HALF-BAKED
(PART IV)
A
RESPONSE TO “THE ORIGIN OF PRESENT-DAY CHRISTIAN BELIEFS AS PRESENTED BY THE
AUTHORS OF THE URANTIA BOOK”
by Lee Cook
Back to the Garden
LEGEND OF CREATION. The
legend of creation is based on two historical events.
[1] The Planetary Prince and the Staff of One Hundred
arrived on earth about five hundred thousand years ago. The One Hundred were
provided with special bodies that, along with the fruit on the Tree of Life,
would enable them to live on age after age. One hundred superior humans were
selected to work with the One Hundred. Celestial personalities transplanted
life plasm from the 100 humans into the material
bodies of the One Hundred which enabled them to reproduce sexually [which they
did upon the outbreak of the Lucifer Rebellion].
[2] Adam and Eve arrived on earth 37,848 years ago
from the year A.D. 1934. Like the staff of the One Hundred, they were provided
with special bodies which, with the aid of the fruit from the Tree of Life,
would enable them to live on indefinitely. They spent the first six days surveying
the Garden of Eden. [Paper 67] [74:0,1,2,3]
As these facts trickled down through time among
primitive humans, there developed the story that God created the earth in six
days. The belief that Eve was created out of Adam’s rib was a confused condensation
of the arrival of Adam and Eve and the transfer of plasm
from the one hundred humans into the bodies of the staff of One Hundred. The
belief became widespread that man’s clay origin was a special form of creation.
The concept of a divine creation gradually replaced the belief in progressive
creation--evolution.
Let’s take inventory of the above concepts. We are expected to believe that the biblical “myth” of Adam and Eve is the result of confused accounts about alleged historical figures. However, it will soon be plainly obvious that the reverse is true—that The UB stories of prehistoric events, while posing as celestially endorsed “historical” accounts, are in fact human inventions that are derived from biblical precursors.
We shall first take a gander at The
UB’s
alleged “history” of planet Urantia from approximately 500,000 B.C. to 200,000
B.C. The Planetary Prince of Urantia,
otherwise known as Caligastia (a.k.a., “the devil,” 53:1.4), is said to have
been invisible to the primitive human natives, but visible to his
extraterrestrial corporeal staff of 100.
Caligastia reigned on planet Urantia for 300,000 years, his immortal
staff having relied on the “tree of life” (cf. Gen. 2:9) to sustain them. Meantime, the 60 staff members who had
followed Caligastia into the Luciferian rebellion
(a.k.a. the “war in heaven,” cf. Rev. 12:7) were denied access to the “tree of
life,” the life-sustaining plant that preserved their immortality. As a result, the 60 staff members eventually
died a natural death on planet Urantia.
The rebels, upon realizing their newly-acquired mortal estate, had
resorted to sexual reproduction in an effort to increase their population. Having chosen Nod as their leader, the rebels
had migrated to an area north and east of Dalamatia,
a city in central
In similar fashion, The UB’s account of
Adam and Eve is not only rife with obvious biblical parallels, but also
contains many details of mythical proportions that simultaneously rival the
imagination of many a modern science fiction author. Adam and Eve had to be “dematerialized” prior
to their being transported (51:2.2) to planet Urantia via seraphic transport
from Jerusem, their home planet. When they were “rematerialized” upon their
arrival approximately 38,000 years ago (74:0.1), they stood “a little more than
eight feet in height” (74:1.1). They had
a violet glow about them (51:1.3); and because Adam and Eve wore clothes, as
was already the custom practiced by the human natives on planet Urantia, “the
light emanations of their bodies were so largely obscured by clothing” that “only
the radiating glow from their heads was discernible” (74:6.5)—hence, the
“origin” of halos above pious and holy men.
(Unfortunately, this quaint little story does not align with the fact
that there are no paintings depicting Adam and Eve with the appurtenant
overhead.) Adam and Eve of Jerusem were capable of communicating telepathically with
their children (74:6.6). Their primary
mode of transportation while surveying
It is an insult of one’s intelligence for The UB to suggest (irrespective of one’s personal beliefs as to whether the Genesis accounts of primitive humanity are historically accurate) that the Genesis account of Adam and Eve is a befuddled rendition of “true” events that were corrupted with their passing down through the annals of human history, and that we are just now learning the truth! The pale of current anthropological evidence indicates that modern humans did not appear until around 150,000 years ago, at the very latest. Only nonhuman hominids existed prior to the arrival of Homo sapiens (human beings), particularly during the period of 500,000 to 200,000 years ago, which is supposedly the period during which Caligastia reigned and was teaching advanced culture to the primitive “human” tribes.
The premises by which The UB makes its case are themselves too ridiculous to believe, even at face value. Let’s first look at the case made for the six days of creation. According to The UB account, “The story of the creation of Urantia in six days was based on the tradition that Adam and Eve had spent just six days in their initial survey of the Garden” (74:8.1). Let’s read, then, what those first six days were like for Adam and Eve of Jerusem to see if we can discern any similarities with the biblical account of creation.
The “first” day of Adam and Eve’s
presence on planet Urantia, we are told, was actually their tenth day on the
planet. For you see, after having
arrived via seraphic transport, they had spent the first ten days being
“rematerialized” as was the minimum amount of time required for said purpose
(74:0.1; cf. 51:2.4). It was “in
midseason when the Garden [of
Of course, none of this description sounds even remotely like anything in creation day one of the Genesis account, which reads as follows:
“The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.” (Gen. 1:2-5)
It would be a far stretch, indeed, to accommodate the formal reception of “Adam and Eve” on planet Urantia when there were no other humans to greet them, no air for the attendees to breathe, no land for a Garden to grow upon, no seasons for which the Garden could be in “full bloom,” and no hill to stand upon during the reception! What’s more, we know from Genesis 2:25 that the biblical Adam and Eve were not adorned with kingly robes, but “were both naked.” Not until after the Fall did God clothe Adam and Eve with “tunics of skin” (Gen. 3:21).
A comparison of the remainder of the first six days of Adam and Eve would be just as silly. Adam’s second day on Urantia was spent in session with an advisory council being debriefed about the Caligastia rebellion (74:3.3; cf. Gen. 1:6-8, development of they hydrologic cycle). Their third day was devoted to inspecting the Garden of Eden while aboard fandors (74:3.4; cf. Gen. 1:9-13, appearance of dry land, vegetation). Day four involved their announcement to the natives of their plans for rehabilitation of the planet (74:3.5; cf. Gen. 1:14-19, appearance of sun, stars, and moon via atmosphere transforming from opaque to translucent). The fifth day was occupied with the formation of a temporary government (74:3.6; cf. Gen. 1:20-23, creation of sea creatures). And on the sixth day, Adam inspected “the numerous types of men and animals” (74:3.7; cf. Gen. 1:24-31, creation of land animals, man). Granted, Genesis 2, which provides a more detailed account of day six, indicates that Adam inspected and named all the animals in the Garden (Gen. 2:19-20). This passage could be construed as a parallel to Adam of Jerusem’s sixth day, which he and Eve “devoted to an inspection of the numerous types of men and animals” (74:3.7). But keep in mind there are two crucial differences between the two accounts even in this case: 1) biblical Adam was alone inspecting the animals in Genesis 2:19; and 2) there were no other humans for biblical Adam to inspect.
The last problem with The UB’s contentious
claim is the problem of how this account was passed on through the ages to the
Hebrews. As “Solonia”
admits, the chain of communication, if it ever existed, was severed with Moses:
“The Old Testament account of creation dates from long after the time of Moses;
he never taught the Hebrews such a distorted story” (74:8.7). In other words, since Moses had not passed
the “distorted” six-day creation account along, the Hebrews (presumably the
priesthood of Babylonian captivity) must have taken the story from an ancient
Mesopotamian account. And of course, we
get confirmation of this connection elsewhere in The UB when it is stated that “the Hebrew priests in Babylonian
captivity sought to trace the Jewish
people back to Adam” (78:7.3).
However, no such account, involving
the idea of one God creating the earth in six days, exists among the
Sumerian/Babylonian creation stories. As
an example of the stark contrasts between the biblical and ancient pagan
accounts, the Babylonian Enuma Elish
assumes the eternity of pre-existent matter out of which arose a pair of
creator gods by forces that are not explained, which somehow began the creative
process. Only in the Bible does it state
that God created everything ex nihilo (from nothing; see, e.g., Gen. 1:1; Psalm 148:5;
Rom.
Raising Cain
The O.T. account of creation dates from long after
the time of Moses. He presented a simple and condensed narrative of creation to
the Israelites in which he endeavored to trace the lineage of Abraham back to
Adam. This caused later Jews to assume that Adam was the first of all mankind.
They reasoned that as Yahweh was the creator and Adam was the first man, Yahweh
must have created the world in six days just prior to making Adam. Later Jewish
editors tried to eradicate all references to a pre-Adamic
civilization, but they neglected to remove the telltale reference to Cain’s
emigration to the “
As has typically been the case, there are several points in the above passage that require our attention. For one thing, much of this mantra derives from “Solonia,” the alleged seraphic “voice in the Garden,” as repeated below:
“Jewish tradition became crystallized about Moses, and because he endeavored to trace the lineage of Abraham back to Adam, the Jews assumed that Adam was the first of all mankind. Yahweh was the creator, and since Adam was supposed to be the first man, he must have made the world just prior to making Adam. And then the tradition of Adam’s six days got woven into the story, with the result that almost a thousand years after Moses’ sojourn on earth the tradition of creation in six days was written out and subsequently credited to him.” (74:8.10; emphasis added)
It may come as a surprise for some, then, to learn that the voice of “Solonia” disagrees with that of the “Archangel of Nebadon” who presented Paper 78, regarding exactly who was responsible for tracing the lineage of the Jewish people back to Adam:
“Almost five thousand years later, as the Hebrew priests in Babylonian captivity sought to trace the Jewish people back to Adam, they found great difficulty in piecing the story together; and it occurred to one of them to abandon the effort, to let the whole world drown in its wickedness at the time of Noah's flood, and thus to be in a better position to trace Abraham right back to one of the three surviving sons of Noah.” (78:7.3; emphasis added)
Recall that Ms. Cook had previously cited the passage from Paper 78 in order to debunk the story of Noah’s ark. One can only surmise as to why this inconsistency was missed.
Another problem with the UB text, and one of the more revealing of the “celestial” author’s tendencies toward human misgivings, is a common mistake made by overconfident skeptics and atheists alike. I will defer to the text directly:
“The Old Testament account of creation dates from long after the time of Moses; he never taught the Hebrews such a distorted story. . . . In his early teachings, Moses very wisely did not attempt to go back of Adam’s time, and since Moses was the supreme teacher of the Hebrews, the stories of Adam became intimately associated with those of creation. That the earlier traditions recognized pre-Adamic civilization is clearly shown by the fact that later editors, intending to eradicate all reference to human affairs before Adam’s time, neglected to remove the telltale reference to Cain’s emigration to the ‘land of Nod,’ where he took himself a wife.” (74:8.7,8)
These paragraphs are clearly
premised on the implication that Genesis
“‘You are confused, Thomas, by the doctrines of the
Greeks and the errors of the Persians. You do not understand the relationships
of evil and sin because you view mankind as beginning on earth with a perfect
Adam and rapidly degenerating, through sin, to man’s present deplorable estate.
But why do you refuse to comprehend the meaning of the record which discloses
how Cain, the son of Adam, went over into the
But hold on there, Solonia of the Garden and Michael of Nebadon! Can we really call Cain’s wife an internal
biblical contradiction? A contradiction
is, by definition, a direct opposition between things compared. Had Genesis prior to or subsequent to
As far as there being “half a billion humans” on earth by about 500,000 years ago, this assertion is based on the premise that the hominids of that era were human which, as we have already discussed, modern paleontology would beg to differ with.
Falling Down . . .
THE FALL OF MAN. There
persisted the belief in the divine creation of the human race. Since the first
humans were supposedly sinless and blameless, there must have existed in the
beginning a golden age of utopian bliss. But Eve, by eating the forbidden fruit
[the apple, which rested under a taboo], brought about the fall of man and
consequently Adam and Eve were evicted from the Garden of Eden. This erroneous
theory of the fall of man supposedly accounts for the progressive deterioration
of mankind and the belief that all humans born after the fall of Adam and Eve
are born in sin: Because of the sins of Adam and Eve, a vengeful Deity vented
his wrath upon the human race in retribution for their errors.
The issue of the “bad apple” syndrome, repeated above, has already been discussed. What of this notion that the Bible speaks of a one-time “golden age of utopian bliss”? The idea derives from the section in Paper 74 entitled “The Legend of Creation,” recited below:
“The Christian teachers perpetuated the belief in the fiat creation of the human race, and all this led directly to the formation of the hypothesis of a onetime golden age of utopian bliss and the theory of the fall of man or superman which accounted for the nonutopian condition of society. These outlooks on life and man’s place in the universe were at best discouraging since they were predicated upon a belief in retrogression rather than progression, as well as implying a vengeful Deity, who had vented wrath upon the human race in retribution for the errors of certain onetime planetary administrators.” (74:8.13)
The paragraph that follows tells us
“the golden age is a myth” despite that “
“Although both Andon and Fonta had received Thought Adjusters, as had many of their
descendants, it was not until the days of Onagar [a
descendant of Andon and Fonta
about 10,000 years removed and some 983,000 years ago] that the Adjusters and
guardian seraphim came in great numbers to Urantia. This was, indeed, the golden
age of primitive man.” (63:6.9; emphasis added)
We therefore have discovered another inconsistency within the pages of The
UB. It is very telling of the
hypocrisy that these authors exude when, as one is pointing to the Genesis
account of Adam and Eve as a fabricated “golden” myth, another is endorsing the
same “golden” theme in a supposedly historical event involving primitive
humans!
But let’s get back to the mythical “golden age of utopian bliss” that the
revelators claim is inherent in the biblical story of
The word “Utopia” literally means
“the
And as we also learn through the biblical account, Adam and Eve’s existence, even in the Garden, was anything but “blissful.” Beneath the beautiful veneer of their surroundings and of their own physical appearances, Adam and Eve were still prone to easy coercion into malicious intent. We are all likely familiar with the story of how the serpent convinced Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit, and how Eve convinced Adam to follow suit (Gen. 3). The simple fact that God allowed the serpent access to the Garden points out that the Garden was not free of the potential for housing evil and corruption. When God asked Adam what he had done, Adam pointed to Eve and exclaimed, “She told me to do it!” And when God confronted Eve with the same question, she blamed the serpent. Both of them blamed somebody else for the choice of their own actions. It apparently did not take long for the first human couple to reveal their darker side. One can just imagine the contentious strain that was placed on Adam and Eve’s relationship when he blamed her for his involvement.
. . . Getting Back Up
There has never been a “golden age” on earth. It is a
fact that Adam and Eve: were forced to flee the first Garden of Eden; did
default; and were relegated to the status of humans. Their default did markedly
delay the spiritual and biological progression of all mankind. We are now
thousands and thousands of years behind schedule in our spiritual and biologic
development. But God did not curse mankind because of the errors of Adam and Eve.
Each newborn baby enters the world with a clean slate: blameless and sinless.
It is surely evident that God, whose love, justice,
and truth are infinite, would never punish the entire human race because of the
unfortunate mistakes of two noble souls, Adam and Eve. Each person is held
accountable for his, and only his, mistakes. [75:8]
The section of The UB cited by Ms. Cook reflects very little of what she states above. The main theme of Section 75:8, entitled “The So-Called Fall of Man,” is not a denial of the “golden age,” which is covered in Section 8 of Paper 74, but that “There has been no ‘fall of man’” (75:8.2). In a nutshell, there was no “fall of man” because Adam and Eve were not the first humans. Human beings are the product of evolution according to The UB, and human physical death is a natural phenomenon just as it always had been long before “Adam and Eve” had arrived. Moreover, their “default” was not considered a sin, but merely an “error in judgment,” even though “Adam and Eve” of Jerusem faced physical death as a result of their indiscretions and were “displaced” from the “Garden of Eden” of Urantia (not by God, but by hordes of marauding natives in the aftermath). Indeed, the human race had actually been “uplifted” (biologically) despite Adam and Eve’s actions and had “profited enormously” from the (genetic) contribution provided by “Adam and Eve” and their progeny (78:8.1). The UB insists that the Adamic bestowal provided humanity with an evolutionary jump that left them “greatly improved over their previous biologic condition” (78:8.2). The remainder of the section consists mainly of a sympathetic portrayal of the overwhelming odds for potential failure that the violet couple faced with the acceptance of their mission, a “well-nigh hopeless task” on a “dark and confused planet” (75:8.4). Further elaboration on this list of excuses is provided in a previous section of the same Paper: “Adam and Eve found themselves on a sphere wholly unprepared for the proclamation of the brotherhood of man, a world groping about in abject spiritual darkness and cursed with confusion worse confounded by the miscarriage of the mission of the preceding administration” (75:1.3). In other words, it was Caligastia’s (i.e., the devil’s) fault! (Sound familiar?) And there is also the age-old excuse that “nobody’s perfect” (cf. 75:8.6) to fall back on.
Of course, we surely cannot disagree with Ms. Cook’s reasoning that, because Adam and Eve were not human, God surely would not have cursed mankind on account of their mistakes. If aliens came to our planet with intentions of improving our lot, but committed some breach of protocol in the commission of said intention, then I suppose it would not be just of God to curse us for the aliens’ error. The argument is sound, but only because its reasoning is circular. If Adam and Eve were not human, then we humans should not be held accountable for their indiscretion. But if Adam and Eve were the first humans, then what? Such is the crux of the issue.
Throughout The UB’s elaborate story of how the Genesis account somehow missed the gist of what “really” happened in the Garden, we are not given a satisfactory explanation to one fundamental question. We still don’t know why it went down the way it did. The entire story of Adam and Eve, according to The UB, appears to be based on the premise of replacing one “taboo” with another. In the case of The UB, the taboo that Adam and Eve violated was that they could not procreate with the natives.[2] For some unexplained reason, this “duty” was relegated exclusively to Adam and Eve’s offspring, but was considered “taboo” if undertaken by Adam and Eve themselves. If the purpose of Adam and Eve’s reign on planet Urantia was to inject genetic material into the gene pool of the human races, and if Adam and Eve’s immediate offspring would exhibit the exact same genetic information as their parents, why would it be considered a “compromise” for Adam and Eve to procreate directly with the natives? By what criteria would it be considered a huge “upset” if Adam and/or Eve had sexual intercourse with the natives for the purpose of procreation, but that the same act was perfectly acceptable, even expected, of their children? The UB is not exactly forthright in its answers to these questions.
In the Paper that premises the function of the Material Sons and Daughters of God (a.k.a., the Adams and Eves), The UB clearly indicates that the role of mating with mortal natives is not necessarily limited exclusively to their offspring:
“These Sons of God can . . . actually mingle with the creatures of time, could even procreate with them, though this role of biologic upliftment usually falls to the progeny of the Planetary Adams.” (51:1.7; emphasis added)
Note that this preamble does not indicate that the act of procreating with the natives on the part of an Adam and Eve couple would not be considered an “error” or act of “default,” but that said role is “usually” assigned to their progeny. There is no suggestion here of serious repercussions that would befall an Adam and Eve should they engage in interracial procreation; it is simply a matter of preferred role fulfillment.
Some UB enthusiasts may point out the paragraph in Paper 51 that follows the passage cited above, which suggests that a “default” of an Adam and Eve is indeed possible:
“On Jerusem the loyal children of any Adam and Eve are immortal, but the offspring of a Material Son and Daughter procreated subsequent to their arrival on an evolutionary planet are not thus immune to natural death. There occurs a change in the life-transmitting mechanism when these Sons are rematerialized for reproductive function on an evolutionary world. The Life Carriers designedly deprive the Planetary Adams and Eves of the power of begetting undying sons and daughters. If they do not default, an Adam and Eve on a planetary mission can live on indefinitely, but within certain limits their children experience decreasing longevity with each succeeding generation.” (51:1.8; emphasis added)
The emphasis of the above paragraph is that the children of an Adam and Eve couple that are born on an evolutionary planet such as Urantia are not immortal. The paragraph also makes vague reference to the possibility of a “default” by an Adamic couple, with the implication that the consequences of such a “default” is mortality. However, this paragraph still does not explain why Adam and Eve’s having sex with mortal natives would necessarily lead to death.
There is yet another paragraph in Paper 51 that many may argue is the definitive answer to our question:
“A Planetary Adam and Eve are, in potential, the full gift of physical grace to the mortal races. The chief business of such an imported pair is to multiply and to uplift the children of time. But there is no immediate interbreeding between the people of the garden and those of the world; for many generations Adam and Eve remain biologically segregated from the evolutionary mortals while they build up a strong race of their order. This is the origin of the violet race on the inhabited worlds.” (51:3.3)
On the basis of this paragraph, a rationale may be formulated that the reason Adam and Eve cannot directly procreate with natives for the purpose of “biologic uplift” is that a large “gene pool” of their own kind is required before they can intermingle with the native races. But again, this consideration still does not preclude the possibility that Adam and Eve may at some point engage in interracial procreation. It merely states that a sufficient number of the “violet” race is needed before racial blending can commence. Regardless of what would be considered a “sufficient” number of violet peoples needed to engage in interracial procreation, it would seem only logical that Adam and Eve’s participation therein would not hinder, but rather would enhance the intended effect of the collective effort once it began. Besides, as The UB readily admits, the promulgation of the violet race succeeded despite Adam and Eve’s default: “Adam and Eve were the founders of the violet race of men, the ninth human race to appear on Urantia” (76:4.1). Indeed, the “violet” race had subsequently cross-bred with humans “to the ends of the earth” and had “enormously accelerated cultural progress on Urantia” (78:0.1). Why Adam and Eve’s participation in this enterprise would place them on death row still eludes us.
Next, we have the following declaration, which is intended to emphasize once again that Adam and Eve and their children have their distinct roles to play:
“On normal worlds the Planetary Adam and Eve never mate with the evolutionary races. This work of biologic betterment is a function of the Adamic progeny.” (51:5.3)
This statement merely points out a “normal” protocol, not a law with repercussions for violation thereof. The difference is that just because a certain act is “never” performed by a particular group of people does not mean that the same group “cannot” perform said act. Nor does the passage indicate what, if any, repercussions would befall the particular group should they decide to act “abnormally” and do what is not “normally” done.
We now come to a passage that may seem to some the very basis by which Adam and Eve of Urantia “defaulted” and subsequently lost their immortality:
“The violet race is a monogamous people, and every evolutionary man or woman uniting with the Adamic sons and daughters pledges not to take other mates and to instruct his or her children in single-matedness.” (51:5.5)
It appears, then, that this passage may be suggesting that the “egregious error” committed by Adam and Eve was none other than that which we of the mortal realm would refer to as adultery. Could it be, then, that the cause of their demise was the violation of this biblically-based moral standard?
I wouldn’t send out the wedding invitations just yet. For one thing, the implied moral standard as we understand it would be the bond of holy matrimony. But The UB is gracious enough to inform us that “holy matrimony” (i.e., marriage) is a human institution that man invented as a reaction to our bisexual nature (bisexual in the sense that we humans comprise two genders and procreate through the sexual union between a male and a female). This “human” institution was neither endorsed nor invented by God in the Garden of Eden as the Bible asserts, and though it is considered by the revelators to be a “fine” institution, marriage is in no way to be construed as a “holy” union (see Papers 82, 83, and 84). And if it is at all true that “on earth, as it is in heaven,” the same attitude no doubt prevails among the celestial spheres from whence Adam and Eve hail. Hence, there was no violation of any moral standard on Adam and Eve’s part, because there was no moral standard to begin with.
Secondly, the violation of a moral standard would by definition be the commission of a sin. But The UB also makes it clear that whatever it was that Adam and Eve did to deserve death was not a sin. First, we must get a grip on the revelators’ revised definitions of sin and evil:
“Eve had consented to participate in the practice of good and evil. Good is the carrying out of the divine plans; sin is a deliberate transgression of the divine will; evil is the misadaptation of plans and the maladjustment of techniques resulting in universe disharmony and planetary confusion.” (75:4.3; emphasis added)
Note that a distinction is made between “evil” and “sin” that is based on the intentions of the perpetrator, not the outcome. While sin is a deliberate act against God’s will, evil is supposedly not an act of defiance against God’s will that nevertheless results in disharmony and confusion. But by what basis is this distinction made? To define evil as a “misadaptation” or a “maladjustment” implies that said act is still premeditated and intentional (even if said act is well-meaning). Therefore, evil is a deliberate transgression against some established order or “technique” that results in disharmony and confusion within God’s creation. How does this not equate with a deliberate transgression of the divine will, if it is God’s will to maintain harmony within His creation? Unless we contend that God cares not whether the planet and universe become mired in disharmony and confusion, the distinction is baseless. And if God does not care whether anybody disrupts the state of the universe, then Adam and Eve’s acts of “evil” do not merit any negative consequences, and their subsequent plunge into mortality was unjust.
Meanwhile, we are later informed of the type of transgression perpetrated by Adam and Eve in the Garden: “Their transgression had been an error of judgment and not the sin of conscious and deliberate rebellion” (76:5.1; emphasis added). So all it took for Adam and Eve to become mortal was a mere error in judgment. But again we are back to the fundamental question: Why would a mere misappropriation of protocol merit the loss of one’s immortal status? It was an “evil” act that was committed, but the meaning behind the word “evil” has been watered down to merely mean a breach of standard procedure, which is not a sinful act. And as has been discussed earlier, the breach of standard procedure that Adam and Eve committed would not have significantly altered the outcome of the collective efforts of the “violet” race had they not been sentenced to death. It seems, then, that the charge of “default” should be ascribed to Solonia and whoever else was responsible for not allowing Adam and Eve to continue the propagation of the violet race because of a mere breach of etiquette!
But the most baffling pronouncement made by “Solonia” on the subject of the Adamic “default” is that describing Adam’s final bequeathal. It seems that, subsequent to his realization that he and Eve were eventually going to die, “Adam elected to leave behind as much of his life plasm as possible to benefit the world after his death” (76:4.8). In what is surely meant to be construed as a magnanimous gesture of the utmost generosity, Solonia tells us that Eve had selected 1,682 native women who were subsequently impregnated with Adam’s “life plasm.” Now, we can safely assume that Adam had impregnated these women in the same way the he had impregnated Laotta (the woman with whom he had “defaulted,” 76:5.2), but it is just as reasonable to entertain the notion that Adam and Eve used some method of artificial insemination to knock these women up. In either case, the same conundrum befalls Solonia and her tall tale of the prolification of the Adamic seed: Why was Adam repeatedly perpetuating the very same egregious “error of judgment” that landed him a death sentence for committing the first time?! If it was not appropriate protocol for Adam or Eve to procreate with the natives in the first place, why do we see this open admission that Adam did so more than a thousand times over? It is this very type of obvious pratfall that smacks of a fanciful fabrication.
Whose Myth is It Anyway?
In light of all that has been broached on the subject of Adam and Eve of Jerusem, I proffer the following explanation as regards the truth of their existence. The authors of The UB needed a plausible way to write Adam and Eve out of human history. To do so would serve several purposes. First, it would place the biblical account of Adam and Eve in the pale of fanciful and confused mythology that was borrowed from ancient legends. Second, it would remove the stain of guilt inherited by the human race from Adam and Eve and render the biblical concept of original sin a remnant of primitive religious superstition. Third, it would absolve the need for a messiah/savior who would once again restore the relationship that was once enjoyed between man (Adam and Eve) and God at the beginning of human history (Gen. 3:15). The lack of the need for a messianic savior would in turn absolve Jesus of The UB from fulfilling this and other Old Testament prophecies, as has been prosaically promoted in Part IV of The UB. Fourth, it would enhance the attractiveness of the evolutionary paradigm for those who are amenable to the concept of deistic evolution.
ENDNOTES