Inside The Garden

One has to be more than a little bit conscious of the fact that humans spend most of their time indulging repetitious sloganism promoted by rulers. 

The 42 Laws of Maat were encoded and committed to stone monuments around 2925 BC in Egypt - and Moses supposedly was around more than fifteen hundred years later than that. 

So what makes his laws all that significant, really?

Continuing the theme of the tent.

Well, nothing.

They were not innovative, and they were certainly not unique.

In the modern Western world, which is dominated by variations of Biblical religious ideas, there are words and slogans which go along with these religious mindsets. One of these is the word 'sin.'

There is no word 'sin' in the original Bible - anywhere. It is the conflating of many different ideas, to jam the breaking of someone's laws - Moses, God's, anyone's - and the Biblical phrase to 'fall short of the standard' together; and then come up with the modern word and its peculiar idea of 'sin/sinning.'  To say nothing of the anachronistic introducing of 'God's Laws' into the Bible narrative. Genesis doesn't even say Adam and Eve broke God's commandment and then that was why they got chucked out. They got chucked out for the same reason that Cain was later then out. They were not intrinsically capable of living peaceably in there. That is all.

The concept properly being presented is one of some creature 'falling short' of what would be ideal.

The human physical material being is unstable, and cannot be sustained. That is to say, the individual and their specific physiology cannot be sustained over any actually lengthy duration of 'life;' the individual literally expires, dies at some point.

But more than that, even during the time when people are living together, they actually do things which harm themselves and each other, to the point regularly, that they kill each other. And even sometimes, they simply kill themselves.

The places of the Florentines...
Not quite tents.

So there are two crucial specific aspects that 'fall short:' one is the material inability to be sustained fully intact and alive, and the other is that of not even being able to live together at all. 

In theory, advances of human technology might see some moment when 'people' are AI-driven simulacra that can be sustained well beyond the ordinary hundred or so years of a natural human life.

But there is absolutely nothing at all which even comes close to being able to resolve the sheer lack of capability of the human being to live without friction in social groups. 

There are multiple examples of utilitarian social grouping, be it tribal, or national or some other nomenclature for the thing, but none of these are obviously driven by objectives which are not selfish or material-oriented, or political power based. The standard differences between people's faces, their physiques, and their intellects alone give rise to all sorts of jealousies and eventually, rages and then at last violence and/or mischief and cheating and deprivation of someone's rights in order to advantage someone else. These dynamic forces are of course justified by sociologists and politicians and ideologues but they are not genuinely honest arguments.

Thus, at this Easter time, it is not sufficient for the honest thinking person to simply accept there is any meaning to 'atonement (of sin) by someone's death.'

'French' onion soup was introduced
to the French by the Florentine,
Catherine de' Medici.

In the very first place because the actual word 'sin' does not exist in the source texts that are attributed to its being the cause of religious concepts about suffering and dying and whatnot.

That some specific key religious figure might have died or not is not relevant to why they should have, critical to the whole ontology of the matter in question.

If you go back to the standard nature of human beings as they obtain in the world, we can look at the case of the Olympic athlete, for instance - they will be at a particular peak of their powers and physique and determination, and achieve some apex of performance; but then, none of them go on to live unearthly endurance of life and limb anyway.

They all decline in ability and health and fitness and then they die.

From the purely materialistic point-of-view, you can only obtain some peak (or peaks) in your life and then that's all there is. Everything else becomes very weak justifications of your ambitions and your actions - 'history will remember,' and so on.

These are fantasies - fantasy beliefs.

What is not a fantasy, is to look at it this way:

As there are two specific matters to resolve in order to genuinely fix the basic flaws of the human being, there were two 'Jesus's' who rose...

Rainbow aura black Tourmaline.
Rainbows are more than just the
ones you know about.

One was a being with a material body, and the other was a being composed of light, apparently, according to the accounts.

Both of them survived death though, and that is quite key to the whole mindset of this religion - and yet it is not very evident in the practice of the religion anywhere that you will find it today.

You see, a problem about the material physical being that we are well-acquainted with (since we are one of those things) - is that did only the peak phases of the previous person survive? Was this Jesus that people were sticking their hands into the wounds of, the one that was in his best health, not under the weather with say, a cold or something...? Right at the point where the neurons in his brain were firing up the 'Beatitudes?'

What's wrong with being in the condition of say, tiredness, and not wishing to see anyone or engaging wits with them?

Is it fair to say that there are also some troughs in the human life, which are in other ways, and taken from other perspectives, also at the same, peaks? 

The Book of Ezekiel gives very clear and specific reports of flying machines and actual physical occupants of those machines - and indeed, Ezekiel himself goes for a ride in one of them.

One of his otherworldly companions says to him, almost as an aside, that humans see and do not see; are blind in a sense. They do not understand what they are seeing.

Personally, as someone who has spent a lifetime training in a Chinese martial art, I do not want to hear from some scrawny-necked ET Alien that it would prove problematic for me and my current physiology to just go for a ride in his thirty foot Tic Tac just like so! But then, what made it possible for Ezekiel to?

Did he have no short-comings? Well, he must have had sufficiently few that they let him in.

Same way they'll let you in. Now. Today.