garden of eden

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Dennes De Mennes

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 5:07:38 PM11/21/11
to
Why was knowledge forbidden? Because if you just obey, then you cannot go astray. If all
you do is God's laws and commandments and don't touch whatever He says not to touch, then
you're guaranteed to stay pure and blessed. Satan comes along and says, screw that. You
can taste it, see what the fuzz is about, then you decide, it's not worth the trouble or
whatever. You are your own lawmaker, testing the shit out for yourself and using
intelligence and skill.
What does it matter if we obey, or if we're rebels and make our own rules? Because as
God's children we're supposed to inherit all His qualities. Not just be little robots,
totally programmed from birth till death, with little to say on the matter. God uses
intelligence so can we. We can listen to Satan and get tempted because that's our
heritage to stray and be free.

-octinomos

Tom

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 7:04:19 PM11/21/11
to
On Nov 21, 2:07 pm, Dennes De Mennes <jesucris...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Why was knowledge forbidden?

To create a monopoly. Prior to the invention of the printing press,
knowledge could be monopolized fairly easily but it's become
increasingly hard to do lately. The more ways there are to transmit
and store knowledge, the less successful attempts to monopolize it
will be.

Mister Mxyzptlk, Sorcerer of the 5. Dimension

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 7:24:15 PM11/21/11
to
We can be alone to our cosmos now, not like the old days with God
commanding us around. He wanted us to break out one day and forget
him. We have transmigrated.

Bassos

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 7:27:56 PM11/21/11
to
Op 22-11-2011 1:04, Tom schreef:
You are only half right.

Baffle with bullshit takes on a whole new meaning on the interwebs.



Tom

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 11:08:11 PM11/21/11
to
On Nov 21, 4:24 pm, "Mister Mxyzptlk, Sorcerer of the 5. Dimension"
<anacondaco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 Nov, 01:04, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 2:07 pm, Dennes De Mennes <jesucris...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > > Why was knowledge forbidden?
>
> > To create a monopoly. Prior to the invention of the printing press,
> > knowledge could be monopolized fairly easily but it's become
> > increasingly hard to do lately.  The more ways there are to transmit
> > and store knowledge, the less successful attempts to monopolize it
> > will be.
>
> We can be alone to our cosmos now, not like the old days with God
> commanding us around.

Or somebody who claims to represent God, anyway.

> He wanted us to break out one day and forget
> him. We have transmigrated.

When you make up your own sacred text, God acts any way you want.

Tom

unread,
Nov 21, 2011, 11:14:06 PM11/21/11
to
On Nov 21, 4:27 pm, Bassos <root@wan> wrote:
> Op 22-11-2011 1:04, Tom schreef:
>
> > On Nov 21, 2:07 pm, Dennes De Mennes<jesucris...@netscape.net>  wrote:
> >> Why was knowledge forbidden?
>
> > To create a monopoly. Prior to the invention of the printing press,
> > knowledge could be monopolized fairly easily but it's become
> > increasingly hard to do lately.  The more ways there are to transmit
> > and store knowledge, the less successful attempts to monopolize it
> > will be.
>
> You are only half right.

I'm surprised you're giving me even that much credence.

> Baffle with bullshit takes on a whole new meaning on the interwebs.

Information isn't truth. There is no guarantee that what one knows is
true.


Dennes De Mennes

unread,
Nov 22, 2011, 8:12:39 AM11/22/11
to
In article <d10f75bb-f7be-473a...@cu3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
anacon...@gmail.com says...
|:|
Jesus seems to play a role similar to Satan in that they both argue for personal
responsibility over blind obedience. We can only forget God if we become like God, able
to choose right from wrong. If you're forgetting God as someone that you oppose, then
you're not really forgetting but just putting it in a different place, but still focusing
on it. You're not for it but against it, but He's still dominating your thought process.
However, when we act benevolently as God, then He becomes our partner rather than our
Master. The process is of going from slave to equal partner. Knowledge can be dangerous
in the wrong hands, for example of people that are not ready to face up to reality.

Bassos

unread,
Nov 22, 2011, 1:12:12 PM11/22/11
to
Op 22-11-2011 5:14, Tom schreef:
> On Nov 21, 4:27 pm, Bassos<root@wan> wrote:
>> Op 22-11-2011 1:04, Tom schreef:
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 2:07 pm, Dennes De Mennes<jesucris...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>> Why was knowledge forbidden?
>>
>>> To create a monopoly. Prior to the invention of the printing press,
>>> knowledge could be monopolized fairly easily but it's become
>>> increasingly hard to do lately. The more ways there are to transmit
>>> and store knowledge, the less successful attempts to monopolize it
>>> will be.
>>
>> You are only half right.
>
> I'm surprised you're giving me even that much credence.

Hey; Tommiedarling is not *just* a title, you know :)

>> Baffle with bullshit takes on a whole new meaning on the interwebs.
>
> Information isn't truth. There is no guarantee that what one knows is
> true.

Refine that.
We both agree that there is no such thing as knowledge.

Data is unintelligable.
Information is.

Yet there is lots of stuff that is intelligable that is still kinda
irrelevant.

I say;

Ontological curiosity creates understanding;

Paricipate yourself!


Tom

unread,
Nov 22, 2011, 6:44:30 PM11/22/11
to
On Nov 22, 10:12 am, Bassos <root@wan> wrote:
>
> > Information isn't truth.  There is no guarantee that what one knows is
> > true.
>
> Refine that.
> We both agree that there is no such thing as knowledge.

Dennes was using the word "knowledge" in a more casual sense than the
strict one you're using. In his case, knowledge is information upon
which we place a high degree of confidence. What we know is
information. But we also recognize that information is not always an
accurate portrayal of reality. So there is no guarantee that what we
know is true.


Bubba

unread,
Nov 23, 2011, 10:20:02 PM11/23/11
to
By way of projection, perhaps?

The very word "God" is obscene at the very least, unconscionable
at its very worst. Words like "nature" make a lot more sense.

"In the beginning, Nature created the heaven and the earth."
That flows so much more easily than any of the human-invented
"gods" ever could. Nature is above, with, below, and entirely
in control over all that has ever existed in the natural
Universe. Is there anything "supernatural" that isn't really
only preternatural to less-experienced or inexperienced humans?

Music, sound, light, shadow, it all has totally natural origins.
Astral-projection is commonplace and natural. Reincarnation is
commonplace and natural. Clairvoyance, precognition, intuition,
everything typically but not always less obvious to most humans
has occured naturally to those who experienced it, each in their
own individual way, yet in the collective sense with many common
denominators. Other species of animals experienced these things
in their own way. Can an amoeba astral-project? Sure, why not.

The fact that humans invented their gods is proof enough that
these arrogantly (and ignorantly) self-described "Homo sapiens"
can't cope with simple reality in a way that all other species
of life on Earth have always instinctively done. The human race
does seem to have lost touch with much of their natural instinct
in favor of their own oft-convoluted "reason" and "logic." Do
other species of animals delude themselves so?

Mountain lions, and bears, they might've romped and roughhoused
a bit as youthful siblings, but as adults the vast majority of
them have never been in an actual fight in their lives. Does
that mean that you would hike up toward an adult mountain lion
or bear, yourself unarmed, and pick a fight with one?

You're born, you live, you die. At least for me, I have found
it most beneficial to deal with life on the natural level, just
like all the other life-forms have dealt with their lives, each
in their own naturally-individual and naturally-collective way.

How do the rocks deal with being rocks? Nature made them into
rocks and they learned to deal with it. How do the atoms deal
with being an atom? They just deal with it in their own natural
way. That doesn't make an atom better or worse than any of the
rest of us. Are humans generally more intelligent than an atom?

Pound for pound, I seriously doubt it.

--
Bub


Dennes De Mennes

unread,
Nov 23, 2011, 10:56:21 PM11/23/11
to
In article <HX2X12AC4087...@reece.net.au>, Bub@ba says...
|:|"In the beginning, Nature created the heaven and the earth."
|:|That flows so much more easily than any of the human-invented
|:|"gods" ever could.
|:|

nature is as human invented as the other gods. someone had to sit there and say: i'm
going to create the concept of nature. that way no one needs to understand right and
wrong, it's all random. there is no superior intelligence that's manipulating events that
wants us to do one thing and not another. i can do what i want, i am my own god, etc.

Tom

unread,
Nov 24, 2011, 1:43:00 AM11/24/11
to
On Nov 23, 7:56 pm, Dennes De Mennes <jesucris...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> nature is as human invented as the other gods. someone had to sit there and say: i'm
> going to create the concept of nature.

The concept of nature is a description of independently observable
phenomena. The concept of god is a description of independently
unobservable and irreplicable noumena. In other words, nature is
evident but god is not evident.

The concept of god is an unnecessary step in the quest for the end of
knowledge. Like this:

Q: How was the universe created?
A: I don't know.

Q: How was the universe created?
A: God created the universe.
Q: How did God create the universe?
A: I don't know.

See? The invention of god is an unnecessary step that still gets you
exactly where you were before. At the end of knowledge.

> that way no one needs to understand right and
> wrong,

Aren't right and wrong also concepts that someone sat there and
created?


Bubba

unread,
Nov 24, 2011, 7:55:53 AM11/24/11
to
Other species of animals never bothered with deliberating over
such trivial matters. They just went about being what they were
made, by nature, to be. I've watched big black bears stepping
very carefully around pretty flowers, even artificial plants, as
not to harm them. I would imagine that bears, mountain lions,
and other creatures great and small, similarly try their best
not to step on ants or fragile plants throughout their walk of
life. Mountain lions are particularly astonishing in that they
avoid trouble or conflict very much more than the vast majority
of humans do. I think they see us as being somewhat "stupid"
and dangerously "unaware." That's why they avoid us.

The main difference that I have observed between nature and man
is that nature has no governments, no religions, and has never
conceived of nor gave birth to money--that ugly bastard child of
manmade governments and religions.

The silver lining on the otherwise pitch black cloud called the
"human race" is only found in the afterlife, more rather, it,
conscience and karmic destiny, stalks us down and finds us no
matter what we might believe. Nature is the only true "god" of
the Universe. Nature eventually kills and punishes all humans,
each one according to their diabolical works. "Praise Jeezus!"

So why do humans even use the word "god" at all? Other species
of animals, plants, minerals, the sky, the earth, none of them
know anything about our human-manufactured "god." "God" is a
three-letter word invented when Cain murdered his brother Abel.
Is that biblical story based on an actual historical event, or
is it allegorical, such as the beloved maxum of the rich man
and the beggar Lazurus found in the "gospel according to Luke"
chapter sixteen, verses ninteen through thirty-one?

Nature is real. Everything else is unnecessary and unhealthy
baggage which only the unnatural humans drag around with them,
carrying that heavy burden -- and the punishments which follow
in the afterlife -- throughout their inescapable experience;
which is to say their imprisonment, confinement, their souls
sold, bought and paid for by their paramount worship of money,
arrogance, greed, power, and worst of all, control over others.

There is good news, however, because the year 2012 is probably
going to bring the end of the world. If all species of life on
Earth must perish alongside "Homo sapiens," then so be it.

--
Bub


Tom

unread,
Nov 24, 2011, 1:08:13 PM11/24/11
to
On Nov 24, 4:55 am, Bubba <Bub@ba> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2011, Tom <danto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 23, 7:56 pm, Dennes De Mennes <jesucris...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> nature is as human invented as the other gods. someone had to sit there and say: i'm
> >> going to create the concept of nature.
>
> >The concept of nature is a description of independently observable
> >phenomena.  The concept of god is a description of independently
> >unobservable and irreplicable noumena.  In other words, nature is
> >evident but god is not evident.
>
> >The concept of god is an unnecessary step in the quest for the end of
> >knowledge.  Like this:
>
> >Q: How was the universe created?
> >A: I don't know.
>
> >Q: How was the universe created?
> >A: God created the universe.
> >Q: How did God create the universe?
> >A: I don't know.
>
> >See?  The invention of god is an unnecessary step that still gets you
> >exactly where you were before.  At the end of knowledge.
>
> >> that way no one needs to understand right and
> >> wrong,
>
> >Aren't right and wrong also concepts that someone sat there and
> >created?
>
> Other species of animals never bothered with deliberating over
> such trivial matters.

They haven't the cognitive capacity for it, or they would.

> The main difference that I have observed between nature and man
> is that nature has no governments, no religions, and has never
> conceived of nor gave birth to money--that ugly bastard child of
> manmade governments and religions.

It also has absolutely no kindness or concern for its members. If you
or your species dies, it doesn't matter at all. For example, the
Permian Extinction killed off 96% of all marine life and 70% of all
terrestrial life, destroying more than 50% of all families of animals
and more than 80% of all genera. The planet was swept almost bare of
life altogether and took four to six million years for recovery to
even begin and fully thirty million years for different animal species
to return to the numbers that existed prior to the event. This was an
event entirely due to natural forces. The notion that nature is a
kind and loving mother to us all is just as much a fiction as the sky
father.

> So why do humans even use the word "god" at all?

Because if you think there is some sort of consciousness looking out
for you and which you can propitiate to your own benefit, you can
pretend you have more control over the world than you really do. It's
a comforting lie.

> Other species
> of animals, plants, minerals, the sky, the earth, none of them
> know anything about our human-manufactured "god."

Like I said, they're too stupid.

> "God" is a
> three-letter word invented when Cain murdered his brother Abel.

What a bizarre thing to say. Trying to discount god by referring to a
mythological story.

> Nature is real.

Phenomena are real. "Mother Nature" is a fiction.

> There is good news, however, because the year 2012 is probably
> going to bring the end of the world.

If it's not, do you promise to kill yourself?

Dennes De Mennes

unread,
Nov 24, 2011, 1:48:05 PM11/24/11
to
In article <25447a35-6510-49ca...@u5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,
dant...@comcast.net says...
|:|
i'm sure at some point someone might have written the very first note to himself: ''do
not go smacking people on the head'' because of bad experiences which led him to decide
there was a wrong and a right way to approach people. and eventually we now have the
whole system of laws of today, that tells us right and wrong and so on. so did the
initial guy jotting down a note invent it, or was he just learning about the concept of
karma in a real physical way that could be replicated. who invented the karmic law, we
don't know, but it didn't invent itself, so there has to be a greater power than all the
forces of the universe put together arranging everything into perfect order. if you think
you can make your own rules, you should be able to decide that you can smack people on
the head and have no repercussions, but we see that you don't control reality that way.

Dennes De Mennes

unread,
Nov 24, 2011, 2:02:57 PM11/24/11
to
In article <GEMNPXN94087...@reece.net.au>, Bub@ba says...
|:|The main difference that I have observed between nature and man
|:|is that nature has no governments, no religions, and has never
|:|conceived of nor gave birth to money--that ugly bastard child of
|:|manmade governments and religions.
|:|
|:|

you hear a lot of those types of sentiments about money being scarce and all especially
during troubling financial times. i mean yeah, if we became like animals and we lived in
trees, and ate berries and crickets, we would not know what a car or a tv is, so we
wouldn't need to work to get money for them. we would just be gathering what we needed to
eat and survive or wear as a fur for when it got cold.... yeah right....

Tom

unread,
Nov 24, 2011, 2:21:23 PM11/24/11
to
On Nov 24, 10:48 am, Dennes De Mennes <jesucris...@netscape.net>
wrote:
>
> i'm sure at some point someone might have written the very first note to himself: ''do
> not go smacking people on the head'' because of bad experiences which led him to decide
> there was a wrong and a right way to approach people. and eventually we now have the
> whole system of laws of today, that tells us right and wrong and so on. so did the
> initial guy jotting down a note invent it, or was he just learning about the concept of
> karma in a real physical way that could be replicated. who invented the karmic law, we
> don't know, but it didn't invent itself, so there has to be a greater power than all the
> forces of the universe put together arranging everything into perfect order. if you think
> you can make your own rules, you should be able to decide that you can smack people on
> the head and have no repercussions, but we see that you don't control reality that way.

Here's an interesting lecture and discussion on the subject of a
natural emergence of the concept of right and wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/user/richarddawkinsdotnet?blend=1&ob=4
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages