9-18-1
Active Member
Grants: The Torah (ie. first five books of Moses) *could* have come from God, but argues not in favor neither against.
Addresses: Abrahamic Faiths (ie. god of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc.)
*Assumption: God exists (ie. for the purposes of argumentation only).
**Presumption #1: God "knows" good and evil.
***Presumption #2: God "knows" any/all truth(s) from untruth(s).
*Required.
**Espoused by Genesis 3:22
***ie. 'omnipotent'; 'omniscient'; 'omnipresent' etc.
i. Eating from the tree of life brings (eternal) life.
ויאמר יהוה אלהים הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו לדעת טוב ורע ועתה פן ישלח ידו ולקח גם מעץ החיים ואכל וחי לעלם
And the LORD God said Behold the man is become as one of us to know good and evil and now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live for ever
ii. Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil 'surely' brings death:
Genesis 2:17
ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Two Trees:
(i) The Tree of Life (life for ever)
(ii) The Tree of Death (surely die)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Argument:
IF:
(1) death is a result of eating from (ii),
AND:
(2) knowledge of good and evil is/can (only) be fully understood/known by God (ie. is not subject to it),
AND:
(3) a being can/could erroneously "believe" themselves to "know" good and evil,
THEN:
(4) the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is equivalent to (ie.equal to) any/all beings who erroneously "believe" to "know" good and evil while not actually knowing good and evil.
THEREFOR (deduction):
"BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE
(1) If God is taken to be 'omnipotent'; 'omniscient'; 'omnipresent' etc. this commandment must be assumed potent: in order for it to have been issued by God, the same must "know" good and evil. Whether or not God "knows" Eve/Adam will "sin" is irrelevant: if "infinite" wisdom were a property of God (not argued here) this commandment must be regarded as coming from such a place (of infinite wisdom) - if even temporarily for the purposes of argument/testing. If potency of God is assumed, it naturally follows that all "death" is as a result of eating from (ii).
(2) It must be assumed that God is not subject to duality, but rather must be found within their union as one. This is precisely what (i) represents: knowledge, understanding, wisdom, employing these faculties to distinguish what is true from what is not true. This does not call for, need, nor require "BELIEF": such a pursuit of unity necessarily begs one to visit/question what one "BELIEVES" incl. any dichotomous notion of good/evil, god/satan, and most importantly:
"BELIEVER VS. "UNBELIEVER" (hundreds of millions are dead due to this)
which has been a principle division in humanity for thousands of years.
As such the components of knowledge, understanding (argued as a virtue), wisdom (argued as a virtue) necessarily equip one with a method to "know" any/all applicable 'who/what/where/why/when/how':
NOT TO "BELIEVE"
which necessarily protects/defends against falling into the (deadly) error of eating from (ii): "BELIEF"-based "knowing" of good and evil.
(3) If a being "believes" to "know" good and evil, but has an erroneously dichotomous worldview (ie. subject to the duality of good/evil, god/satan, "believer" and "unbeliever" etc.) it naturally follows that this "believer" merely "believes" to "know" good and evil, because it can not be (fully, or partially) "known" lest one is either God, or "like" God (respectively; latter not argued here).
(4) The degree to which an individual erroneously "believes" to "know" good and evil is proportional to (ie. equal to) the degree to which they are eating from (ii): such a mistaking renders only a local (ie. individual, internal) polarization unique to that individual (ie. sans. maya) which reflects outwardly based on his/her own binds (related to satan). These binds occur psychologically (ie. psychosomatic state relating to false "beliefs" rendering "false" worldviews which induces suffering etc.), emotionally (ie. emotional states relating to attachment(s), taking offense to criticisms of "belief"-based worldviews which reflect the identity of the individual, idol worship etc.) and habitually (ie. imitation, emulation, adoption of models/idols etc.).
Deduction: The principle dichotomy of good and evil (even if illusory ie. non-existent) reflects the degree to which any/all (ie. humanity as a whole) erroneously "BELIEVE(S)" to know good and evil. Because satan requires "belief", and (ii) requires "belief", the two trees reflect a dichotomy of:
(i) In a state of "KNOWING" good and evil.
(ii) In a state of "BELIEVING" to "KNOW" good and evil.
And because:
(1) death is a result of eating from (ii),
AND:
(2) knowledge of good and evil is/can (only) be fully understood/known by God (ie. is not subject to it),
AND:
(3) a being can/could erroneously "believe" themselves to "know" good and evil,
AND:
(4) the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents (ie. is equivalent to) any/all beings who erroneously "believe" to "know" good and evil while not actually knowing good and evil.
THEREFOR:
Deduction: "BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE
Any/all "belief"-based worldviews (jncl. religious) which favors division (ie. "us" vs. "them") necessarily indicates (ii) because such a state requires "belief" in knowledge of good and evil in order to adopt a polarized worldview.
Any state (ie. person, nation etc.) either established on and/or maintained on (a) "BELIEF" are necessarily divisive and fundamentally false (ie. Islam purports the "belief" to be in possession of the perfect word of god, Christianity purports the "belief" in a 2-000-year-old resurrection, Judaism purports the "belief" that Moses received the Torah from God etc.). These are claims which require "belief" and adherents of such "beliefs" can only defend them by demanding evidence that they are "not" true. In reality, such "belief"-based assertions are absurdly unsound as they are, given that the Torah has at least four different authors, which is enough in and of itself to undermine the entire Abrahamic pantheon.
End.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Prediction: there will never be real lasting "peace" on the planet until the principle dichotomy of:
"BELIEVER" vs. "UNBELIEVER"
is addressed. I do not personally "know" how it will play out, but I know that "belief" is essentially the central problem on the planet (as a non-object) and the more humanity adapts a "KNOWING"-based 'state' rather than a "BELIEF"-based state (ie. as in all of the Abrahamic religions) only here will a true pathway towards peace begin.
There are powerful "BELIEF"-based states which erroneously hold holy books and indecent idols as infallible and beyond scrutiny (ie. the source of fascism is religious protectionism). Because "BELIEF"-based person(s) identify with/as their "BELIEFS" (ie. in relation to their religious 'state'), anything that undermines the state is often taken personally. This is how adherents are "controlled": psychological, emotional, instinctual attachments to religious idols/books.
Addresses: Abrahamic Faiths (ie. god of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob etc.)
*Assumption: God exists (ie. for the purposes of argumentation only).
**Presumption #1: God "knows" good and evil.
***Presumption #2: God "knows" any/all truth(s) from untruth(s).
*Required.
**Espoused by Genesis 3:22
***ie. 'omnipotent'; 'omniscient'; 'omnipresent' etc.
i. Eating from the tree of life brings (eternal) life.
ויאמר יהוה אלהים הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו לדעת טוב ורע ועתה פן ישלח ידו ולקח גם מעץ החיים ואכל וחי לעלם
And the LORD God said Behold the man is become as one of us to know good and evil and now lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live for ever
ii. Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil 'surely' brings death:
Genesis 2:17
ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Two Trees:
(i) The Tree of Life (life for ever)
(ii) The Tree of Death (surely die)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Argument:
IF:
(1) death is a result of eating from (ii),
AND:
(2) knowledge of good and evil is/can (only) be fully understood/known by God (ie. is not subject to it),
AND:
(3) a being can/could erroneously "believe" themselves to "know" good and evil,
THEN:
(4) the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is equivalent to (ie.equal to) any/all beings who erroneously "believe" to "know" good and evil while not actually knowing good and evil.
THEREFOR (deduction):
"BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE
(1) If God is taken to be 'omnipotent'; 'omniscient'; 'omnipresent' etc. this commandment must be assumed potent: in order for it to have been issued by God, the same must "know" good and evil. Whether or not God "knows" Eve/Adam will "sin" is irrelevant: if "infinite" wisdom were a property of God (not argued here) this commandment must be regarded as coming from such a place (of infinite wisdom) - if even temporarily for the purposes of argument/testing. If potency of God is assumed, it naturally follows that all "death" is as a result of eating from (ii).
(2) It must be assumed that God is not subject to duality, but rather must be found within their union as one. This is precisely what (i) represents: knowledge, understanding, wisdom, employing these faculties to distinguish what is true from what is not true. This does not call for, need, nor require "BELIEF": such a pursuit of unity necessarily begs one to visit/question what one "BELIEVES" incl. any dichotomous notion of good/evil, god/satan, and most importantly:
"BELIEVER VS. "UNBELIEVER" (hundreds of millions are dead due to this)
which has been a principle division in humanity for thousands of years.
As such the components of knowledge, understanding (argued as a virtue), wisdom (argued as a virtue) necessarily equip one with a method to "know" any/all applicable 'who/what/where/why/when/how':
NOT TO "BELIEVE"
which necessarily protects/defends against falling into the (deadly) error of eating from (ii): "BELIEF"-based "knowing" of good and evil.
(3) If a being "believes" to "know" good and evil, but has an erroneously dichotomous worldview (ie. subject to the duality of good/evil, god/satan, "believer" and "unbeliever" etc.) it naturally follows that this "believer" merely "believes" to "know" good and evil, because it can not be (fully, or partially) "known" lest one is either God, or "like" God (respectively; latter not argued here).
(4) The degree to which an individual erroneously "believes" to "know" good and evil is proportional to (ie. equal to) the degree to which they are eating from (ii): such a mistaking renders only a local (ie. individual, internal) polarization unique to that individual (ie. sans. maya) which reflects outwardly based on his/her own binds (related to satan). These binds occur psychologically (ie. psychosomatic state relating to false "beliefs" rendering "false" worldviews which induces suffering etc.), emotionally (ie. emotional states relating to attachment(s), taking offense to criticisms of "belief"-based worldviews which reflect the identity of the individual, idol worship etc.) and habitually (ie. imitation, emulation, adoption of models/idols etc.).
Deduction: The principle dichotomy of good and evil (even if illusory ie. non-existent) reflects the degree to which any/all (ie. humanity as a whole) erroneously "BELIEVE(S)" to know good and evil. Because satan requires "belief", and (ii) requires "belief", the two trees reflect a dichotomy of:
(i) In a state of "KNOWING" good and evil.
(ii) In a state of "BELIEVING" to "KNOW" good and evil.
And because:
(1) death is a result of eating from (ii),
AND:
(2) knowledge of good and evil is/can (only) be fully understood/known by God (ie. is not subject to it),
AND:
(3) a being can/could erroneously "believe" themselves to "know" good and evil,
AND:
(4) the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents (ie. is equivalent to) any/all beings who erroneously "believe" to "know" good and evil while not actually knowing good and evil.
THEREFOR:
Deduction: "BELIEF" IS NOT A VIRTUE
Any/all "belief"-based worldviews (jncl. religious) which favors division (ie. "us" vs. "them") necessarily indicates (ii) because such a state requires "belief" in knowledge of good and evil in order to adopt a polarized worldview.
Any state (ie. person, nation etc.) either established on and/or maintained on (a) "BELIEF" are necessarily divisive and fundamentally false (ie. Islam purports the "belief" to be in possession of the perfect word of god, Christianity purports the "belief" in a 2-000-year-old resurrection, Judaism purports the "belief" that Moses received the Torah from God etc.). These are claims which require "belief" and adherents of such "beliefs" can only defend them by demanding evidence that they are "not" true. In reality, such "belief"-based assertions are absurdly unsound as they are, given that the Torah has at least four different authors, which is enough in and of itself to undermine the entire Abrahamic pantheon.
End.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Prediction: there will never be real lasting "peace" on the planet until the principle dichotomy of:
"BELIEVER" vs. "UNBELIEVER"
is addressed. I do not personally "know" how it will play out, but I know that "belief" is essentially the central problem on the planet (as a non-object) and the more humanity adapts a "KNOWING"-based 'state' rather than a "BELIEF"-based state (ie. as in all of the Abrahamic religions) only here will a true pathway towards peace begin.
There are powerful "BELIEF"-based states which erroneously hold holy books and indecent idols as infallible and beyond scrutiny (ie. the source of fascism is religious protectionism). Because "BELIEF"-based person(s) identify with/as their "BELIEFS" (ie. in relation to their religious 'state'), anything that undermines the state is often taken personally. This is how adherents are "controlled": psychological, emotional, instinctual attachments to religious idols/books.
Last edited: