I think that the early Hebrews, or Biblical patriarchs used a lunar calender. If one divides the age of Methusala as stated in the Bible by 12, one arrives at an age of 80.4 or so. A normal human human lifespan. Combine the above with the existence of the near eastern Lunar divinity called Sin, and one could easily come to an idea that Original sin was either the use of a lunar calender, the worship of lunar divinity, or both.

Of course it seems to me that "Original sin," has since come to take on a different meaning. Original trauma perhaps.

Perhaps such is common knowledge in some circles, it's just that I've yet to notice anyone mention the Lunar divinity Sin and Original sin and methusala's age divided by 12 in the same narrative.

I don't know if I can see the connections in this assumptions, but, for amplified the debate, can you explain where is founded this 'Lunar divinity called Sin'?

This is how I currently view us as beings, the travelers within the Flux.

For many thousands of years we (the awakened souls/spirits/beings/etc) have been caught into an ever growing mechanism that disconnects us from the True World around us, the Flux. The programming that we receive as children disconnects us from observing the True World and therefore disconnects us from our True Self.

After a new awakened soul is split from the Flux, it is unable to understand the programming from the group it is born into and thus will experience the True World. Then after a few years it can communicate with the group and receive the programming needed to enhance the groups' survival. Or so it seems.

In the beginning the programming was perhaps properly balanced to promote enough disconnect for the continuing propagation of awakened beings of the same strand.

However, this programming itself seems to evolve into a larger and larger component of our existence and seems to focus more and more on disconnecting every last fiber that connects us to the Flux.

It feels, to me, that this mechanism has been hijacked for other purposes which we are unable to perceive. Or it could be that this is a natural path for the creation of a different being, but it doesn't 'feel' right to me.

It could be that the Original Sin is this disconnect from the Flux with the trauma that it causes on the individual awakened being.

Eventually death will melt us back into the Flux, what we do during the awakened state is what can bring us joy and enlightenment. It seems to me that the Flux 'wants' us to enjoy and explore the awakened state and communicates with us and guides us to the third option, the one that isn't. We just need to 'hear' its guidance.


Stay Awake and Flux on!

"Normal human lifespan" is a relative notion. Here, we can see that even in the present day, life expectancy is different depending on where you are in the world. Many of the factors that influence life expectancy relate to quality of life; clean food and water, sanitation, level and quality of Healthcare, etc.



Why do you feel this is "knowledge?" You're asking a question about several ideas you've connected. That doesn't make it knowledge, especially given the difficulty in verifying, so more aligns with "belief," and it may very well be a common belief.

One love

Original sin was Adam eating from the fruit of knowledge. I think this represents the ego. The ego separates us from the ALL or god. As soon as you measure something you make it smaller than before you name something it is a part of the whole.

Perhaps measuring time is a sin but I would argue that any measurement would be a pursuit of knowledge and therefor a sin.

If god created man then god had to measure or divide so in a way sin is inherent from the source.

Dunno... just rambling

I also feel like original sin is inherent in the source at some level. I vibe with the gnostic view that at some level of reality the source was “corrupted” and thus that corruption is woven into all creation.. but with a spark of the original divine spark present too and in need of discovery/nurture

I like that you put corrupted in quotes. It can be argued fhat our limited scopes is what give the appearance of good and bad in most things and that ultimately, such may be arbitrary in most cases when sufficiently reduced.

This reminds me of a conditional I thought of a few days ago: If God exists, and if God is in everything within the bounds of it's creation (the universe), then the thought of doubt one has about God also contains God.

I don't particularly ascribe to this. I lean more towards Maimonedes assertion that God may "ride" or "drive" the universe, being somewhat outside it, more so than being every part of it. This comes from his dialogue regarding Ezekiel and the chariot.

One love

Yeah I kind of lean that way as well.. but the universe would still therefore be made of the substance of God if it was emanated out of God.. I see them as being simultaneously separate yet inseparable. At some primordial level God at its most basic essence probably occupies its own kind of space.. beyond anything we can conceive.

I like the thought you shared about the thought of doubt also containing God.. perhaps more useful distinctions to us are the comparison between divine and dark energy - as all things must contain God (or whatever you wish to call it.. singularity I also like).. not all things reflect the divine aspect of it though.

I feel particularly relevant here is the Gnostic poem 'Thunder, Perfect Mind'.. here are a few memorable verses







etc..

I can understand the thought of the universe being made of the substance of God, but at the same time I can also imagine different scenarios in which that is not the case. We are talking about God afterall. Perhaps we limit God too much based on our limits.

But I think we're coming to the complex reductive point, in that things tend to end up in a paradox; seperate yet inseperable, one and many, ect.



Thank you. This is one of the reasons why it's hard for me to align with monism ideas around God, the source, the singluarity, etc. It is likely a limit of our language, but that limit, when unrealized, ends up also limiting the potential scope of understanding that we can get. So, for example, in alchemy, the One Mind, to me, is singular and a plurality. This is probably why I also feel that while we are all connected, we still hold equal state of individuation. Any experience of no-self, or egolessness, are states of a spectrum of experience. It's hard for me to say that any of these states is more "real" or "true" than any other. They just are.

I speak a bit more about related ideas here.

One love

Ps. Thank you for sharing the excerpts from that poem. Really resonated and enjoyed them. Very paradox laden in ways.

Could it be that our paradox is just a product of our perception and that once we comprehend beyond our paradox we can continue our travels? It's what I call choosing the third option, that which isn't.

We choose what we create and create what we choose. We are the recursive loop itself and if we can perceptually 'break out' of this loop we may be able to intersect other loops or other paths and get a glimpse of the Nexus.


In the meantime Flux with Joy!

I'm at work but here are some of my thoughts on that that touch slightly on what you've stated.

One love

This sure is an interesting discussion.

The fruit of knowledge...i don't think the sin is making things smaller or separating them. Because the separation exists only in our own little minds. The world probably doesn't care what names we give or don't give it.

But with our knowledge, the expansion of our minds, we became counscious beings. And that is the mother of all sins, even though it may not be much of a sin in itself.

Because we separated ourselves from the other creatures. A lion kills, like we do. But the lion doesn't know any better.
We where always violent animals. Territorial. Omnivorous. But like the lion, we simply didn't know anything else.

But now we do know. So now, every kill is a counscious choice.

But we cannot go back either. We cannot delete our knowledge. Well....we can ofcourse, with lots of alcohol and social media, but the people who wrote the bible didn't know about youtube and distilleries yet.

I understand this idea, but when extrapolate it into how things may be without us, though nothing may care, a tree would still be distinct from a rock, though connected in some way.



I sometimes wonder if this is an illusion we've fallen into or a delusion wr need in order to survive. I mean, for example, I've witnessed plenty of cats playing with their prey...

One love

Your comments made me think of this thread, where we may not have as many conscious distinctions as much as we think from a variety of other animals.

But if we think that god were responsible for the original sin, there would be no mystery about sin. -Carl Jung

We did not commit original sin, we inherit this sin through blood, a contract. I think we are divine beings when we need to be, when is serves our needs. I also think we are animals when we need to be, when it serves our needs. There is a choice there. Animal or divinity?

We all have a darkness in us, the animal. That animal awakens at times in our lives. It awakens and the divinity takes a back seat. We can act in such terrible ways, despicable and corrupt. War, murder, indifference etc... Some even pretending that god is on their side as they act like an animal.

We can also be divine. Helping others, being compassionate and kind, being charitable, loving someone just because they are human etc...

We are born into original sin, not because we are bad, it is because we are animals. As dragonrider alluded to we are not lions. When we kill we do it by choice. A lion does it because it's hungry. If you starve a human long enough they will kill just like a lion does. That is our original sin. We inherit this as animals.

Is god an animal? Does it get hungry? If not, then I would say we did not inherit this original sin from god. If god is feasting with us then it is also an animal and sins as well.

There are instances of animal altruism.

Cats as a whole still torture their prey at times.

Is it possible that all beings with consciousness have this dual capacity between the divine and animal in varying degrees?

One love

As for the premise of this thread, ie. that "sin" is both the word for wrong behavior and for an ancient (?) lunar deity, i suspect that this is a mix-up of languages. None of the bible/torah etc. were written in english, and no other languages (that i know of) call the behavior "sin". In german, it's "Sünde", for example. I think in arabic it's "haram".

Whereas i assume that Sin the deity name is phonetic and probably means something completely different in the respective language(s).
Kinda like Shiva has nothing to do with shivering, linguistically...

The biblical concept of original sin is certainly older than the first english bibles. Idk if it's from old catholic times, where it was most likely latin ( "peccatum" ), or even older from hebrew times, for which i wouldn't know the word.

---



Is it even a duality? If i look at some parts of the human condition - that even the most fervent believers of theistic religions go through (afaik) - i dare say that god itself seems to torture its creations at times. Of course this may be misunderstanding on my part, as i haven't been a believer in any god(s) after about age 10. Let's just call it an outsider's perspective

Many times I've seen animal behavior that very strongly indicates conscious decisions.

In my current reprogramming efforts I am entertaining the idea that animals are more in balance with the Flux then we currently are. And it could be that, within the Flux, we are on a lower level than the animals around us, who seem so much more fluent and at ease within the Flux. One could say that being able to fluidly flow with the Flux is more divine than fighting the Flux. But it could also be the other way around, depending on ones definition of divine.

To me the difference is that it 'feels' good to flow fluidly and it can 'feel' like a struggle when you fight the Flux. So to me fluidly flowing seems to be at a higher energy-frequency then fighting the flow.

Cruelty and altruism are both energy forms, the difference between the two actions could be that they operate on different frequencies. In the longer term, one action 'feels' better then the other. But that 'feel' could also be dictated by the frequency-status of the individual being. It seems to me that the older one gets the 'claws and teeth' get used less often. Perhaps because a being reaches a higher frequency over time and resonates more with higher frequency actions. Old souls tend to operate on a higher frequency.

Coming back to, that the 'Original Sin' could be the fighting of the Flux and the resulting struggle that ensues from the lowering of the frequencies.

But who knows, it's all stories build upon stories and every beings' perception is shaped differently. All one can strive for is to find a story that matches one's current perception and frequency and go with the flow.


Flux with Joy and enjoy the Flux!

For the sake of simplicity in a complex discussion, I'll say yes

Either God is torturing us or we torture ourselves with the exercise of our freewill. For God to do anything for us would undermine our freewill. To make itself obvious will invalidate our freewill and make having given it to us futile.

One love

Yeah, counsciousness and a certain degree of free will are definately phenomena that exist on a gradual scale, rather than an all or nothing base. But i think, talking of mythology and folkore, that this "fruit of knowledge" tale is more an expression of how we look at ourselves. The burden of counsciousness and free will.

If the word "sin" has to make any sense at all, it cannot exist without a certain degree of self awareness and free will. So in that mythological story, the mother of all sins, was to gain the power to be able to make choices.

But it is questionable if in that adam and eve story, "sin" is realy to be seen as wrongdoing.
Many, but not all christians see it that way, and most religious jews interpret this original sin not so much as an evil, but more as human fallibility.
In greek, i believe the word sin also means "missing the mark" instead of a deliberate act of evil.

I think that is also a dangerous misunderstanding about AI btw: if a system, whether biological or electronic is truly intelligent, sentient, or whatever you want to call it, it must be fallable as well. If we'd ever build something that is as smart as a human, it will make mistakes like a human as well. And it will have to be totally unique mistakes that we cannot ever completely predict.

And AI is going to be used in weaponry someday. One moment a man and a women decide to eat an apple, a few thousand generations later their offspring is building a doomsday machine.

I guess this solves the fermi paradox on some level.

Ive observed my cat hunt on a few ocasions, its pure instinct, he actually ends up a bit dissapointed when the prey finally stops moving, play time is over.
Its the sort of energy that builds up and seeks release, it reminds me to sexual energy actually, which makes sense given its still just survival patterns.
Not sure what this has to do with the topic, but I find it interesting.

I guess if you take the negative sense of the word "sin", this poses the perhaps more interesting question of wether anything can be fundamentally wrong with the universe to begin with.
Either way, it can definately feel that way at times.