Adam and Eve: Bridging Creation and Evolution through Theosophy

I believe in evolution. It's something a lot of scientists hate hearing because of the world 'believe'. It's fact, it's not something you 'believe in'. Well, believe it or not, I have idealistic tendencies and I sometimes think that people thoughts and the collective of everyone's thoughts is reality, and that people can live in numerous realities during their lifetime. This is the idealistic occult, what some magicians call 'Chaos Magick'. Religion and ideology interest these people and they take on the greater journey of living numerous types of lives in order to find 'fulfillment'. To me, it sounds like the greatest temptation, and in a self-aware kind of way, these people worship Satan, in the form of Baphomet the idol of Pride. Chaos Magicians and Cultural Marxists have much in common in the end, they both think there is no norm and that all is possible and should be explored. I believe they both worship the Devil, and there is no good end to these people. This was a bit of a preface for what I wish to discuss and this is an occult dream I had once concerning Adam and Eve. I bid your patience, ears and open-mind for my beautiful rendition of Biblical Creation and Original Sin.

Theosophy of Creation Through Evolution

Creation according to the Bible

^Gen1:26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

²⁷ So God created humankind in his image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

In this Bible verse, God speaks in his plural form. Some people claim the Hebrews believed God had a wife, Asherah, and hence when he makes humankind, it would make sense that they would create them male and female, for God is with a female consort. However, God is also omnipotent and can create humankind in the way it is complete, male and female together and complete by being together without a consort as well. This is the 'Priestly' version of creation, which stresses a partnership and equality. I believe that this woman is not Eve, as many others do. In the occult, this woman is Lilith, Adam's first wife, and he did not have dominion over her, and she was free to explore her femininity in the garden with no restraints. Lilith ended up straying from Adam, was easily tempted by Satan, and was banished without the corruption of Adam. Adam, however, was punished by God for letting Lilith fall and was smote into the earth. Adam, in Hebrew means 'earth'. 

Adam was revived through the second creation:

^Gen2:7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. ⁸ And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. ⁹ Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

From the dust and earth, the Lord was ready to revive Adam and he did so and commanded him not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God wanted to Adam to have a partner and helper as well and so created animals, but nothing was good enough and so he created woman.

^{Gen2: 21} So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. ²² And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. ²³ Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
    and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
    for out of Man this one was taken.”

²⁴ Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. ²⁵ And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

(Ish) is man and therefore (Isha) is 'from man' as a word meaning woman in Hebrew. 

Gen 2:24 is about mating and healthy sexuality and marriage. In Gen 2:25 I believe Adam and Eve have had sex (binding their marriage) and they probably have a lot of sex in the garden, because sex between a married couple is good.  

 Theosophical Evolution

I've pondered how exactly this translates with the information that we have now concerning evolution. One could say they are different and cannot be combined but I posit these concepts:

 

Adam and Eve are the first couple to come together and understand the concept of God

God, in this case, is consciousness and by extension, existence itself. He will give humans morality.
Adam and Eve are homo sapiens sapiens who lived in a tribe of hunter gatherers, they live in an undefiled world, they were amoral because their ancestors did not have morality because they were not conscious enough to be able to form a complex understanding of existence. 

Adam and Eve lived an extreme, divine and passionate ground-breaking experience that founds marriage between men and women in an immensely beautiful and divine way. 

Their marriage will lead to greater people being born of them because they will have their intellect in the genetics and will have them as parents. 

As hunter gatherers, humans did not evolve consciously very quickly. They were in hunting tribes, they had gender roles where the men provided and protected and women gathered, micromanaged and looked after the children in a community. I posit, as many do, that socially, there was probably polyamory and homosexuality in these communities, especially among women and women and if there was polyamory it was likely harem-like and rarely with 2 men and 1 woman. The tribes were small, ethnically-sound, and they would likely act in a barbaric kind of way when faced with a moral issue. A person who would kill would be killed, very very likely, or stoned, tortured, etc. 

Adam was a homo sapiens who was likely very intelligent, who was likely a bit of an outcast compared to these others. He was born like some of us are, a genius and it would make sense that another could emerge at a similar time. Eve could have been born also very intelligent but since we know women are often not as intelligent as a very intelligent man, she could have been a bit more naive, but conscious and still more intelligent than the rest of men and of women. Adam and Eve flocked to each other in a divine way, by connecting with something greater than their normal human nature, but to God, the greatness of existence, and the consciousness of being alive. Together, they sat and just lived, breathed and realized how perfect they were for each other. 

The idea that Adam could have had a first wife, a Lilith, is possible in this scenario. If  he was more intelligent than the beautiful Lilith, he could have seen that she was not moral or conscious enough to be with him and she might have sinned and have been outcasted by the tribe and by him. So, Eve could have been his second wife, his 'true' wife, a match made in heaven. 

Adam and Eve were married and likely explored the concept of God together, without saying much, with a raw understanding, a consciousness that was vibrant and alive and founded in this Truth they shared. Eve, as the lesser vessel, was less naive than the other girls, which means that if she did do something wrong, she might have known that it was wrong. Indeed, God told Adam that they could not eat of the fruit, but God did not tell Eve directly. He gave that divine authoritative law to Adam and it was his duty as the stronger vessel, to obey. In Genesis, when Eve was tempted by Satan, he knowledge of this law came through Adam, who told her and enforced the law, but in a way where Eve did not feel too too pressured not to break it. This law is something in the evolution narrative I've found, would be a divine understanding of morality. Morally, Adam known he should not know good or evil and I believe he probably had a difficult time to make Eve understand what that meant, what he understood. Eve does not have the moral understanding because she is a woman and her femininity is more chaotic in nature than man's, in a biological way. Women's hormonal cycles and emotional sensitivities can blind women to the Truth and all it takes is the right tempter to take advantage. When Satan tempted Eve, he did what invaders do: humiliate the man through the rape of his woman. The rape of Eve is the rape of Eden and by evil, Satan takes the key of the world from God and gives is to Adam. Adam receives the key in shame, in an outstretched hand, his wife violated by the lack of his responsibility, his lack of authority. And yet, Adam could have rejected her, like he rejected Lilith, but he loved her, respected her, trusted her. He knew the knowledge she had was poison, but he gave in, despite knowing, because there was no salvation for Eve and he did not want to let her fall without falling himself, from God's authority and grace. 

Adam's temptation is what happens when men give their loyalty to women. When Eve tempted Adam with the gift of Satan, in both cases, Adam had the power to stop his own corruption, but without salvation, he knew that the tribe would curse her if he would not accept. His love for her in a sense caused him to accept that they would both fall, and it was in a sense selfless for him to take part in the fruit alongside her. 

Original Sin, when keeping evolution in mind, is the knowledge itself of good and evil, or, of the existence of morality. Once you realize that there are things that are wrong and things that are good, you have the power to commit evil or to commit good. Sin is when you commit evil even when you know it is wrong to do so. Adam and Eve committed sin against God even though they had the knowledge and in a sense, the fall was inevitable because God's creations were flawed and had intrinsic wanderlust and rebellion. This, would be what Chaos Magicians would see in people now. I disagree because it is purposefully sinning to the detriment of your soul, healthy and psychology. 

Nonetheless, Adam and Eve went on to have children, to raise them well, to be alive and conscious and carry the knowledge of God. 

--

 I hoped your enjoyed, I am humbled that you've given me your time and mind.

 

'Skeptic' Arrogance and their Demise

We're all skeptical, that's normal, but at one point in our lives, we can't just be on the fence. Being on the fence means you have no actual point of reference for you phenomenology and often leads to a lack of spiritual depth in a person's life. I find that sad and I also find arrogant. I used to be subbed to this Facebook page called 'Skeptics Guide to the Universe' and at one point, they stopped calling out pseudoscience and got on the politics train and to their great demise. They hated Trump and vouched for Clinton. This was not only because Trump is a 'climate change denier', but simply because emotions and the belief in mainstream media. It's pretty interesting to see that many people who claim to be skeptics are not skeptical at all finally, but gobble up information as readily as a person who doesn't have the skeptic label.

A few days ago, they posted the conspiracy of #pizzagate. I remain skeptical that it might be true, and personally lean more on the 60% than the 40% true, but many were looking at this one horribly biased article and saying: yeah, the facts ain't right, it's bullshit. I told them there was much more evidence and this was just one slice of it and they were like: well, pull it up for us then, but I was like it's not my job to inform you, I'm just calling you all out as sheep, and they took it personally.

Are you a skeptic or are you not a skeptic? To me, skepticism can either be your blessing or an utter curse. Skepticism can be open-minded or close-minded. Skepticism can be prideful or humble. A prideful skeptic will reject all that is 'faithy' or 'wonky' or conspiratorial because there just isn't enough empirical evidence for them. But they don't understand that the world that we sense can extend past our senses. As well, liberals, which most close-minded skeptics are, tend to be rebellious in the face of pure truth. They don't care about God, or about a perfect divine state or being something close to that. They care mostly for hard facts and they think everyone's born good and society is the more corrupting thing, not evil! People are irrational but not evil, kind of mentality. I think it is a strength to be able to entertain thoughts and ideologies but to be able to return to a solid ground. Right now, I'm interested in reaction and neoreaction, but I'm fundamentally a Christian. I do think there was a man who came to this existence who was just perfect. He was wholly good, and he loved unconditionally and lived his life in a way that was inhumanly divine. Was he God? Was he the Son of God? I remain skeptical, but I have the utmost adoration for his words because his phenomenon in this world was just amazing. People flocked to him in huge numbers and I do think he was real. Why not? Well, because he walked on water, and because he did miracles, then negative-skeptics will say 'no, he's not real' 'he's a myth to control people' etc.

Skeptics can be one of the most arrogant people out there, negative-skeptics that is. Positive skeptics who entertain ideas but come back to a core (if you think you're a god, then you're a Chaos Magician, if you believe in God your identity is in Christ and you are His follower) are more open-minded about the intricacies of power and good and evil. Pizzagate is not crazy, it sounds like it's pretty damn legit, but the arrogant skeptics will wave it off as 'fake news' and be done with it. They are turning their eyes to something that might not be true right away--which is prideful, not skeptical.

Power corrupts, very very easily, and you can't expect people with money and power not to do whatever they wish to. My esoteric Christian friend believes that child sacrifice among other gruesome practices is like doing a line of coke for the 0.0001%. It's that rush you need in order to feel powerful, like you're a GOD yourself (hence why I dislike the arrogance of Chaos Magicians). I think keeping an open-mind but a firm ground is more important that having no firm ground and half-open mind.

Sociopathic Tendencies

Recently I've been dealing with paranoia concerning the way I analyze people and gauge a response. I'm not a sociopath but my moral compass has been poisoned by the influence of evil when I was an SJW, so I know what what it's like to be morally lost and lost in the certainty of an ideology. As a cute, female child I was a pathological liar and got away with absolutely everything. I stopped being like this because of the countless amount of times it came back to me sooner or later in some way. Still, my novels are full of romanticized sociopaths and psychopaths, because I feel attuned to a chaotic neutral alignment. Now I know that it really does describe madmen, and I find that it's part of being an artist, but it's no way to function in society.

My sociopath tendencies are my obsession why the 'why' people are a certain way. I tend to desire to analyze how people think and to plan responses in advance in order to please them in a controlled, tested kind of way. I do this sometimes without thinking, sometimes in a very calculated way. As a woman, this is my 'forté' but in a horrid way, clearly. While the dark power of men resides in their bodies, the dark power of women emerges from the pool of chaotic energy that has a talent at recognizing people's face, the emotional aura of situations and to act accordingly. A woman can make you feel horrible about yourself, your life, and your relationship with her in seconds. Her use of black magic is a powerful weapon and a protective mechanism against the bodies of men. So, if I feel unsafe, I will tend to make myself look small, unimportant, but also overly nice and busy. It will come naturally, especially if I'm with my son. If I feel offended, or provoked by a conversation I am having with a friend, I will attempt to understand their mentality and either mirror it or perhaps slightly calculate how I can slip into her psyche and reorganize her brain. This is a very cool one.

Emotionally manipulating women can be either really tough or really easy. Women tend to be overly emotional, so it's important to have just the most neutrality possible and insert so much nuance that she's really confused about her views of morality. This mainly applies to morally relative people. You kind of nonchalantly slip in a view, suppose you're against abortion.

"It's not that I'm against women having abortions, I just find that it's really unfair to end the life of a person before it's really started. If I would be that fetus and I could be conscious, I wouldn't want to die. I would be abhorred to know that my mother didn't love me and had someone murder me in the womb, a place of safety and security. How... how is that not infanticide?"

Neutral Bias

One cannot be neutral. In video games, when you choose a neutral character, you either play a 'true neutral' which archetypically is basically Sweden (not the rapey-muslim version of it, the political version) who stands out of harsh dichotomizing conflict, or who remains unaffiliated, or a chaotic neutral character, who is basically a madman. I good example of a character who is chaotic neutral and still somewhat balanced would be Geralt of Rivia. He is a good man, he protects women and children, cares about justice, but he's also the Butcher of Blaviken, infamous for the time  he slaughtered an entire village after not being paid for a contract. Geralt can make decisions to save or to kill. He is neutral, but neutrality is chaotic.

Gender Roles. Why?

Women and men are different. We are beautiful the way we are. Tradition is important, and it is so for everyone. There are different roles men and women can have in a society. Not all women should be mothers and not all men should be fathers. Some people are born different and they might want to live another kind of lifestyle, hopefully one that is healthy and not sinful. Women who do not feel the inclination to have children might want to become full-time nurses or full-time educators and do charity work or helping sisters or female friends raise their children. They can also pursue scientific or academic careers as well, but I believe they might be lacking in their need for personal love and affection. Often these women will attempt to fill the gaping hole in their lives with dogs and cats, and although that is nice, it's not nearly as satisfying as having a child of their own. If they cannot make children, perhaps they could think of adoption.

Let's talk gender roles

Christian Oppression, it's always been, and it's ignored

This is a problem for all genders, but mainly addressed toward women. Women are the caretakers in our society, let's face it. There are far more single-mothers than there are single fathers. Single fathers, however, being a mother myself, I can say I have the utmost respect for, of course single-mothers as well. But what I wanted to say is that I stumbled on a highly Christian mothering website the other day. The woman who blogged wrote some very intense and clearly emotionally-driven things. Her main point is that there is a lot of pressure toward her because she has children and wants children and loves to use her reproductive system because it's get her closer to God. This is not a question of my opinion about all of this is, it's about the ridiculous amount of comments underneath this that have basically horror stories of women who have been ridiculed by childless women for the fact that they have a lot of children; who are being told that they are 'patriarchal' in not using chemical contraception; and that their marriage won't last because of the 'stress of parenting'. They also get asked if they will have abortions while heavily pregnant or after telling someone casually, stating: I'm pregnant.