have totally prevented commission of the acts, the punishments appear to be reasonably considered to not be too severe.
Consequently, the next issue appears to be whether the above-mentioned behaviors merit that level of behavior-shaping or behavior-elimination. Here, again, given incomplete information, I side with God. From a standpoint of human logic and reason, however, given the context of an environment of purely appropriate perspective, the apparent effect on the human experience of those acts, as described in the Bible accounts of the applicable guidelines, and to the extent that those guidelines were in fact prescribed by God, appears to be reasonably considered to be harmful enough to merit their not ever occurring. This appears to be the context in which the guidelines were given.
In summary, the Bible appears to suggest that God had established, on humanity’s behalf, another new start by freeing the Hebrews/nation of Israel from bondage in Egypt. The Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that, in this context, God had apparently gifted this newly-freed community with the opportunity to reestablish an environment of purely appropriate perspective. Violations of the type apparently Biblically-suggested appear to be reasonably considered to be disastrous to this new start. The Bible appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that God was not aiming for a mediocre community experience, but, perhaps was aiming for restoration of the God/humanity experience that God had initially designed. Disregard for the destruction apparently projected to occur to such an environment via such willful violation appears to be reasonably considered to warrant the apparent capital disincentive and occurrence, perhaps even from a human perspective.
Apparently related concerns appear to describe God as having a mutually-exclusive pair of choices: (a) humanity not sinning, and (b) humanity having exercise of free will. I humbly and ultimately refer to God questions regarding God’s intent. However, the following, apparently reasonable theory appears to be appropriately sharable. The Bible appears to suggest that God does not consider these choices to be mutually-exclusive. The Bible appears to suggest that God’s intent is for humanity to exercise its free will to choose to recognize God’s sovereignty and to follow God’s leadership.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
God's Purpose for the Human Experience
by BlogSpotThinker
October 12, 2011
Certain sentiment appears to refer to an apparently potential perspective regarding the purpose of the God/human experience. This apparently potentially suggested purpose of the God/human experience appears to consist of God creating humanity and giving humanity choices so that humanity might be judged.
I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable suggestion that the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest a different plot and purpose for the God/human experience. I humbly, and without claiming authoritative knowledge, submit an apparently reasonable interpretation of the Bible that appears to suggest that God created humanity for God and humanity to enjoy a positive relationship and for humanity to enjoy a positive human experience. When a panoramic, holistic view of the Bible is considered, the Bible’s apparent characterization of God appears to substantiate this perspective.
However, the Bible appears to suggest, in disparate passages that otherwise might reasonably be considered to be unconnected, an apparent conflict between God and one or more entities involving these entities’ challenges to God’s comprehensive sovereignty and supremacy. One apparently, somewhat common interpretation of these passages appears to suggest that this or these challenges to God’s comprehensive sovereignty and supremacy initially precedes human existence. However, this interpretation of these passages also appears to suggest that this or these challenges to God’s sovereignty were addressed by God via a certain level of exile of, rather than elimination of the challengers. Apparently, per this interpretation, the issue remained a conflict issue and was still such an issue when human existence was initiated. Per this interpretation of these passages, the challenge issue was introduced to the human experience via Adam and Eve’s apparently Biblically-suggested encounter with the serpent.
October 12, 2011
Certain sentiment appears to refer to an apparently potential perspective regarding the purpose of the God/human experience. This apparently potentially suggested purpose of the God/human experience appears to consist of God creating humanity and giving humanity choices so that humanity might be judged.
I humbly and respectfully submit the apparently reasonable suggestion that the Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest a different plot and purpose for the God/human experience. I humbly, and without claiming authoritative knowledge, submit an apparently reasonable interpretation of the Bible that appears to suggest that God created humanity for God and humanity to enjoy a positive relationship and for humanity to enjoy a positive human experience. When a panoramic, holistic view of the Bible is considered, the Bible’s apparent characterization of God appears to substantiate this perspective.
However, the Bible appears to suggest, in disparate passages that otherwise might reasonably be considered to be unconnected, an apparent conflict between God and one or more entities involving these entities’ challenges to God’s comprehensive sovereignty and supremacy. One apparently, somewhat common interpretation of these passages appears to suggest that this or these challenges to God’s comprehensive sovereignty and supremacy initially precedes human existence. However, this interpretation of these passages also appears to suggest that this or these challenges to God’s sovereignty were addressed by God via a certain level of exile of, rather than elimination of the challengers. Apparently, per this interpretation, the issue remained a conflict issue and was still such an issue when human existence was initiated. Per this interpretation of these passages, the challenge issue was introduced to the human experience via Adam and Eve’s apparently Biblically-suggested encounter with the serpent.
Monday, October 10, 2011
The Bible's Representation of the God/Human Relationship
by BlogSpotThinker
October 10, 2011
The Bible appears to suggest that the God/human relationship is fundamentally at the individual level. The Bible appears to show the progression of that relationship over the course of human history, including the apparent, significant role of the nation of Israel.
The Bible appears to show that the God/human relationship began at the intimate, individual level, progressed through to iconically representative persons such as Noah who was allowed to be part of a “fresh start” after humanity had progressed too far into distorted perspective.
The Bible appears to show have called an iconically representative Abraham to father an iconically representative nation when the “fresh start” progressed too far into distorted perspective.
God implemented leaders such as Moses to that iconically representative nation out of the bondage wrought upon them when they progressed too far into distorted perspective.
Priests, then prophets, then doom, then, per the New Testament, Christ, then apostles and the church. Through all this, the Bible appears to suggest that the goal remained individual relationship with God.
The Bible appears to suggest that God has given humanity the clearest of instructions stemming back from the garden of Eden. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity has consistently rejected God’s leadership and directives, perhaps even substituting parts or all with humanity’s own directives. This appears to be the cause of the confusion.
The Bible appears to suggest individual approach to God (James 1:5-8).
October 10, 2011
The Bible appears to suggest that the God/human relationship is fundamentally at the individual level. The Bible appears to show the progression of that relationship over the course of human history, including the apparent, significant role of the nation of Israel.
The Bible appears to show that the God/human relationship began at the intimate, individual level, progressed through to iconically representative persons such as Noah who was allowed to be part of a “fresh start” after humanity had progressed too far into distorted perspective.
The Bible appears to show have called an iconically representative Abraham to father an iconically representative nation when the “fresh start” progressed too far into distorted perspective.
God implemented leaders such as Moses to that iconically representative nation out of the bondage wrought upon them when they progressed too far into distorted perspective.
Priests, then prophets, then doom, then, per the New Testament, Christ, then apostles and the church. Through all this, the Bible appears to suggest that the goal remained individual relationship with God.
The Bible appears to suggest that God has given humanity the clearest of instructions stemming back from the garden of Eden. The Bible appears to suggest that humanity has consistently rejected God’s leadership and directives, perhaps even substituting parts or all with humanity’s own directives. This appears to be the cause of the confusion.
The Bible appears to suggest individual approach to God (James 1:5-8).
Theories: Adam, Eve and the Tree of Knowledge
by BlogSpotThinker
October 10, 2011 09:09am
(Revised October 14, 2011)
Humanity's Quest for Growth
I humbly and respectfully submit an apparently reasonable complementary and/or supplementary theory regarding humanity's quest for knowledge, growth and prosperity. The Bible appears to suggest that human desire is a gift from God. The Bible appears to suggest that God, after creating humanity, extends the invitation to enjoy the earth and to realize and maximize humanity’s human potential (Genesis 1).
However, the Bible also appears to suggest that this same human desire constitutes human vulnerability to downfall. The key appears to be relationship with God. The Bible appears to describe God as suggesting repeatedly that, as long as God’s sovereignty is acknowledged, all is well. The Bible also appears to describe God as also clearly delineating the results of rejection of God’s sovereignty.
The effect of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appears to be reasonably interpreted to have been oversold by the serpent. The serpent’s description of that effect appears reasonably interpreted as suggest that eating the fruit from the tree would reveal hidden information. Apparently, this new information would make Adam and Eve’s knowledgebase, and as an apparent result, them, equal to God. However, the Bible appears to describe the effect as solely adding new distortion to their perspective. To wit: apparently, after they ate the fruit, their clothing-free wardrobe suddenly became shameful.
Apparently, rather than new useful information having been added to their knowledgebase, their previous pure perspective had simply been poisoned with “the knowledge of evil”.
Contradiction of God's Prediction
Concerns appears to have been expressed that suggest a contradiction between (a) the apparently Biblically-suggested prediction by God of the result of eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and (b) the apparently Biblically-suggested outcome of Adam and Eve eating the fruit. These concerns appear to suggest that the relevant Biblical text suggests that God predicted that Adam and Eve would lose their lives within the same 24-hour day in which they ate the fruit or, at least, within 24 hours of eating the fruit. These concerns appear to suggest that the relevant Biblical text suggests that Adam and Eve did not lose their lives by the end of the day or within 24 hours of eating the fruit and that their lack of lost life contradicts the apparently reported prediction of God.
I humbly and respectfully submit that several points of logic and reason appear to reasonably suggest that the Biblical account, as it appears to be represented, appears to be reasonably considered to not represent a contradiction between the above-referenced apparently Biblical reports of God’s prediction and the actual outcome. These points of logic and reason appear to be summarized as follows:
(a) The term “die”, as used in the account, appears to reasonably be considered to refer to the death of Adam and Eve’s purity of intellect and innocence of perspective. Said purity and innocence appears to be reported to have undergone a negative transformation from lack of shame to shame regarding Adam and Eve’s nakedness immediately after the eating of the fruit appears to be reported.
This apparently significant nature of this interpretation of “death” appears to be reasonably considered to be supported by a supplementary, apparently reasonable theory regarding life and death in the context of Adam and Eve’s experience. An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that the potential for death might have been initially introduced to Adam and Eve’s experience not via their eating of the fruit, but via Adam and Eve’s design. This suggestion appears to be supported by the apparently Biblical reporting of the tree of life in addition to food trees in the garden of Eden. The Bible appears to report that Adam and Eve were banned from accessing the tree of life so that their newly corrupt existence would not immortally and, therefore, eternally, negatively impact reality. Perhaps, Adam and Eve ate both (a) from the tree of life to sustain life and (b) from food trees for energy and other body-maintenance-related purposes. Perhaps, without eating from the tree of life, regardless of whether they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve would die.
(b) In addition, the term “in the day” (King James Version), apparently interpreted to read “by the end of the day”, appears to also be potentially used in the “older English” to refer to a broad time period. For example, “In the day in which the dinosaurs roamed…” appears to be reasonably suggested to refer to the entire time period in which dinosaurs are considered to have existed. The New International Version appears to interpret the phrase “in the day” as “when”, which appears to be consistent with this lexicological theory. Therefore, God’s barring of Adam and Eve’s access to the tree of life as a result of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appears to be reasonably considered to begin the time period of Adam and Eve’s process of gradual, rather than immediate death.
Consequently, in summary, the apparently Biblical account appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that God’s prediction might not have been intended to suggest that Adam and Eve would lose all sign of either immortal or mortal physical life by the end of the day in which they ate the fruit or within 24 hours of eating the fruit. Rather, if any inference to a specific 24-hour day is intended, these reports appear to be reasonably considered to suggest that God’s prediction was intended, perhaps, to suggest Adam and Eve’s loss of purity and innocence of perspective as well as their God-granted invitation and access to immortality via the tree of life.
Adam and Eve Punished or Rewarded?
Perspectives also appear to suggest that the Biblical account suggests that God predicted that punishment -- death -- would result from Adam and Eve’s eating from the tree but that, instead, God rewarded Adam and Eve by giving them new life-initiating roles. The suggestion appears to be that Adam was newly made a gardener and that Eve was newly made a mother, both as a result of eating the fruit.
Without intending to either accept or deny the validity of this apparent suggestion, I humbly and respectfully submit that the Biblical account appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest otherwise. The apparent Biblical account of God’s pronouncements regarding soil-based farming and childbirth related to Adam and Eve’s eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appears to be recorded in Genesis 3:16-19. The Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that God’s initial delegation to Adam of soil-based farming duties appears to be recorded in Genesis 2:15, apparently chronologically prior to God’s Genesis 3:17-19 pronouncement. The Bible also appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that God assigned procreative privileges to humanity in general immediately after creating humanity in general in Genesis 1:28. Both of the roles apparently suggested to have been initiated after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appear to be Biblically suggested to have been initiated earlier.
In summary, therefore, God’s apparent pronouncements related to the eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appear to be reasonably interpreted to represent punishment -- increased difficulty in the previously established roles of soil-based farming labor and child-birth labor -- rather than reward of initiating new life-giving roles.
Eve’s Deception
Concerns appear to inquire regarding whether or not the serpent deceived Eve as the Bible appears to suggest that Eve claimed when confronted by God in Genesis 3:13. I humbly and respectfully submit that the serpent offered to Eve multiple false and/or deceptive characterizations.
Firstly, the Bible appears to suggest that the serpent suggested to Eve that eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would achieve for Adam and Eve as a harmless benefit.
Secondly, the Bible appears to suggest that the serpent mischaracterized God as maliciously withholding from humanity such a harmless benefit.
Thirdly, the Bible appears to suggest that the serpent suggested to Eve that Adam and Eve would not die. The apparently Biblical text appears to suggest that HuffPostThinker and BlogSpotThinker comments appear to suggest that (a) apparently viable interpretations of the terms “in the day” and “die”, (b) the deteriorative effect on Adam and Eve’s purity and innocence, (c) God’s revocation of Adam and Eve’s access to the tree of life, as well as (d) the relationship of (a) through (c) to Adam and Eve’s apparently Biblically-suggested eventual loss of life appear to be reasonably interpreted as suggesting that God’s prediction regarding Adam and Eve’s death appear to be reasonably considered to have been fulfilled.
October 10, 2011 09:09am
(Revised October 14, 2011)
Humanity's Quest for Growth
I humbly and respectfully submit an apparently reasonable complementary and/or supplementary theory regarding humanity's quest for knowledge, growth and prosperity. The Bible appears to suggest that human desire is a gift from God. The Bible appears to suggest that God, after creating humanity, extends the invitation to enjoy the earth and to realize and maximize humanity’s human potential (Genesis 1).
However, the Bible also appears to suggest that this same human desire constitutes human vulnerability to downfall. The key appears to be relationship with God. The Bible appears to describe God as suggesting repeatedly that, as long as God’s sovereignty is acknowledged, all is well. The Bible also appears to describe God as also clearly delineating the results of rejection of God’s sovereignty.
The effect of eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appears to be reasonably interpreted to have been oversold by the serpent. The serpent’s description of that effect appears reasonably interpreted as suggest that eating the fruit from the tree would reveal hidden information. Apparently, this new information would make Adam and Eve’s knowledgebase, and as an apparent result, them, equal to God. However, the Bible appears to describe the effect as solely adding new distortion to their perspective. To wit: apparently, after they ate the fruit, their clothing-free wardrobe suddenly became shameful.
Apparently, rather than new useful information having been added to their knowledgebase, their previous pure perspective had simply been poisoned with “the knowledge of evil”.
Contradiction of God's Prediction
Concerns appears to have been expressed that suggest a contradiction between (a) the apparently Biblically-suggested prediction by God of the result of eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and (b) the apparently Biblically-suggested outcome of Adam and Eve eating the fruit. These concerns appear to suggest that the relevant Biblical text suggests that God predicted that Adam and Eve would lose their lives within the same 24-hour day in which they ate the fruit or, at least, within 24 hours of eating the fruit. These concerns appear to suggest that the relevant Biblical text suggests that Adam and Eve did not lose their lives by the end of the day or within 24 hours of eating the fruit and that their lack of lost life contradicts the apparently reported prediction of God.
I humbly and respectfully submit that several points of logic and reason appear to reasonably suggest that the Biblical account, as it appears to be represented, appears to be reasonably considered to not represent a contradiction between the above-referenced apparently Biblical reports of God’s prediction and the actual outcome. These points of logic and reason appear to be summarized as follows:
(a) The term “die”, as used in the account, appears to reasonably be considered to refer to the death of Adam and Eve’s purity of intellect and innocence of perspective. Said purity and innocence appears to be reported to have undergone a negative transformation from lack of shame to shame regarding Adam and Eve’s nakedness immediately after the eating of the fruit appears to be reported.
This apparently significant nature of this interpretation of “death” appears to be reasonably considered to be supported by a supplementary, apparently reasonable theory regarding life and death in the context of Adam and Eve’s experience. An apparently reasonable theory appears to be that the potential for death might have been initially introduced to Adam and Eve’s experience not via their eating of the fruit, but via Adam and Eve’s design. This suggestion appears to be supported by the apparently Biblical reporting of the tree of life in addition to food trees in the garden of Eden. The Bible appears to report that Adam and Eve were banned from accessing the tree of life so that their newly corrupt existence would not immortally and, therefore, eternally, negatively impact reality. Perhaps, Adam and Eve ate both (a) from the tree of life to sustain life and (b) from food trees for energy and other body-maintenance-related purposes. Perhaps, without eating from the tree of life, regardless of whether they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve would die.
(b) In addition, the term “in the day” (King James Version), apparently interpreted to read “by the end of the day”, appears to also be potentially used in the “older English” to refer to a broad time period. For example, “In the day in which the dinosaurs roamed…” appears to be reasonably suggested to refer to the entire time period in which dinosaurs are considered to have existed. The New International Version appears to interpret the phrase “in the day” as “when”, which appears to be consistent with this lexicological theory. Therefore, God’s barring of Adam and Eve’s access to the tree of life as a result of eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appears to be reasonably considered to begin the time period of Adam and Eve’s process of gradual, rather than immediate death.
Consequently, in summary, the apparently Biblical account appears to be reasonably considered to suggest that God’s prediction might not have been intended to suggest that Adam and Eve would lose all sign of either immortal or mortal physical life by the end of the day in which they ate the fruit or within 24 hours of eating the fruit. Rather, if any inference to a specific 24-hour day is intended, these reports appear to be reasonably considered to suggest that God’s prediction was intended, perhaps, to suggest Adam and Eve’s loss of purity and innocence of perspective as well as their God-granted invitation and access to immortality via the tree of life.
Adam and Eve Punished or Rewarded?
Perspectives also appear to suggest that the Biblical account suggests that God predicted that punishment -- death -- would result from Adam and Eve’s eating from the tree but that, instead, God rewarded Adam and Eve by giving them new life-initiating roles. The suggestion appears to be that Adam was newly made a gardener and that Eve was newly made a mother, both as a result of eating the fruit.
Without intending to either accept or deny the validity of this apparent suggestion, I humbly and respectfully submit that the Biblical account appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest otherwise. The apparent Biblical account of God’s pronouncements regarding soil-based farming and childbirth related to Adam and Eve’s eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appears to be recorded in Genesis 3:16-19. The Bible appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that God’s initial delegation to Adam of soil-based farming duties appears to be recorded in Genesis 2:15, apparently chronologically prior to God’s Genesis 3:17-19 pronouncement. The Bible also appears to be reasonably interpreted to suggest that God assigned procreative privileges to humanity in general immediately after creating humanity in general in Genesis 1:28. Both of the roles apparently suggested to have been initiated after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appear to be Biblically suggested to have been initiated earlier.
In summary, therefore, God’s apparent pronouncements related to the eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil appear to be reasonably interpreted to represent punishment -- increased difficulty in the previously established roles of soil-based farming labor and child-birth labor -- rather than reward of initiating new life-giving roles.
Eve’s Deception
Concerns appear to inquire regarding whether or not the serpent deceived Eve as the Bible appears to suggest that Eve claimed when confronted by God in Genesis 3:13. I humbly and respectfully submit that the serpent offered to Eve multiple false and/or deceptive characterizations.
Firstly, the Bible appears to suggest that the serpent suggested to Eve that eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would achieve for Adam and Eve as a harmless benefit.
Secondly, the Bible appears to suggest that the serpent mischaracterized God as maliciously withholding from humanity such a harmless benefit.
Thirdly, the Bible appears to suggest that the serpent suggested to Eve that Adam and Eve would not die. The apparently Biblical text appears to suggest that HuffPostThinker and BlogSpotThinker comments appear to suggest that (a) apparently viable interpretations of the terms “in the day” and “die”, (b) the deteriorative effect on Adam and Eve’s purity and innocence, (c) God’s revocation of Adam and Eve’s access to the tree of life, as well as (d) the relationship of (a) through (c) to Adam and Eve’s apparently Biblically-suggested eventual loss of life appear to be reasonably interpreted as suggesting that God’s prediction regarding Adam and Eve’s death appear to be reasonably considered to have been fulfilled.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
The Letter and The Spirit of the Law
by BlogSpotThinker
October 9, 2011
The Bible appears to point out the potential for negative human intent to seek ways to obey the “letter of the law” while not submitting to the “spirit of the law”. The term “letter of the law” here refers to the specific commands or prohibitions specified by a guideline. The term “spirit of the law” here refers to the perspective from which a guideline emanates.
The Bible appears to suggest that the subset of humanity that is referred to in this light attempts to avoid the negative consequences of non-compliance with guidelines. However, their perspective does not appropriately balance genuine concern for self-interest, the well-being of others and other aspects of life. This appears to suggest that their actions are solely symptoms of the fundamental problem: the general perspective from which those actions flow. The Bible appears to suggest that such imbalanced perspective is a direct result of humanity’s rejection of God’s leadership.
I humbly and respectfully submit that the Bible appears to suggest that knowledge of and compliance with guidelines is not the ultimate goal. Submission to God’s sovereign leadership and the resulting “renewing of our minds” (Romans 12:2) into harmony with God’s design range for human perspective appears to be. Otherwise, the ultimate loophole – rewriting the laws to allow the imbalanced perspective to be considered appropriate – appears to present itself.
October 9, 2011
The Bible appears to point out the potential for negative human intent to seek ways to obey the “letter of the law” while not submitting to the “spirit of the law”. The term “letter of the law” here refers to the specific commands or prohibitions specified by a guideline. The term “spirit of the law” here refers to the perspective from which a guideline emanates.
The Bible appears to suggest that the subset of humanity that is referred to in this light attempts to avoid the negative consequences of non-compliance with guidelines. However, their perspective does not appropriately balance genuine concern for self-interest, the well-being of others and other aspects of life. This appears to suggest that their actions are solely symptoms of the fundamental problem: the general perspective from which those actions flow. The Bible appears to suggest that such imbalanced perspective is a direct result of humanity’s rejection of God’s leadership.
I humbly and respectfully submit that the Bible appears to suggest that knowledge of and compliance with guidelines is not the ultimate goal. Submission to God’s sovereign leadership and the resulting “renewing of our minds” (Romans 12:2) into harmony with God’s design range for human perspective appears to be. Otherwise, the ultimate loophole – rewriting the laws to allow the imbalanced perspective to be considered appropriate – appears to present itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)