Adam Falls

We have all heard the story of Adam and Eve. It is the foundation of baptism, original sin, and the goal of salvation for many belief systems. A snake presented the apple to Eve, Eve tempted Adam, and Adam ate the fruit from the tree that carried the knowledge of the Gods.

So what was the real sin here, and who was telling the story?

A parable such as this one carries a great message. As it moved through time, I have long felt that the message has been lost and reclaimed by the mantra of organized religion, and that is unfortunate.

If you think about it, the story reads as if it were written by the victims of a great atrocity, not the 3rd person omniscient God that kicked mankind out of the garden of Eden. It is a sad description of a change in mankind that changed his relationship with the world, not a simple story of a disobedient act being punished.

When I heard this story in church at a young age, I always though that original sin was man's flaws and something to do with how we are all bad people in need of the church to save us. All I needed to do was follow the program. Sing, sit, stand, love thy neighbor. I'm good as gold. I no longer believe this. I no longer really believe in the whole concept of salvation as a species, to be honest.

What was it that Adam got from the apple?

When man moved from being tribal nomadic beings to tribal settlers, there was a fundamental technology that took over the focus of these tribes. Farming. 

Where men used to live as all other animals did, they began to take control of their environments. Man grew food where he needed it. Man penned up animals. Man built up social groups of like-minded people, and settled larger tracts of land and began to store food. Man's population did what any animal's population does in times of bounty, it grew quickly. With an increase of population came an increase in the need for farming, and system grew bigger. In terms of evolution, it didn't take long until the farmers began to infringe on the nomadic lifestyle. With farming comes the inevitable ownership of lands, which flies directly in the face of the way man had lived to that point.

Man had survived as a species for quite a long time without the concept of ownership. He lived in tribal families, yes, but he lived in a way that didn't upset the balance needed to find food. He couldn't afford to waste his food options. He moved with great herds. He predicted his supply and lived in harmony with the system that the earth provided him.

Farming provided something very different. It gave tribes bounty at times, and allowed tribes to work on the technologies themselves rather than follow the system as it moved around their habitat.

With farming also came another more sinister aspect: The elimination of competition. Anything that competes with a farmer's food supply is eliminated. This was as true five thousand years ago as it is today. A farmer is the most dangerous predator this world has ever seen. He has the knowledge to make food grow. He makes animals reproduce. He has the knowledge to know what must live and what must die in order to protect his food supply. He locks up his food. He eliminates anything in competition with him. 

It as almost as if he has the knowledge of the Gods.

If you were to reread the parable of Adam and Eve with this type of lens, you might come to the conclusion that the story was not written by modern man. It was "written", or told, by the tribal nomads that were destroyed by the agricultural revolution. The knowledge of the Gods that Adam attained was the way he chose to live, and his removal from the garden of Eden was that he chose to live an intensely laborious lifestyle in which he lived not as all other animals did. He lived with the blood of the earth upon his hands, ruling over his domain, killing any species and any rival that competed with his food supply.

And, he still lives this way.

The difference in hearing the story from the perspective of the conquered nomads is that you can feel the loss they must have felt as the world changed around them. Our nearest comparison would be how native peoples here in North America were conquered, and how their way of life was taken from them by these same farming peoples. Buffalo all but extinct. Lands protected where they once hunted for food. Now penned into reservations, and the law of the land is the machine we call society. Population dictates more and more food production, and more food production dictates more population. A true native culture no longer exists, being replaced by the system with nothing but old stories and legends left to the culture.

Through all of this, we have forgotten how to hunt and fish. We work a more laborious lifestyle to feed ourselves than any generation of species on earth that has ever existed. 

We are truly out of Eden, and no amount of ritual will "save" us. Because we don't truly want to be saved from the original sin. We want that salvation to come from uttering words, genuflecting, singing the hymns, showing up on Sunday, having sex properly, not getting tattoos, and dipping our babies' heads in water. 

As a species, we don't really know what that original sin was, do we? And we will never know, so long as we continue to think that Eden is a place we go when we die. 

What Happens To Truth When I Sleep?

I grew up in a typical Canadian Roman Catholic house. My mother dragged the kids to church on Sunday while Dad stayed home and did yard work. To say I was uncomfortable in church would be an understatement. I watched hundreds of people going through the motions of faith.

Stand up, say the words, sit down. (repeat)
Stand up, mouth out the song, sit down.
Kneel, say the words, stand up, say hallelujah, mouth the song, sit down.
Then we ate the body of Jesus, who tasted like envelope glue.

I just never really understood what all this pomp and circumstance had to do with God.

I had a life-changing moment at the age of twelve when I asked Fr. Lavergne a simple question about my spirit.

"Where does my spirit go when I sleep?"

Now this may sound like like a stupid question, but at the age of twelve I had surmised that my body, or at least my brain in particular, organized energy in such a way that it is able to build intelligence and memory. It is memory that gives this life-force its character, is distinction, and the definition of our spirit, or our sentience. When we sleep, parts of this memory are shut off, and at times, we cease to be ourselves.

This had really upset me, because it felt like I was being lied to at church. My spirit seemed to be attached to my body in the same way that the soul of my computer is attached to the electrical cord, a thingy that could be shut off at any time. There are hundreds of stroke victims that could be used here as an example, but at the time, I only knew that I wasn't myself when I slept.

I found out later on in life that I am also not myself when I drink, and even less of myself on hallucinogens.

So what is this spirit that the church wants me to save? Once my body has turned to dust, and my spirit has no memory to build upon, what will I become?

"You sound like a Buddhist." was his reply.

Those five simple words were a calling to another path for me, although I'm not sure Fr. Lavergne meant them the way I took them.

I have become aware that my current spirit is a finite entity, to be enjoyed while it lasts. It can be changed by changes or injuries to my body. It can cease to exist with a fall of twenty feet, or become a completely different spirit with a mere blood clot, or virus.

My energy is part of a much larger entity. Through meditation, I have discovered that I can visit this entity. Strangely enough, this realization has provided a Rosetta Stone to the teachings of the church that I learned as a child.

And that is where I'm going with this blog. Your comments are welcome.

God vs Science

'Let me explain the problem science has with religion.'

 The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

 'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

 'Yes sir,' the student says.

 'So you believe in God?'

 'Absolutely. '

 'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

 'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

 'Yes'

 'Are you good or evil?'

 'The Bible says I'm evil.'

 The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible! He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say 

there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?'

 'Yes sir, I would.'

 'So you're good...!'

 'I wouldn't say that.'

 'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But 

God doesn't.'

 The student does not answer, so the professor continues.. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian 

who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer 

that one?'

 The student remains silent. 'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a 

glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. 'Let's start again, young fellow. Is God good?'

 'Er..yes,' the student says.

 'Is Satan good?'

 The student doesn't hesitate on this one.. 'No.'

 'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

 'That's right. God made Satan , didn't he? Tell me, son.. Is there evil in this world?'

 'Yes, sir.'

 'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

 'Yes'

 'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil 

exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, 

do they exist in this world?'

 The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

 'So who created them?'

 The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is 

still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is 

mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ , son?'

 The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

 The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world 

around you. Have you ever seen Jesus ?'

 'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

 'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus ?'

 'No, sir, I have not.'

 'Have you ever felt your Jesus , tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus ? Have you ever had any sensory 

perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

 'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

 'Yet you still believe in him?'

 'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist... 

What do you say to that, son?'

 'Nothing,' the student replies.. 'I only have my faith.'

 'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, 

only faith.'

 The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such 

thing as heat? '

 'Yes.'

 'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

 The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The 

student begins to explain.. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited 

heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can get down to 458 

degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; 

otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.. Every body or object is susceptible 

to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit 

energy.. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to 

describe the absence of

Heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not 

the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

 Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

 'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

 'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

 'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, 

normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and its called 

darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you 

would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

 The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point 

are you making, young man?'

 'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must 

also be flawed.'

 The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time.. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

 'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You argue that there is life and then 

there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, 

something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.' 'It uses electricity and magnetism, 

but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be 

ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just 

the absence of it.' 'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

 'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

 'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

 The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very 

good semester, indeed.

 'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is 

an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

 The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. 'To continue the point 

you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.' The student 

looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class 

breaks out into laughter. 'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's 

brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so.. So, according to the 

established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all 

due respect, sir.' 'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

 Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what 

seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

 'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is 

there such a thing as evil?' Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it Everyday. 

It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in The multitude of crime and violence 

everywhere in the world.. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

 To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply 

the absence of God.. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence 

of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love 

present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when 

there is no light.'

The professor sat down.

You may have read this parable before, claiming to be a product of a book by Albert Einstein. Einstein never wrote the book titled "God vs Science" in 1921.  He wasn't an atheist, but wasn't what you would call religious, to say the least:

"Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies" as aspirations for truth derive from the religious sphere. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. A person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be..." source

I love Einstein's scientific mind. He spent his life trying to understand what gives energy "mass", and its relationship to time. We'll get into E=mc² later on.