Satan gave man love. Was it worth the hate?

[Greatest I am]

If things worked well for God and as he said, they have become as gods, you might remember that god has cloths on and the right thing to do for A & E would be to emulate him.

Me: So, you decided not to respond to what I wrote. Now you are arguing that God wears clothing. I don't know how you know this. God was clothed, metaphorically, with things like majesty and splendor, but garments, nah. And you are also sounding rather God as a kind of big guy in the sky like non-gnostic Christians here.

Case closed.

LOL. We can all add that our posts are right, or perfect arguments, but it adds nothing to the discussion.

I gave the logic on the clothe think just above.

And then here did not respond to my objection to the God was clothed argument. Which is a bizzare argument for a Gnostic, I repeat.

Do I need to agree to every individual thing you say?

I mentioned that you chose not to respond. I made no demand that you agree. So this is a implicit strawman type question.

As far as what I said about you choosing not to repond, I raised some issues, you two posts ago. You did not respond to them, brought up the idea that God is clothed, and now here did not respond to my objection to that.

I gave the logic trail behind what I said.

Show a logic trail for your view and not just denial.

Let me add to it. If A & E had seen God walking about with his junk hanging free, it would not occur to A & E that there was something wrong with them doing it, as they would never have seen or known the concept of clothing.

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

Let me add to it. If A & E had seen God walking about with his junk hanging free, it would not occur to A & E that there was something wrong with them doing it, as they would never have seen or known the concept of clothing.

Oddly enough they never noticed that God had clothes on before. Then suddenly they were shocked by their nakedness.

The question also comes up : why does God have "junk"?

He used to have a wife so it makes sense that He was having sex with Her. But then He suddenly became the one and only God and that kind of God has no use for genitalia. Unless He is doing something with the angels and cherubs. (And we don't want to go there.)

So naturally God lost His penis and His body and became pure energy.

[Greatest I am]

[

quote]Let me add to it. If A & E had seen God walking about with his junk hanging free, it would not occur to A & E that there was something wrong with them doing it, as they would never have seen or known the concept of clothing.

Oddly enough they never noticed that God had clothes on before. Then suddenly they were shocked by their nakedness.

That is because their eyes had been opened and they had gained a moral sense.

I am surprised you forgot that bit.

The question also comes up : why does God have "junk"?

He had planned from the beginning to do a human woman to bear Jesus. Rather hard that without junk.

He used to have a wife so it makes sense that He was having sex with Her. But then He suddenly became the one and only God and that kind of God has no use for genitalia. Unless He is doing something with the angels and cherubs. (And we don't want to go there.)

I do. Remember that his best was Satan and the church depicts her as female, without a bra.

We would also have to ask why he gave her a parting gift of the power to deceive the whole world when he banished her.

That seems super odd. No? Like one might do to an old lover perhaps?

So naturally God lost His penis and His body and became pure energy.

[/quote]

Scriptures say that god never changes so I dismiss this last out of hand.

Regards
DL

[Karpel Tunnel]

I gave the logic trail behind what I said.

You used a new argument.

Show a logic trail for your view and not just denial.

I made logical arguments you did not respond to. You simply denied, since you did not refer to my arguments or the points made.

Let me add to it. If A & E had seen God walking about with his junk hanging free, it would not occur to A & E that there was something wrong with them doing it, as they would never have seen or known the concept of clothing.

But there wasn't anything wrong with it. God birthed them, gave them no clothes and did not have an issue with them being naked. And now you seem to think God has a body with genitals and walked around. The bible on the other hand does not say this but does say that their shame came from eating of the tree of knowledge. Not that I think Adam and Eve existed.

But, actually, I don't like now having responded to your new point, because it implies it is OK for you to just make new arguments without responding to mine. It's easy in the wrong way for you and rude.

But in any case, the main issue is you often do not respond to points made. Responding to points made, at least one of them is the foundation of a philosophical discussion. Otherwise it is simply people talking past each other, giving no indication they have even bothered to read the other person's post.

[Greatest I am]

I gave the logic trail behind what I said.

You used a new argument.

Show a logic trail for your view and not just denial.

I made logical arguments you did not respond to. You simply denied, since you did not refer to my arguments or the points made.

Let me add to it. If A & E had seen God walking about with his junk hanging free, it would not occur to A & E that there was something wrong with them doing it, as they would never have seen or known the concept of clothing.

But there wasn't anything wrong with it. God birthed them, gave them no clothes and did not have an issue with them being naked. And now you seem to think God has a body with genitals and walked around. The bible on the other hand does not say this but does say that their shame came from eating of the tree of knowledge. Not that I think Adam and Eve existed.

But, actually, I don't like now having responded to your new point, because it implies it is OK for you to just make new arguments without responding to mine. It's easy in the wrong way for you and rude.

But in any case, the main issue is you often do not respond to points made. Responding to points made, at least one of them is the foundation of a philosophical discussion. Otherwise it is simply people talking past each other, giving no indication they have even bothered to read the other person's post.

We all have our style and perceptions of how a dialog is going.

If you have a particular point that you think I ignored, put it and I will have a look.

Regards
DL

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

That is because their eyes had been opened and they had gained a moral sense.

I am surprised you forgot that bit.

It's been pointed out that nakedness has nothing to do with morality.

It's been pointed out that if nakedness is an aspect of morality, then it is not immoral.

He had planned from the beginning to do a human woman to bear Jesus. Rather hard that without junk.

You mean that God had to physically penetrate Mary with an actual penis in order for her to conceive?

You're saying that God raped the Virgin Mary?

I do. Remember that his best was Satan and the church depicts her as female, without a bra.

If you ignore the vast majority of depictions - a horny goat-man sometimes with a big penis.

Scriptures say that god never changes so I dismiss this last out of hand.

Since the scriptures are myths, then gods change when the writers change the myths. That is your position isn't it? That it's all made up myths. Or are you arguing that there is one correct depiction of an unchanging God? Some depictions would simply be wrong or all depictions are wrong since we still don't know.

[Greatest I am]

That is because their eyes had been opened and they had gained a moral sense.

I am surprised you forgot that bit.

It's been pointed out that nakedness has nothing to do with morality.

It's been pointed out that if nakedness is an aspect of morality, then it is not immoral.

He had planned from the beginning to do a human woman to bear Jesus. Rather hard that without junk.

You mean that God had to physically penetrate Mary with an actual penis in order for her to conceive?

You're saying that God raped the Virgin Mary?

I do. Remember that his best was Satan and the church depicts her as female, without a bra.

If you ignore the vast majority of depictions - a horny goat-man sometimes with a big penis.

Scriptures say that god never changes so I dismiss this last out of hand.

Since the scriptures are myths, then gods change when the writers change the myths. That is your position isn't it? That it's all made up myths. Or are you arguing that there is one correct depiction of an unchanging God? Some depictions would simply be wrong or all depictions are wrong since we still don't know.

It is all myth.

Nakedness can be both good and evil.

Go wander outside naked and see how fast you are shown the evil side when you are jailed.

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

Go wander outside naked and see how fast you are shown the evil side when you are jailed.

I don't dispute that you would be jailed. But that law is based on the idea that nakedness is sinful or wrong. IOW, it's based on some particular (and strange) evaluation of nakedness.

Where does that come from? Sure, it's in Genesis 3. But why was it in Genesis 3? What prompted it?

[barbarianhorde]

Love is partial which isn't what God is so Satan introduced it, with death which is the knife that makes us partial.
The Apple is just death (fallen from tree it is the dead form of the tree) which we consume so that we can live and give fruit and be fruit in death. Its called growing up.

Oh by the way I used to run around naked in te street to see if people would call the cops or anything. But it just made me really unpopular with the neighbours. No neighbourly love there.


((((Thank you Ierrelus for saving us from rat ancestry with the archetype, close call next thing you know we see a garden with rats!)))))

[Greatest I am]

Go wander outside naked and see how fast you are shown the evil side when you are jailed.

I don't dispute that you would be jailed. But that law is based on the idea that nakedness is sinful or wrong. IOW, it's based on some particular (and strange) evaluation of nakedness.

Where does that come from? Sure, it's in Genesis 3. But why was it in Genesis 3? What prompted it?

Nothing from scripture but a lot from intelligent people with good manners and a need to protect people on the streets.

In Canada, there is no law against women going bare chested but we do not do so where innapropriate because of all the traffic accidents it would cause.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Love is partial which isn't what God is so Satan introduced it, with death which is the knife that makes us partial.
The Apple is just death (fallen from tree it is the dead form of the tree) which we consume so that we can live and give fruit and be fruit in death. Its called growing up.

Oh by the way I used to run around naked in te street to see if people would call the cops or anything. But it just made me really unpopular with the neighbours. No neighbourly love there.


((((Thank you Ierrelus for saving us from rat ancestry with the archetype, close call next thing you know we see a garden with rats!)))))

If my neighbor was that uncouth and built like you, I would not love him either. I would wonder under what rock he was born.

My second though would be why he is so tiny between the legs as compared to me.

Regards
DL

[Karpel Tunnel]

If my neighbor was that uncouth and built like you, I would not love him either. I would wonder under what rock he was born.

My second though would be why he is so tiny between the legs as compared to me.

This post is junk that would have been better kept hidden. Something to actually be ashamed of, as opposed to nakedness, for example. Now we have gnostics accusing other men of having smaller penises. Spiritual and moral role modeling.

[Ierrellus]

Both Elaine Pagels in "Adam, Eve and Serpent", and Matthew Fox in "Original Blessing" trace the concept of sexuality as a fallen state to Augustine who felt remorse because of his sexual feelings and judged that they were the product of Adams's disobedience to God.