fruit and resurrection

[Amie]

Genesis 2
16 ¶ And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Eating you may eat of every tree in the garden;
17 but of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil you may not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, dying you shall die.

Genesis 3
2 And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden,
3 but of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.

Gen 3 reads that if they specifically eat the "fruit" of the tree of knowledge, they die. It's interesting that it's the "fruit" of knowledge that kills them, and NOT the knowledge itself. (Just noticed this.)

"Fruit" is symbolic for "outcome", "result", "reward" (rewards can be good or bad).

Ego is self's interpretation of reality. Before eating from the ToK, egos will have established things about self like, "blue eyed", "brown hair", "alive", "dead", "hungry", "fat", "skinny", etc.

Attached meaning will have existed too. Self would know that fat means "run slower" for example, and that's not a good thing in a hunting society. So fat would have been negative. OR, self would know that fat means "successful", and it may have therefore been positive.

Positive and negative though, are related to what was learned through experience/reality.

They would have also known that there was positive and negative reward for actions. They probably therefore made choices based on pay off, just like people do today. They got something out of hunting, being silly with their children, or showing affection for example (this doesn't negate what they will have given as well btw!).

Knowledge of good and evil probably attached further meaning on actions, thoughts, and all of the realities of self determined by ego. Positive experiences will have therefore evolved into "self is silly with self's children, therefore self is GOOD.".. also "self has lots of meat, gold, diamonds, status, etc, therefore self is GOOD." "It feels good to play with my children" then will have had added to it "It IS good to play with my children".

"Superego" is basically the protecter of the "ego". It writes laws that prove the ego's interpretation is accurate. Some of the "laws" are obvious. We can know our eye color, just by looking in the mirror. "I look in the mirror and see it", is something coming from "superego". So is "I know I'm funny because I make people laugh". To be wrong about that, is not harmful unless the "good and evil" stuff is thrown in with it: "To be funny is to be good/acceptable".

I was talking with someone today that suggested that the fruit of the tree good and evil is people comparing themselves and determining their own goodness, against other people. There would never be satisfaction, because there would always be someone to compare themselves to.

It brought to my mind immediately something Doug had written long ago about "the carrot and the stick", though I can't find that for the life of me right now! I could have my people crossed.. Anyhow, a donkey is made to walk by dangling a carrot in front of it by a stick. When it reaches its destination, there's always another carrot.

If they associated nakedness with "bad" (and they must have if they felt shame, do you agree?), then the comparison had begun.

I've got more, but would like to hear your thoughts so far.

Amie

[ozark]

Amie,

I think you are spot on. If the measure of my worth in who I am (race, gender, strength, intelligence, etc) and what I do (religious deeds, etc.), then I will invariably make comparisons between myself and others. Jesus’ parable of the publican and the Pharisee is a good example. (Luke 18:9-14).

Those who look to self for worth often will suffer from a judgmental attitude and self-loathing. I know many religious people bounce back and forth between the two. It is interesting that the sinner in Jesus parable also trusted in himself that he was righteous, IMO. Yet, in his cry for mercy he found a justification that was obviously a gift.

Christ lifted the worth of every human being to the heavens opening the door to a love that we are only beginning to comprehend. Understanding this is the only way to truly love ourselves and our neighbor.

[kevinbeck]

Doug


Those who look to self for worth often will suffer from a judgmental attitude and self-loathing. I know many religious people bounce back and forth between the two.

That's a brilliant insight. Do you think that this is what may attract some people to religion (of whatever type) in the first place?

Amie,
Shame and cover-up always go together. Like Job who is bare before God (skin for skin), Jesus on the cross is naked before God and the world. Nothing hidden. "We have renounced the hidden things of shame."

Theological expresion of it is one thing. Psychological (soul word) acutualization is another, yes? You know my favorite expression "Awareness, Acceptance, Journey."

Blessings,
Kevin

[ozark]

Do you think that this is what may attract some people to religion (of whatever type) in the first place?



Yes, I think that is very true. It is ironic that our very efforts to grasp God can imprison us. Yet, it almost seems there are two types of religion. One based on love and grace (if you can even call that religion), the other on self-righteousness and fear. It has been my experience that many are trapped in the second kind of religion simply because they do not know anything else exists. When they see the real thing, it is like getting out of prison.

[Amie]

Okay, so here's some more of what I've been thinking about this. If I'm mistaken somewhere, go easy on me ;), but I'd love to hear the feedback:

The "fruit" of the tree of knowledge of good and evil came to full fruitation around the time of Christ. People had gathered as much evidence for righteousness (goodness) as could (or at least would) be gathered. Could you imagine consuming that fruit eternally? I'm glad God separated humanity from the Tree of Life until there was no more fruit from the ToK.

They lived in a time when the leaders of countries (therefore the countries) were considered gods, and had the power to take their lives from them. As Israel was, they believed themselves to be God's representative on earth. If the Priest said it, God said it - in their belief. They made offerings accordingly and dedicated their lives to the words of the leaders of Israel.
This is similar to the way Catholics view the Catholic church and the Pope. The Pope is God's representative on earth in their belief. If he interprets something a certain way, then they believe it is God's interpretation. To serve God, is to be in service to the church for there is no distinction between the two.

Like my hubby said (we were talking about this earlier - he's the "someone" I was talking to), "How can you question the word of a person and organization if it is supposed to be God Himself on earth?" The statement "..because God said so and I know He said it because He told me Himself" trumphs all.

Historically people's beliefs bound even their lives. They weren't just disallowed from communion, they were stoned until they died, exiled into the wilderness, stuff like that.

Jesus's resurrection demonstrated that power over life and death in this life - is not power. Religions today may have solved that issue by adding the threat of hellfire to the pot, but they can only truly give such a claim lip service. Ancient religions killed people in front of the masses to prove that they had power. Today's religions can't prove that by not accepting their view, we are cast into eternal tortures. It is abstract. The death those people suffered was a daily reality, and that power bound them to religion - death reigned.

It enslaved them to the God as that religion determined God to be. Israel had intermingled with more than one nation, and absorbed some of their religious views as well.

I wrote this in another thread, but it applies here as well:


The Egyptians believed that the world was alive, and their bodies were no different than a piece of wood, a brush, or a knife. Bodies were lifeless objects inhabited by Gods and spirits. They were not mummified for a future bodily resurrection, they were about to be launched into a new existance and their 'launching pod' so to speak, was made top notch.

Anyhow, they believed that not only could spirits inhabit anything, but that they could become anything as well. All life was interchangable. It's how Pharaohs were seen literally as gods.

To thank and worship a god, even if he was Pharaoh, one only needed to make an image for that god to enter into to be thanked and worshipped. The image was therefore no different than the god itself. If the god entered a piece of wood, the god was 'dumb' (couldn't speak). If the god entered a human body, the god spoke.

In Exodus, we find Israel performing a very Egyptian ritual. They are creating an image for a god ("Elohim") to enter into.

In Exodus 32:4 Aaron said "These are your gods (Elohim), O Israel, who made you go up from the land of Egypt."

Yahweh brought them out of Egypt, who is also called "Elohim" - a name possibly picked up in Canaan.

Exodus 32:5 reads "And Aaron saw, and he built an altar before it. And Aaron called and said, A feast to Jehovah tomorrow."

This seems to equate "Elohim" and "Yahweh".

In the day of the new covenant, God says in Hosea 2:

16 And at that day, says Jehovah, you shall call Me, My husband; and you shall no more call Me, My Baal.

The old (or at least "oldest" ;)) covenant said that consuming the fruit of the tree of knowledge would result in death and it had. There was no life in bondage to religion, and very few people knew God at all. God promised though:

Jeremiah 31
31 Behold, the days come, says Jehovah, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
32 not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt (which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says Jehovah).
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, declares Jehovah, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 And they shall no longer each man teach his neighbor, and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah. For they shall all know Me, from the least of them even to the greatest of them, declares Jehovah. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.

There would come a day, that people - at least these people - would know God. Did the rest of the world inherit this promise though?

If the fruit itself was being caught up in "the carrot and the stick", then the pursuit of that carrot resulted in death. Recollect for a moment if you will, what death was. It was not knowing God, and bondage to religion/other people. It reigned until the Tree of Knowledge would come to full fruitation.

John the Baptist declared the eminence of its ending:

Matthew 3
10 But already the axe is even laid at the root of the trees; therefore, any tree not bringing forth good fruit is cut off and is thrown into fire.

The fruit of the tree of good and evil multiplied. The one tree by that time, had grown into many. Each tree, would be known by its fruit, and the tree (all of the trees were still of the same sort) producing bad fruit would be "hewn down" and "cast into the fire" (Mt 7:17-19). Such "bad fruit" was the pursuit of righteousness and the gains which proved it - it was sin. All of their wealth, power, and religious rituals would come to mean nothing - even their ability to kill.

Imo as of late, humanity never had power over the "kingdom". They just believed that they did. It was their reality. It was precisely that reality, and the power to be gained through it, that was "hewn down". Through the resurrection of Christ, the world would know that the god represented there by religion had no power and was not God.

Israel was no longer ruled by death, it had been given life. Though this only applied to a small peoples, in a certain time, it had a worldwide impact. God made himself known to Israel, for all the world to see. God is love, and not the accumulated power of religion/people. The more that understanding spreads, the less the world is controlled by such. The world (as in all existance) therefore, has inherited the promise along with Israel.

Some of modern humanity still claim to represent God on earth. They still work to evidence that, whether by use of ancient texts, or by controlling small empires. That's fizzling though. The empires are shrinking, and the more divided interpretations of ancient texts become, the less credibility they have (God's house is not divided).

How was God's law written on the hearts of humanity? How was it absent before? It seems to me that the answers to those questions define "life" and "death", and maybe even "resurrection".

Some of my thoughts..

Amie

[Amie]

Do you think that this is what may attract some people to religion (of whatever type) in the first place?

I know that most Christians believe that people have to comprehend how horrible they are, so they can feel the need for salvation.

I have a phobia of my children going to church and the people there beginning to go to work on them.

Amie

[kevinbeck]

Amie,
You've been doing a lot of hard work and thinking. Thanks for sharing.

Just a quick thought. I see the process from Genesis forward as an unfolding from Identification through Differentiation to Integration (with continual further integration). God was known in Israel under the Sinai Covenant as the God who was peculiar to Israel (even if the God was over all things). However, Israel's sense of peculiarity (as often reflected in the writings) should not keep us from thinking that the God who is love would not know all nations in love. Pslam 117 suggests that God's ultimate unfolding would include all nations. The nations rejoice b/c God would bless Israel...not in spite of it or along side it, but integrated with it.

Sorry for being so scattered.

Blessings,
Kevin

[Barry]

Marvelous thread. Some great thoughts!

[Amie]

You've been doing a lot of hard work and thinking.

This actually came out of a conversation that my husband and I had yesterday. Believe it or not, it began as a discussion on how women are treated in religion, lol!

I'll be doing more thinking about it for sure, thanks for your feedback :)

Amie

[davo]

...how women are treated in religion

You know that is all pretty self evident -- and yet maybe that says something smart about you girls, as in why would you want to get involved with that :biggrinbounce:

[Amie]

I know you pretty much said that in jest Davo, but it's true really. I'm gonna get a thread going on it :)

Amie

[backtothefuture]

Amie,
I find this very interesting. I never had put it together about the fruit of knowledge that kills them, not the knowledge it self. So that means I guess there is bad fruit out there.
I was wondering, why in this generation there is also so much talk about self esteem or lack of it. When people talk about having a low self esteem, even for myself, I am wondering if that is a cop out. Who is responsible for our self esteem anyway. Us, or what God has given us in that department?
When I say I have a low self esteem, I guess I am saying, I am not worthy of something. I don't validate even myself. But that seems so wrong now in my thinking after coming into the realization of Gods love and grace for me. Maybe thats all its takes to have a good self esteem. Don't know. Will keep lurking.
Thanks
Nancy

[Paige]

Maybe thats all its takes to have a good self esteem.

I see what you're saying and think your making a lot of sense.

Paige

[ozark]

I don't validate even myself. But that seems so wrong now in my thinking after coming into the realization of Gods love and grace for me. Maybe thats all its takes to have a good self esteem.

Nancy,

I think it really is that simple. We don’t find our self-esteem by look at ourselves but at Christ. The measure of the worth of every human being in the New Covenant age is Christ. Therefore, we are free to love our neighbor and ourselves.

[backtothefuture]

This just seems to easy. Love God, Love your neighbor. God loves you. God loves me.
Why has it become so hard for this to sink in way down deep for me anyway.
I am getting there. But holy cow, what a journey its been:eek:
Nancy

[ozark]

Simple, yes. Easy, no. We don't have quite the same journey the firstfruits generation did. However, looking away from ourselves and seeing Christ can still be a painful process. In many respects we too are the living sacrifice that suffers the loss of all things to gain Christ. We are participating in a reality already accomplished, but it still must be worked out in our lives, IMO.

[backtothefuture]

Doug,
So very well said.
Thank you
Nancy

[Tam]

I know that most Christians believe that people have to comprehend how horrible they are, so they can feel the need for salvation.

I have a phobia of my children going to church and the people there beginning to go to work on them.

Amie

Amie, Maybe it's not a phobia but the Spirit speaking to you. Know what you mean though. I've developed the same thing that I call a phobia too. You're talking to someone who drag her small kids to AWANA every week and taught in it too. Changes like what's happened to me don't "just happen". Still scratching my head.

Anyway, take this statement which is at the core of most evangelizing.

"God loves you as you are, but He cannot accept you as you are..unless...."

The way I see it is that if the first half of this statement is true, then the the last is a lie. If the last half of this statement is true then the first half is a lie.

Seems to me that we're still picking the fruit and eating it, and it seems to be getting wormier all the time. :rolleyes: Tami

[Amie]

Tami,

I'm thinking that we're still just passing around old fruit and that maybe some of it has finally rotted away. How many people consider people bad (and themselves righteous) for giving their deceased loved ones a final kiss goodbye anymore IE?

I get your point and I agree that it's all full of worms!

What is AWANA?

Amie

[backtothefuture]

I use to beat myself up all the time. I was worried that my fruit had fruit flies:confused:
No matter what I did, it would not get ripe, or look good or taste good. Then one day I threw it away and got what I call organic "Fruit" Fulfillment:biggrinbounce:
Good to the last bite.
Blessings,
Nancy

[Amie]

Then one day I threw it away and got what I call organic "Fruit" Fulfillment. Good to the last bite.

That brings to my mind:

Galatians 5
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith,
23 meekness, self-control. Against such things there is not a law.

[ozark]

I use to beat myself up all the time. I was worried that my fruit had fruit flies:confused:
No matter what I did, it would not get ripe, or look good or taste good. Then one day I threw it away and got what I call organic "Fruit" Fulfillment:biggrinbounce:
Good to the last bite.
Blessings,
Nancy

That's a good one! :clap2:

[christyG]

Interesting discussion...

Amie, you said:
The "fruit" of the tree of knowledge of good and evil came to full fruitation around the time of Christ. People had gathered as much evidence for righteousness (goodness) as could (or at least would) be gathered. What people, all people, the Israelites? And how is their gathering different from our gathering?
Also, you said:
Recollect for a moment if you will, what death was. It was not knowing God, and bondage to religion/other people....And:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, declares Jehovah, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 And they shall no longer each man teach his neighbor, and each man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah. For they shall all know Me, from the least of them even to the greatest of them, declares Jehovah. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.

There would come a day, that people - at least these people - would know God. Did the rest of the world inherit this promise though?
Did everyone have "death"? Were other peoples throughout the world enslaved to religion or other people, thus needing to inherit the promise stated in Jeremiah?

Kevin, you said:
Just a quick thought. I see the process from Genesis forward as an unfolding from Identification through Differentiation to Integration (with continual further integration). God was known in Israel under the Sinai Covenant as the God who was peculiar to Israel (even if the God was over all things). However, Israel's sense of peculiarity (as often reflected in the writings) should not keep us from thinking that the God who is love would not know all nations in love. Pslam 117 suggests that God's ultimate unfolding would include all nations. The nations rejoice b/c God would bless Israel...not in spite of it or along side it, but integrated with it.
I like that thought.
Amie asked:
How was God's law written on the hearts of humanity? How was it absent before? It seems to me that the answers to those questions define "life" and "death", and maybe even "resurrection". MHO I would see the continued further integration as opposed to a sudden occurance. I have trouble making all the pieces fit in a sudden, global occurance senario.

It seems to me that people throughout the world have always been working through their relationship to the infinite---- to the sacred----to the unknown in their own individual ways. Some "get it" and some don't, it seems. Native Americans it seems have always had a very special connection to the sacred and they worked (are working) it out in their own way. The British came and observed this connection and not understanding it deemed it evil and thought that the Native Americans should come to know the sacred as they had. When IMO in reality they could have served each other (and the sacred)best by learning from each other.

Christy

[Amie]

The "fruit" of the tree of knowledge of good and evil came to full fruitation around the time of Christ. People had gathered as much evidence for righteousness (goodness) as could (or at least would) be gathered.


What people, all people, the Israelites? And how is their gathering different from our gathering?

Humanity had been gathering evidence of self's righteousness. People aquired more things, more power, and 'perfected' doing the law of God. Humanity's self righteousness by the time of Christ, in other words, was fully evidenced imo.


Did everyone have "death"? Were other peoples throughout the world enslaved to religion or other people, thus needing to inherit the promise stated in Jeremiah?

All who ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge died, and all ate that fruit imo. In the new covenant, the tree was "hewn down and cast into the fire", and death was defeated. It seems like we're left with knowing good and evil, minus the dying part - and the deterioration of the fruit itself.

I don't think the resurrection was a sudden occurance either. It was a process, and I think the effects of it are still playing out.


It seems to me that people throughout the world have always been working through their relationship to the infinite---- to the sacred----to the unknown in their own individual ways. Some "get it" and some don't, it seems. Native Americans it seems have always had a very special connection to the sacred and they worked (are working) it out in their own way. The British came and observed this connection and not understanding it deemed it evil and thought that the Native Americans should come to know the sacred as they had. When IMO in reality they could have served each other (and the sacred)best by learning from each other.

I completely agree with your perspective here. I might carry it even further in questioning whether or not all people "get it". Is there a person on earth that doesn't know love? For that matter, was there ever?

"Death" was the breakdown of a relationship more so than the loss of a presence. It was the loss of connection. It is hard to imagine that to be a universal happenstance (Maybe it was universal in scope and so a huge problem - and not a problem with every individual?). God has relationships with people throughout the OT, and folks in the rest of the world must have felt some sort of connection to the sacred. Even through that connection, did they really know God do you think? What is it to really know God? What have we learned from all of this anyway?

Thanks for looking into the hard questions with me.

Amie

[Tam]

Amie asked:

What is AWANA?

"Approved Workmen Are not Ashamed". A smidge of Timothy taken out of the whole and wala...you got law!

It's a kids club. Pretty big in the Conservative Baptist denomination. Lot's of Bible memory, it's all about rewards and awards.

Tami

[christyG]

Thanks so much Amie. I am learning so much from you (and the others here).

Help me understand better. You said:
Humanity had been gathering evidence of self's righteousness. People aquired more things, more power, and 'perfected' doing the law of God. Humanity's self righteousness by the time of Christ, in other words, was fully evidenced imo.
and:
All who ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge died, and all ate that fruit imo. In the new covenant, the tree was "hewn down and cast into the fire", and death was defeated. It seems like we're left with knowing good and evil, minus the dying part - and the deterioration of the fruit itself.
Do you see this as the defeat of self-righteousness? If not, how do you see it? You also mentioned earlier about the fruit from the TOK being gone:
I'm glad God separated humanity from the Tree of Life until there was no more fruit from the ToK.
Could you explain your thoughts on this a little more for me? There seems to be self-righteousness still, so I don't really understand.

Do you see God working this out through Isreal? IMHO more things and more power are not things that all humanity has always been concerned with. These seem to be a very western and fairly modern "invention". In fact, self-righteousness seems to be very much a disease of the religious in many ways. On the other hand I have heard it expressed that the story of the garden is a story about the actualization of our self-consciuosness, our self-centeredness which could be defined as self-righteousness. This is something that does seem to befall all humans, religious or not. This self-centeredness is born and then it is developed through our experiences, religious or not. Right now I see this as playing out the same way today as it has for thousands of years. I would agree that death could be characterized as a loss of relationship, but I do not see this as an "Adam and Eve causing this situation for all" kind of thing. I am not sure that that is what you are saying either. I still see "death" as stated above still being a reality for some. But then as you stated all people do feel connected to something, don't they? But that brings us back to the fact that this has been true for all time-----oppening up the idea that maybe there never was a "death". See what I am saying?

Christy

[Amie]

Christy,

You are right, self-righteousness still exists. I'm not sure that it exists to the extent that it used to (those considered "bad" were killed), and I'm not sure that it will exist in the future to the extent that it does now. That said, I'm not sure that I see it completely gone ever. What I do see gone, is self-righteousness having the ability to drive a wedge between God and humanity. Imo, God was ticked off and hurt for a while by it.

Also I think you're absolutely right that there's plenty of self-righteousness outside of religion. I don't think that the garden story represented only Israel, I feel that it has a universal application. I'm open for other ideas for sure though. That said, at least Israel's religion was added because of transgression:

Galatians 3
19 ¶ Why the Law then? It was for the sake of transgressions, until the Seed should come, to whom it had been promised, being ordained through angels in a mediator's hand.

Romans 5
20 But Law came in besides, that the deviation might abound. But where sin abounded, grace much more abounded,

The Law convicted everyone.

Romans 3
20 Because by works of Law not one of all flesh will be justified before Him, for through Law is full knowledge of sin. Psa. 143:2

Israel became representative, so to speak, for "the flesh" (evidencing self worth via the ego). You know the "all have fallen short" yadda yadda yadda I think.

There were consequences for Adam and Eve's choice. Consequences that God had forewarned them of. However, there was no accoutability until the Law was given.

Romans 5
13 For sin was in the world until Law, but sin is not charged where there is no law;

Separation from the "tree of life" represented "death" in the garden story. That was the death that existed. I reckon this brings us to the other tree, and the other fruit.

My thought is that humanity did well to do the whole "compare you with me" thing to determine self worth. Religion though, law, served that even further. In the world then that meant that the folks in charge would reflect that. It's hard to imagine at times, when we're so surrounded by folks who have the same type of self-righteous attitude - hey, ourselves included sometimes - BUT.. this world is 200% better than the world before Christ.

I think that's because "life" is a reality and it is affecting everything.


..opening up the idea that maybe there never was a "death". See what I am saying?

I absolutely see what you are saying! It seems to me that humanity thinking it had power over death is the same as it thinking it has power over life. I think "death" existed, I just don't think it does exactly like the 'popular vote' might say - what do you think?

Amie

[christyG]

I just don't think it does exactly like the 'popular vote' might say - what do you think?

Right now, I would define "death" as a mulitfold term encompassing the wide range of feelings we as humans feel at times ---- Feelings that keep us from experiencing the sacred (God) to the fullest ----- Feelings such as exile, blindness, enslaved, oppressed, prideful, worry-filled, "east of Eden". These are all themes adressed throughout the Hebrew Bible and the NT. With this my definition of "death", I then would have to say that this death has always been a reality and will always be. It would mean that it would be possible to die and be "reborn" many times throughout our life, depending on our state of mind.
It might also be important to note that right now I am seeing the story of the Hebrew Bible and the NT as A story of the human condition. For the Hebrews they may see these stories as answering their questions for how God deals with all of humanity. Right now, I do not see these stories as THE explanation for the human condition. I see them as a Hebrew expression of the Hebrew faith. HOWEVER, that does not mean that I do not see Jesus as having impact on humanity as a whole. I see Jesus as a powerful figure, a true reflection of God (the sacred) and that is something that all of humanity can learn from. I can still see his death and ressurection as a powerful expression of God's power and his defeat of the social, political and religious systems, and as a reflection of the way of transformation for us all.
I hope that my words above do not offend anyone, they are not intended in that way. Right now, for me to see this differently is to limit God in my eyes. But I am still seeking and learning and have no doubt that I will continue to learn and thus my views will continue to shift. That is why I come back here. I am still learning from you all. I am not saying my ideas are right or wrong, they just happen to work for me at this particular time.

Christy

[Amie]

Christy,

You don't offend me, I'm grateful for your honesty. I know that human beings can feel as you put it, "East of Eden". I'm not sure that makes it a reality. It would feel real to the person feeling it for sure, but would it be real? Can our mood ever really separate us from God ("kill" us)?

Amie

[christyG]

Can our mood ever really separate us from God ("kill" us)?
IMO no. That's just it. I do not think we ever were, or ever could be separate from God. Right now, I do not see the Bible as a story explaining man's actual separation from God. Now, there is the paradox of not separate, but separate. The creator would have to separate from the creation to create it, wouldn't it.

Christy

[Amie]

The creator would have to separate from the creation to create it, wouldn't it.

That would make sense. You would think it would differentiate creator and created. Otherwise, it would just be cloning I would think.

I think that though we couldn't separate us from God, that God could separate Himself from us, couldn't He?

You give me a lot to think about!

Amie

[Robert]

Amie- this is a very interesting thread. Just wondered if you have newer thoughts about God separating Himself from us??

Robert