This is exactly right. Is there anyone not knowing this.

However, though it is known today it is an allegory it was not known then in intention, in this respect it is not and would therefore be intended to be literal. We're not counting their mistake of not knowing. If a person does not have a word or concept then it would not exist to them. It could of course be divinely inspired. Consider this with modern eyes not what you think our ancestors had any concept of. If the bible, or for that matter the sumerian version were written and presented today, we'd all snicker and laugh.

Everyone agrees the idea was about obedience. The question is valid only if God exists, does any God or creator have the right to tell you, everyone, to include aliens on some distant planet, it has the right to tell you. Does any God have the right to demand you to do what it wants? For instance, you are going to harm someone else, do I have the right to tell you not to. :smile: I am only telling you, not making you. And yes I have the right to tell you. You don't have to do anything, God does not force through punishment. Are we taking telling as demanding, we all do that. We all have the right to talk to one another.

So long as no one is being misled thinking we'd think as our ancestors did or they as we do. Our ancestor know nothing compared to us. We have the advantage of thousands and thousands of years to see what they never could image or dream possible. How sad for them because they were the ones to bring up punishment.

Miss H brings up a good point about divinely inspired. In such inspiration it is not demanded. It would be presented in ways we could understand. These 2 stories still fit nicely in what we see in the world today.

I would say Campbell is more academic/scholarly than Hancock, who appears more on the "sensationist/popularist" side......:smile: Campbell's "Masks of God" series and his single book, "The Hero With a 1000 Faces" are pretty well known amongst those interested in world mythology. Campbell has also written on modern expressions of the same themes that he sees being played out in the more ancient stories - see "Mythic Worlds, Modern Words" on the writings of James Joyce.

Ultimately, for me, "it" is Reality itself, or what I normally refer to as Reality-as-is.

At the point where I left seeing the Bible as any sort of pre-eminent guide to Reality-as-is, I saw its text as being some sort of Rorschach test. Why did some read it and get inspired to love the world while others set up the racks of the Inquisition? Oh yes, there are always those who insist its message is "plain" and yields to study, but the continued disputes among those who claim that such is so are there for all to see.

Reality-as-is is for me the sole "revelation" and in a certain sense is itself the ultimate Rorschach test! What do we see when we look? I've spoken of my own faith - that Reality-as-is is a reality of "healing". That has come after 50 or more years of "looking". It works for me.

I dare say there are those that don't want to know and take the tale of the Garden of Eden literally, since it's God's word after all.

Most belief systems/religions began in the days when there was no written word and no internet, and most of them have been influenced by other sources. The Bible certainly has because it has influences from Sumer. the Persian Zarathustra and ancient Egyptian Gnosticism - Jesus wasn't THE Christ he was A Christ, the term is 'Christed consciousness'. The Bible could only have been based on oral traditions for hundreds of years. If we can't separate out the fact from allegory what chance do we have? Or we choose not to?

Every religion has one thing in common, in that it provides an ethical structure of some kind. In the Indus Valley the mechanism is Karma while most other religions their God/gods told them how they should Live. In recent years the ethical structures have been breaking down and the world is the way it is today. Even something as simple as not wearing a mask is a part of the breakdown, because people don't have the same sense of consequences.

And while you might think you have the right to tell me not to, I have the right to tell you to go shove it.:hug3:

What I think is happening with the collapse of the ethical structures is political correctness is moving in to fill the void, and people are becoming 'thought police'.

Yes they were/are, but their personal ethical structures are far more robust than ours today.

A belief in God or some other deity has inspired people for so many years, and although I'm not a theist I've found inspiration in religious teachings. I've spent my time with Jesus' teachings and finding out more about the man himself and he's been an inspiration. Did you know Jesus wasn't a Christian? But then I find Spiritual inspiration in the Wizard of Oz. As a creation myth I don't find any inspiration for the Garden of Eden, what's much more interesting is the history it's based on.

The world today is losing interest in stories for the sake of the literal, and its stories that have inspired us for so many generations. It's as though we're slowly losing our heritage and culture, and we're doing ourselves and subsequent generations a disservice.

I was given the Fingerprints of the Gods many years ago and it inspired me and led to so many other things that had been rattling around in my skull for many years. It was synchronicity because it was very much unlooked-for. But then if we all had the same perspectives the world would be pretty boring without forums to argue on.

Hancock had obviously spent time on delving into ancient stories as well, and he presented the material from an academic perspective while many of his peers were on the ancient alien bandwagon. What inspires me is not the Bible's creation myths or accounts of the flood, but a more objective history backed by academic research rather than religious agenda.

According to Donald Hoffman, a neuroscientist, the objective is that all reality is subjective. The more you understand how reality is formed the more toy realise that it's indeed the case that we create our own reality. I used to work in mental health so......

Excellent post 104. Thanks.

Certainly, when we relate our "moral" stance with particular beliefs, when those beliefs are eroded then there is inevitably a void. Filled with anything.

Thank you

Well exactly, so when one's moral structure is filled with "God/mum said I should" and the source is taken away or ignored, what then? When people come up with their own understanding of ethics then they own their ethics - that's how the mind works.

So where does the sin lie?

I agree, post 104 is excellent.
Also my worry, the decline of religion leaves a vacuum for secular ideologies to fill the void. At least religions/spirituality try to achieve something greater. Secular ideologies are hyper rational, as the personal and mythical is sacrificed at the altar of logic and math. Humans are a religious species and technology and empty secular 'values' can't replace that or root it out.

Using the allegory to explore ethics...

Whose sin is the original sin? Yahweh (since you used the word) denied Adam and Eve knowledge and forbade them to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Was it Yahweh's sin to keep Adam and Eve dumbed down in the first place? Did he simply expect blind obedience then threw a tantrum when he didn't get it? The irony is that had Adam and Eve eaten of the tree they might have had knowledge of ethics and consequences, and might have been obedient through their own choice.

I would look more at "ignorance" than any particular concept of sin.