You use some terms that by definition don't make sense to me. Also when you use the pronoun 'we' I wonder by what means you have determined such statements to apply to everyone.

For example you say that we cannot perceive the past, present and future simultaneously, nor can we understand the perception of someone who does. However, you state earlier that you can really only speak from 'personal' perception. I wonder what the boundaries of your person are when the factors that constitute a body are in a constant state of change? Skipping that for now, by what means did you see that such consciousness cannot be experienced? Furthermore, by what means did you see that God was a deity? The definition of deity that I'm referring to is the one that defines deity as a supernatural being. By what means did you come to the understanding that God is a being? Beings are subject to existence or non-existence. From what I've read the bible never defines God as a being that can be inside or outside of 'things'. Nor does the bible apply the notion 'exist' or the notion 'does not exist' to God. Even if there are portions of the bible that state that God's voice is being heard from the 'Heavens', can it be discerned that the people hearing the voice aren't experiencing the 'Heavens' as their own body consciousness? Can it be discerned that the people don't have God consciousness?

I don't see how the term 'free will' makes any sense. Free means unconstrained, unfettered, or without bondage. The only way to be absolutely free is to be completely independent from any thing. How is this possible? There must be interdependency when things are in relation. One thing can only be defined through its relation to another. So when 1 [anything, even a thought, or any dualistic separation] arises so then does all other things. When good arises so does bad. With regard to the term 'free will', how it can be free when it is dependent on God as the giver of will. In other words your understanding of 'free' is fallacious because it implies a dualism when by definition freedom is non-dual.

The only way I can theorize that a 'person' can experience 'freedom' in the actual meaning of the word is if their body contains the whole universe. It seems that such a person would experience the relative within the absolute and at the same time their experience relatively would be absolute since there is nothing outside of their body. When the person is completely/fully/thoroughly realized in this manner it seems the notion of 'person' becomes a figure of speech. Naturally it seems the notion of 'God' outside or inside of oneself also becomes a figure of speech. It seems that the universe would be realized as unborn and undying and therefore the person would achieve freedom from birth and death. And in such a case it would seem that person would realize they are not only 'all of space' but also 'all of time'. And being all of time it seems they would be able to see what consciousness they experienced at any given point of time (ability to see past [lives] and future, or omniscience). How can a person experience such a state as this? This is what I find so interesting. This is the state which I think all the 'fully enlightened' people have experienced.

When you say it can't be so simple that knowledge and understanding are original sin my understanding seems to be in accord with yours. If the 'original sin' was defined even before it was committed how can the term original be applied to it? In other words, according to the story of creation, Adam and Eve had knowledge of 'good' and 'evil' before they ate the 'fruit' from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It seems that this is really just a story of how people go through life. However, I don't agree with your description of animal behavior. It certainly seems that even animals show signs of shame when they perceive things as wrong, which is obviously in contrast to behavior that they perceive as good. Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ISzf2pryI.

Through your understanding of 'free will' and the terms 'good' and 'evil' your understanding of the Jesus story is also odd to me. If your will is really free then you are creating everything. Sin arising is accordingly sin of your own creation. Who can forgive you if you are creating your own sin? Who will you seek reconciliation with? How can death absolve a person of their sin? Furthermore, how can it absolve another of sin? Even symbolically it seems odd. In addition to this there is the apparent historical evidence that the ascension of Jesus was a later addition (~200 years) to the original gospels of bible. It seems like the story that Jesus even died on the cross is by and large a fabrication. You can check out one such documentary that presents this evidence at this link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsN4zE2yilo.