The Sons of God should not make babies with the Daughters of Men

This is one of the biggest problems facing today’s society. Such unprotected sex between these antipodal partners leads to generations of offspring with gigantic heads.

It is by pro-choice that these children are born. Abortion rights are mostly rejected when it comes to bringing such human deformity into the world. 

God warns of this horrible consequence in Genesis 6:4.

However, these pregnancies cannot be avoided (nor the resulting population explosion) unless we can transcend our usual interpretation of Scripture. Only this will allow us to escape from this terrible predicament.

Everything in God’s Holy Word contains deeper meanings with lessons about the inner realities of our hearts and minds. Therefore, Scripture actually describes outcomes not of our physical encounters, but of our core values.

In Scripture, when one can grasp that its stories reveal the hidden dynamics of the human heart and mind, then it can be comprehended that “sons” represent the progeny of one’s intellect and understanding. Daughters represent the offspring of our heart – the things we love.

The “Sons of God,” therefore, are the progeny of divine truth and doctrine. These “sons” are our knowledge and faith in God. The “Daughters of Men” represent the corporeal qualities of the human will – that is, ego, self-love, and love of the world.

What is not known is that, psychologically, the understanding impregnates the will.  

So, if the things we know about God have hanky-panky with our worldly compulsions, the resulting “birth” is a magnified and false imagination of ourselves. Anyone who has any knowledge and understanding of God, immerses these holy things in demeaning acts by making bad choices. This brings forth deformed principles and self-delusion – conceived and hatched from the copulation between one’s (unrepentant) heart and mind.

The only method of abortion for such dreadful things happening is to adopt the proper method of intercourse between faith and the human will. We each need to apply what we know about spiritual love to our heart. In other words, faith needs to be applied to our life, otherwise, faith is simply data in the memory that can be easily seduced by our inner motives (the daughters of men).

God’s Holy Word provides us with a sexual manual for obtaining eternal joy and pleasure. (It takes the concept of “safe sex” all the way to the soul.)

The purpose of religion is to stop the human tragedy of illegitimate spiritual births.

Advertisements

About thegodguy

EDWARD F. SYLVIA, M.T.S. Philosopher/Theologian Edward F. Sylvia attended the School of Visual Arts in New York and received his Master of Theological Studies at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, CA and a Certificate of Swedenborgian Studies from the Swedenborgian House of Studies. He is a member of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (C.T.N.S.) and the Swedenborg Scientific Association (S.S.A.). Award-winning author of "Sermon From the Compost Pile: Seven Steps Toward Creating An Inner Garden" and "Proving God," which fulfills a continuing vision that God’s fingerprints of love can be found everywhere in the manifest universe. His most recent book, "Swedenborg & Gurdjieff: The Missing Links" is an edgy collection of anti-intuitive essays for personal transformation that challenges and inspires. He has been a student of the ideas of both Emanuel Swedenborg and George I. Gurdjieff for over thirty years. Read more about TheGodGuy, his books and his ideas at http://www.staircasepress.com
This entry was posted in god, Inner growth, Life after death, love, metaphysics, Parenting, psychology, Reality, religion, spirituality, symbolism, unity and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to The Sons of God should not make babies with the Daughters of Men

  1. This is very interesting and makes me wonder what Swedenborg had to say about original sin. From my perspective we’re all imperfect to some extent and this could extend to the sexual act as lust, even when both partners are legally or officially (as in Catholicism) married.

    Now, one could say that the Holy Spirit overrides the imperfection when both partners are united in matrimony. But I wonder if it’s really quite that simple…

  2. thegodguy says:

    Dear Earthpages,

    Thank you for your response. When you say that you found my post “interesting” I am assuming that you have grasped the idea that the Genesis narratives in Scripture take place NOT on physical ground but within the inner landscape of the human heart and mind.

    This distinction is the key to understanding Swedenborg’s unique theology. And as luck would have it provides a new wrinkle on the topic of original sin. Adam and Eve were not actual individuals. The Garden of Eden represented a state of wisdom and innocence within the human psyche when its thoughts and affections are ordered and arranged according to God’s tenets.

    Adam represents the quality of the human understanding and Eve represents the quality of the human heart that lived in this original state of innocence.

    The “Tree of Life” and the Tree of the “knowledge of good and evil” represented opposing worldviews. To eat of the Tree of Life is to get one’s inner nourishment from God. But to eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil is to “swallow whole” the idea that one only needs to rely on one’s own self-guidance and prudence (which springs from a principle of self-love).

    The original sin was a changeover from relying on God’s guidance to self-guidance. The removal of Adam and Eve from the garden was a removal of the human understanding and heart from WISDOM. All the problems in the world stem from the outcomes of this human orientation and predicament, which is passed on from parents to their children.

    Combating these inclinations is symbolically portrayed by the various wars that are described in the Holy Word. Swedenborg provides these new “elevated” interpretations in his 12-volume work, “Arcana Coelestia” (Secrets of Heaven).

    Your question about sex, lust, love, the Holy Sprit and marriage, can only be answered if one learns about the quality of Angelic Love between partners in heaven. It is such a big topic that Swedenborg wrote an entire book on it entitled, “Conjugial Love.”

    Because of the “battle of the sexes” going on in many modern relationships I recommend ordering it from the Swedenborg Foundation as a marriage guide straight from heaven.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  3. Thank you very much for taking the time to provide such a detailed answer. If my utterances here are brief it’s because I’m primarily a quiet, contemplative person so writing usually comes in ‘sprints’ but long epistles are just not my bag. Please don’t take it any other way.

    So I’ll just quickly ask, do you yourself think that mankind ever existed in this state of innocence and wisdom? Or is it just an ideal to work towards? Given the ambiguities around time, itself, I tend to be critical of linear models of BLISS >> FALL >> REGAINED BLISS.

    At least, I’m critical of them if they pertain only to this Earth. I think it possible that absolute bliss could be attained in the next life. But then again, we hear of saints grieving over the sins of mortals. So even the next life, I think, might be a place of happiness and sorrow–all at once or perhaps in alternating phases.

    Of course, my limited human intellect must admit uncertainty and humbly accept said limitations.

    But God, so I believe, gave me curiosity–especially for the big issues. So I do enjoy pondering and discussing them, all in right measure. 🙂

  4. thegodguy says:

    Dear Earthpages,

    You seem to be a person who is spiritually inclined. So I am curious why you are critical of the human trajectory of BLISS >> FALL >> BLISS.

    From our conversations I gather you are Catholic. Doesn’t the Catholic persuasion believe in the Biblical trajectory of humanity starting from a pristine state, falling from this state, then final redemption? In fact, I cannot think of a single religion that challenges this concept (even native American Indians have legends that they are descendants of ancestors who enjoyed superior wisdom).

    Or, are you critical because you believe this represents a LINEAR model? I believe that returning to an original state is a non-linear process and is circular.

    Happily, your curiosity is certainly a positive sign that God is active in your life. God did not give us such an ample brain only to turn around and demand blind faith.

    By the way, Swedenborg claimed to have been able to communicate freely with spirits and angels over the last 30 years of his life on earth. He learned that saints are never told that they have been named saints down on earth. This is done to protect them from the temptations of self-pride and false notions of superiority (which would threaten their innocence).

    With Swedenborg’s amazing claim of having discourse with those in the next life came the astonishing admission that he met and conversed with our prehistoric ancestors. His physiological description of these hominids squares with the fossil evidence (evidence that was discovered 85 years after Swedenborg’s death).

    See my post entitled “Neanderthal Mystery needs an “Alley-Oop”

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  5. Dear GodGuy, now you’re staring to ask some challenging questions… which is good!

    Yes, I did convert to Catholicism in 2001 but this was due to the quality of the numinosum that I experienced within that tradition, not because I necessarily agreed with every aspect of RCC teaching as it currently stands (much has changed over time and I believe will continue to do so).

    In fact, while taking my vows “I believe” I inwardly double-checked and reminded myself that the Catholic catechism states that much of its teaching is open to further elaboration. So I was acting in good faith.

    Most people don’t know that the issue of infallibility doesn’t refer to all of Catholicism (although some seem to claim this is so). I’ve gone into a pretty detailed discussion about this elsewhere and can dig up the thread if you’re interested.

    So the bottom line is that I’m into free thought. Are you surprised? One half of my site is called THINK FREE! 😉

    And I’ll be right up front and say that I’m not entirely convinced that Swedenborg was talking to the same kind of angels (etc.) as understood in the Catholic tradition. But this is just a hunch and part of my dialogue with you has the tacit agenda of further investigating my uncertainty on this issue. Also, to possibly learn and benefit from it…

    As for the Eden >> Fall >> Final Glory Days model, I suppose it could be viewed as circular. But it’s also linear in that it has definite stages. The Final Glory Days are different than the Eden phase because mankind then chooses the good over evil (somewhat like John Hicke’s theodicy).

    Now, I feel that this scenario might be influenced by mythic thinking which is inspirational but not necessarily accurate as to what’s really going on. It’s difficult to further articulate why I’m suspicious of the actual existence of a blissful Eden state at one time. But I suppose you could say that ‘Darwin has made a monkey out of me’ to some extent in that I believe in some sort of – oh, how does the Pope put it..? – Theistic evolution. I think that’s it.

    So for me we’ve always had some degree of evil… and natural I suppose becomes moral evil whenever conscious choice is involved (another potentially complex issue).

    It hope I’ve made myself clear here. I don’t deny that there’s a physiological and communally agreed upon time-line. No doubt I was born and will die in the flesh. But I think that time, eternity and ethics could be somewhat more complicated than just that.

    Call it a ‘holistic’ perspective, if you will.

  6. thegodguy says:

    Dear Earthpages,

    Thank you for your continued comments. I am also pleased that you feel my questions are challenging and worthy.

    Yes, you bring up complex issues. Which require complex answers. These complex issues are beyond the scope of what I can reasonably attempt to cover in a single post. So please accept my partial responses for now.

    Swedenborg’s view of angels is different from the Catholic tradition (and Christian orthodoxy) which holds that angels are a separate creation from the human species. I embrace Swedenborg’s findings that all angels were once men and women from some terrestrial orb. Swedenborg states that God’s purpose in creation is to create a heaven from the human race. In other words, angels are the ultimate goal of human evolution. The neo-Darwinian synthesis is a PHYSICAL THEORY and overlooks the idea that evolution is the continuation of the biosphere into a non-physical realm (heaven).

    Human evolution does not stop with the human brain. It continues as human intelligence appropriates spiritual values. Since the mind is not physical, religion is the strategy by which humans can adapt their inner reality to the requirements of living in a spiritual environment.

    The Tree of Life once grew within humankind’s inner landscape of heart and mind (Eden). Then the inner quality of the human psyche changed such that there was an ejection from this inner garden (from a state of innocence and wisdom). Finally, we regain this state of innocence and wisdom not from a return to Eden but the descent of the Holy City, The New Jerusalem.

    The New Jerusalem brings with it the return of Tree of Life (actually two of them) because men and women now have to choose between good and evil from more artificially designed doctrines suited to their cerebrum-oriented brains. (Those who enjoyed the original garden of Eden were wired differently).

    Nonetheless, the Second Coming is an event taking place in our inner world. The Holy City simply represents the more cosmopolitan nature of our modern psyche.

    Please indicate what issues you feel I need to address. This allows me to respond in an orderly way.

    Much appreciation. Have a great Independence Day!
    TheGodGuy

  7. Dear GodGuy, With all due respect, I don’t feel any need to go by a point-by-point or even ‘orderly’ (in the conventional sense) discussion.

    To me that can stifle things. Just think of an ice floe. It cracks, breaks up, moves, reforms with other chunks in new ways. Its existence doesn’t fit into tidy little boxes.

    And to be honest, my feeling is that SB is trying to put a vast mystery into tidy little boxes. Granted, they are innovative boxes, especially for his time. But geez… isn’t real science about starting afresh, clearing new ground and considering all possible alternatives (not just what some other guy says)?

    I think that adhering to a certain path can be good for a while. Lord knows I’ve passed through many different frameworks and am still growing. But to get caught up with just one guy, even a clever guy like Swedenborg, well… I certainly couldn’t do it. I have to carve out my own vision, recognizing that it will be incomplete and possibly elaborated upon in the next life.

    Btw, I’m in Canada so we had our “Canada Day” on July 1. But I wish you and your great nation the very best today. You have much to be proud about. In fact, I often joke that I probably wasn’t born an American because I’d be incredibly conceited had I been! That’s a compliment to America. 🙂

  8. thegodguy says:

    Dear Canadian friend,

    Your advice about “starting afresh, clearing new ground and considering all possible alternatives” is absolutely correct. But you have put me in a horrible dilemma.

    I belong to an organization of scientists and theologians who are trying to bridge the gap between the natural sciences and religion. So I am constantly rubbing shoulders with those who offer many alternative views.

    But if REAL science is starting afresh, which I have no problem with, could you please indicate to me which of Swedenborg’s ideas are not fresh and new.

    Is it his insights on how to reformulate relativity and quantum theories so that they can be unified (and develop a correct theory of quantum gravity)?

    Is it his geometrical description of extra spacetime dimensions that string theory so desperately seeks?

    Is it his comprehensive theory of the human cognitive architecture and its neural substrates?

    Is it his description of the causal link and nexus between the Infinite and the finite?

    Is it his ideas concerning the psycho-topological features of the spiritual world?

    Is it his ideas about the Second Coming?

    Is it his ideas about LOVE providing the key to agency in the universe?

    Which of these ideas are old hat? I would greatly appreciate your input on these matters since I am writing a book and I do not want to shortchange my readers with old and stale notions.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  9. Dear GodGuy,

    Excellent reply. Of course, I was speaking more ‘dramatically’ or ‘politically’ than ‘precisely.’ But then again, this presents us with other distinctions that require examination.

    I think part of the problem I have with discussions like this is that, from my perspective, one always must make some kind of compromise. As you’ve indicated, we’re not writing in a social vacuum.

    So I tend to connote a fair amount rather than try to denote all the time. And as you probably know, some postmoderns believe that everything is connotation and the notion of denotation is a misleading fiction.

    These theoretical issues aside, I must agree with you that Love, unselfish love, is paramount.

    And as for entirely new scientific paradigms, I’m not sure that I’m in agreement with T. S. Kuhn. I believe the present must incorporate the past to some extent.

    So admittedly, when I said I had to start anew I should have added that we must also incorporate those elements of the past that are deemed relevant to the new vision. Still, I believe we can have a new vision.

    Now to backtrack a bit, I looked at the Alley-Oop post and was wondering if Swedenborg’s ideas take into account the importance of degree of neural specialization within select regions of the brain. For instance, we now know that it’s not just about the size of a particular region but also its density, the number of pathways, etc.

    Best regards,

    Mike

  10. thegodguy says:

    Dear Earthpages,

    Thank God for your latest query! Did you know that an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) credits Swedenborg as the father of neuron theory!

    He was also the first to connect areas of the brain with specific functions of the physical body.

    But he did something even more extraordinary than neural specialization. You may or may not know that some leading-edge neuroscientists are attempting to formulate a multi-level theory of cognitive function and its neural scaffolding. They suspect that the neuron has deeper levels of structure that can account for our higher cognitive functions.

    Networks consisting of microtubules are now being looked at as possibly representing the neuron’s own “nervous system.”

    More than 250 years ago Swedenborg had already anticipated this. His model of neuron physiology consisted of hierarchically-layered structures whose distinct functions represented the various cognitive functions of memory, imagination, reasoning, intuition, and spiritual revelation.

    These are themes that I will be addressing in my next book, “Proving God.”

    By the way, are you interested in issues of sustainability? My wife and I live on an 11 acre homestead and have a solar (passive) home. My first book, entitled “Sermon From The Compost Pile,” is based on my life experiences and how Swedenborg’s ideas are so compatible with my organic worldview. Both his scientific and theological models are the most bio-friendly that I have ever come across.

    I was born into the Catholic faith. During my college days I moved towards the study of philosophy and eastern religions. At the age of 27 I returned full circle back to Christianity through Swedenborg.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  11. Dear GodGuy, this is very interesting stuff! You know, my definition of “critical” includes staying open minded. It’s very possible that SB was having accurate revelations and not being deluded by negative spiritual influences (NSI) (traditionally… demons).

    It’s just that we have to be so careful when it comes to interior perception. I believe that, in some instances, imagination and perhaps NSI can deceive. So I always begin like a detective and tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to discussing this kind of thing.

    I live in the city so the only recycling I do is in green bins! But I respect that vision and hope they’ll come up with more efficient solar panels to end this insane energy crisis and everything that goes along with it.

    Best,

    Mike

  12. thegodguy says:

    Dear Earthpages,

    I thank you for both your interest and your caution.

    Swedenborg himself would say not to take his word for it or believe in anything beyond what you could verify for yourself (through either reasoning or observation).

    As far as NSI goes, one must indeed always be vigilant. Swedenborg’s ideas of the human brain are based on his actual observations – having attended schools of dissection in France and Italy.

    Where his interior perception played a role in developing a multidimensional model of cognitive theory was in the self-observation of his own cognitive functions. He viewed memory, imagination, reasoning, intuition, and spiritual revelation as discontinuous (discrete) functions operating in their own distinct neural substrate.

    I cover these distinct cognitive functions in my post entitled “Spiritual Relativity Theory.”

    Whether he was tricked by mischievous spirits or not, I can at least assure you that he was working from consistent principles. Furthermore, all his science ultimately led to recognizing love as first causal principle in the universe. The laws of nature are spiritual laws put under the constraints of time and space.

    I find it quite odd that EVIL spirits would try to throw Swedenborg off with a Doctrine of Love.

    I have studied Swedenborg for over 35 years. Reading an article or two about this remarkable man would make me just as cautious as you.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

    P.S. By the way, my most recent post “Does God Play With Dice?” shows how Swedenborg most likely beat today’s physicists to the punch when it comes to unifying general relativity theory with quantum mechanics. Believe it or not.

  13. Well, I’m glad that you’ve found your path… for me I tend to lose interest in a spiritual thinker not because I don’t have time to read his or her stuff but because doing so takes me to a kind of experience that I feel is not my ultimate home.

    It’s sort of like music. When I was young I thrived on the likes of Elton John and the Beatles. Well, I still LIKE and respect them, but today I am far more fascinated by Ravel piano solos or perhaps some obscure medieval polyphonic chant. I don’t think any musical form covers it all. And I feel the same way about a lot of religious/spiritual teachings.

    Now, if Swedenborg does it for you, and if you find all or most of the answers there… well, great! For me I just can’t get stuck on one idea or thinker, except perhaps the idea/belief that Jesus is the Son of God and part of the Holy Trinity. The reason why I believe this is because of the way this kind of belief/prayer/worship makes me FEEL. It’s not just a heady thing.

    And this is consistent with my view that it’s presumptuous to suppose that the human intellect can understand it all, fully.

    Further to the idea of the Christian Trinity, is it true that Swedenborg denies this? (I think I heard or read this somewhere…).

    To my mind this would be a sure sign that he was, at least in part, being mislead or misleading himself.

    Respectfully yours,

    Mike

  14. thegodguy says:

    Dear Mike,

    You comments about the importance of serious thinking individuals finding their own path is a wise one.

    However, judging Swedenborg on things that you “think” you may have heard or read somewhere is another matter altogether. What point is there in dismissing Swedenborg if your information about him is incomplete or incorrect?

    Well, that is why I feel there is a need for this blog.

    You could not have hit on a more potent example of this misconception than the topic of the Holy Trinity. Not too many Christians actually give this topic much thought, but in a nutshell, the Orthodox Christian view of Trinitarian doctrine is that God is a trinity of PERSONS.

    From this idea of God being divided into three persons we get the following idea of the process of salvation and redemption. First, God the Father who created us becomes so disappointed and angry with humankind over time (for not meeting His expectations) that we are to be damned. Secondly – but when His Son dies on the cross for humanity, God the Father is so moved by this that He has a change of heart and sends out the Holy Spirit to give us the gifts of eternal life and happiness.

    This implies that God only saves humanity for the sake of the Son (and leaves me with the bad feeling that He only really loves His Son and we humans are still nothing more than crap).

    The idea of God as three distinct persons also presents the problem of which God does one approach in prayer. Jesus tells us that the only way to the Father is through Him. Yet, when He taught us how we should pray, something different happens. The Lord’s Prayer bypasses the Son and is directed immediately to God the Father.

    Besides this mix-up in procedure, the idea of the Holy Trinity as representing three distinct persons means that none of them represent God in the fullest, and each fills in what is lacking in the other (a horrendous idea).

    Sorry my friend, but the idea of three Gods is not monotheism. Since the time of the Nicene Council Christians have been trying to get around this embarrassing predicament by inventing all kinds of “heady” terms to imply that these three Gods are actually one substance. In other words, the Christian Church was forced to invent concepts that are nowhere to be found in the Holy Word.

    Swedenborg’s idea of the Holy Trinity was not of three Persons but of ONE GOD with three operational and functional aspects. God’s fullness consisted of Divine Love (the Father), Divine Truth (the Son – truth made visible), and Divine Activity (the Holy Spirit). These three operations are also referred to as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.

    Of course, YOU are the ultimate judge of who is being misled. I hope I at least cleared up Swedenborg’s viewpoint.

    Also, don’t forget that I was a seminary student (Pacific School of Religion). The strong point of this school was in presenting both progressive and a diversity of ideas. I did not gravitate to Swedenborg from living in an academic vacuum.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

    P.S. I have addressed the issue of the Holy Trinity in other posts. If you have the time look for the titles, “Three Gods or One God,” “Jesus is Jehovah,” and “The Divine Rope-A-Dope.”

  15. Dear GodGuy… to my mind Swedenborg interprets the doctrine in a way not totally different from the Catholic one. It gets really complicated, Catholic theology, as does Biblical Studies. So we could go off in a million different directions of intellectual debate. That’s why I always come back to how a certain something makes me feel.

    I maintain, however, that to suggest that the intellect can “get it all” with some kind of scientifico-religious theory is presumptuous. You don’t have to agree. But that’s how I see it.

    What about the MYSTERY?

    All the best, and I’ll certainly keep an eye out here at your very thought-provoking blog.

    Mike

  16. thegodguy says:

    Dear Mike,

    If I somehow suggested that the human intellect could “get it all” through some scientifico-religious theory then I must apologize and take responsibility for your take on these matters.

    Swedenborg interprets Scripture (and its resulting doctrine) in a way that offers us a theology that is more adequate for the difficult attempt of unifying science with religion. This is why I am currently working on a book project called “Proving God,” to show that such a thing is possible.

    Scripture itself (John 1:1-3) testifies that all things were created from the Holy Word. Current interpretations of Scripture fail to show or offer insights to the actual science behind God’s complex act of creation. Swedenborg shows how we can find this science when we look beyond the literal meanings of the biblical narratives.

    My book project will show that natural laws and force are actually spiritual laws and force under the constraints of physical time and space. Furthermore, I will attempt to embellish Swedenborg’s most unique idea that Love is fundament substance (not simply a romantic notion) and is the key to agency in the world of natural phenomena.

    I am amused at your concern that we not attempt to castrate the power of MYSTERY. The main gist of Swedenborg’s theology is that IT IS NOW PERMITTED TO ENTER INTO THE MYSTERIES OF FAITH THROUGH THE UNDERSTANDING. God did not give humans such an ample brain and then demand from us only blind faith.

    You seem to be romanticizing “mystery” because that makes you feel a certain “something” that you like. However, there are some, like myself, who believe there is nothing charming about intellectual obscurity.

    In fact, if Swedenborg is correct, the Lord’s “coming in the clouds” at the time of the Second Coming, represents something more than a physical event – but a psycho-spiritual event whereby God breaks through our intellectual obscurity (clouds) and reveals deeper theological concepts.

    Thank you for your continued encouragement in spite of the startling nature of such a thesis.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  17. abey says:

    “Ye know not the things of the Spirit” as stated, for in the Spirit lies the answers.

    • thegodguy says:

      Dear abey,

      Yep, I have given the deeper and “spiritual” meaning behind odd biblical passage quoted above.

      Happy Holidays!
      TheGodGuy

      • abey says:

        Good Guy: When it is said matters of the Spirit ye know not means there has to be a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit & not through “interpreting”.of the mind. Like the word cloud is the cloud that appeared in the mount of Transfiguration.

  18. thegodguy says:

    Dear abey,

    Yes! These spiritual revelations are not some subjective interpretation of the mind. The Word “cloud” represents humankind’s state of obscurity when it comes to the higher meanings of the Lord God’s Word. See my award-winning book “Proving God” for more insights into the deeper architecture of the Bible narratives.

    Spiritually yours,
    TheGodGuy

  19. abey says:

    Good Guy: One last question can you tell me exactly Why God planted the tree of Good & Evil” & commanded not to take of its fruit. Spiritual or Literal does not matter in this case I just want the REASON. I believe your book does not answer this question.

    • thegodguy says:

      Dear abey,

      We get all our mental functions from the Lord God – including our Lowest corporeal/sensual mind. Trees represent belief systems. The Tree of Good & Evil represents a faith (worldview) from one’s own prudence (rather than God’s). While we all have this lower capacity to view reality if we than eat the “fruit” of such a limited belief system (what it bears) we begin to “swallow whole” all kinds of false notions – which kills the spiritual soul. Adam and Eve did not suffer physical death from eating the “forbidden” fruit – so something deeper must have died from rejecting God’s wise warning.

      Spiritually yours,
      TheGodGuy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s