Spirituality
28 Jun 05
30 Jun 05
its just the logical conclusion that man and serpent would have to have been in the same species.They certainly must have had some form of communication. Of course, Eve's telepathic powers might have extended to serpents: she might have "understood" those significant glances and acted without uttering a word...The text does indicate that the serpent only became serpent-like after the fatal fall, though, leaving room for speculation: was the snake of the same species, or did the snake have legs?
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagedont take the interpretation on this page serious , but if you scroll down to the Sumerian things are authentic.
They certainly must have had some form of communication. Of course, Eve's telepathic powers might have extended to serpents: she might have "understood" those significant glances and acted without uttering a word...The text does indicate that the serpent only became serpent-like after the fatal fall, though, leaving room for speculation: was the snake of the same species, or did the snake have legs?
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerMan's "original sin" seems to be wanting to have knowledge in the story. That seems to be an essential part of our nature and one of the few things that distinguishes us from the average beast. A God that would want us to be simply ignorant and worship him unconditionally but made us incapable of doing so without violating our basic nature seems pretty incompetent.
That it is an allegory about the origins of original sin in a wilful act of disobedience by Man.
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAs far as them never dying, I'm actually not sure, but dying of
Genesis 3:19. Please tell me where it was said in your Holy Book that anybody would ever die before then.
what we call natural causes...the wages of sin is death, no sin, no
death. Genesis 3:19 does not have God killing anyone, maybe
I missed something in my reading, spell it out for me. I have
also noticed you are not addressing my other points either, the
ones where you have the possible chance of being right.
Kelly
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayI can't decide if you are really thick or are being disingenous. On the off chance that it is the first and you have a severe reading comprehension problem, here's Genesis 3:19:
As far as them never dying, I'm actually not sure, but dying of
what we call natural causes...the wages of sin is death, no sin, no
death. Genesis 3:19 does not have God killing anyone, maybe
I missed something in my reading, spell it out for me. I have
also noticed you are not addressing my other points either, the
ones where you have the possible chance of being right.
Kelly
19 in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
God pronounces that Man shall "return unto the ground" i.e. die "for dust thou are, and unto dust shalt thou return". God makes it so Man will die, Man's death is a direct result of God's little hissy fit ergo God kills Adam, Eve, Bill Jones, Babe Ruth, everybody. Do you get it now?
What points relevant to the Modern Parable that you have raised have I not addressed? When you go off on your "God created everything, He can do as he pleases" shtick, I do ignore that since nothing of any value can come by arguing with someone who holds such a dogmatic belief about the belief. So someone else will have to handle that you; I'm not interested. And if you want a God who has "plausible denialibility" I suggest you try Zeus re the Pandora's Box myth.
30 Jun 05
1 edit
No.1 Marauder: I thought they were immortal; after all they were allowed to eat of all the trees of the Garden, so I figure they had eaten of the Tree of Life.
Then YHVH God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"— (Gen 3:22)
I’m glad I stood pat in my tiredness last night. 🙂 Two possibilities—
1) The humans had not yet eaten of the tree of life, and so were mortal—i.e., death was already in the world.
2) You have to eat from the tree more than once to attain “life forever.”
Assuming the first possibility: Physical death (mortality) did not come about because Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil—except possibly in the sense of a (for the “time being&rdquo😉 forgone opportunity for immortality (which I mentioned in my previous post)—since it was already a part of the natural order. But death did not “come into the world” through the “sin” of Adam, in this story.
Was this delay of immortality a boon or a punishment? A blessing or a curse? Both? That remains arguable—i.e., interpretable. And that’s what the story’s for…
From Bereshit Rabbah, a midrash on Genesis: “Rabbi Meir wrote on the margin of his Pentateuch: ‘And it was very good, namely Death.’ Death is very good because it takes man to a sinless world, where the battle with his impulses is ended.”
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by vistesdThe first possibility makes God an outright liar, doesn't it? He tells Eve that if she eats from the Tree of Knowledge she shall surely die. Since she doesn't immediately, it can only mean Death will come later. But if she was mortal anyway, then God's original warning was a non sequitur if all it meant was she would EVENTUALLY die, since she was going to anyway.
[b]No.1 Marauder: I thought they were immortal; after all they were allowed to eat of all the trees of the Garden, so I figure they had eaten of the Tree of Life.
Then YHVH God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and liv ...[text shortened]... ry good because it takes man to a sinless world, where the battle with his impulses is ended.”
[/b]
If it's the second possibility, then God is still the one killing them as he is depriving them of something necessary for them not to die. If I prevent an elderly man from getting to his heart medicine and he dies, I'm culpable.
Still thinking about your Midrash and hope to have a respond to that one by the end of today.
30 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThe first possibility makes God an outright liar, doesn't it? He tells Eve that if she eats from the Tree of Knowledge she shall surely die. Since she doesn't immediately, it can only mean Death will come later. But if she was mortal anyway, then God's original warning was a non sequitur if all it meant was she would EVENTUALLY die, since she was going to anyway.
The first possibility makes God an outright liar, doesn't it? He tells Eve that if she eats from the Tree of Knowledge she shall surely die. Since she doesn't immediately, it can only mean Death will come later. But if she was ...[text shortened]... idrash and hope to have a respond to that one by the end of today.
Yeah, that’s a problem. In my “midrash,” I certainly had God trick them. Do we ever trick our children (before the age of reason) for their own good? I don’t like to think so, but I’ll have to look back on my own less-than-perfect parenting. Let me ponder it a bit…
If it's the second possibility, then God is still the one killing them as he is depriving them of something necessary for them not to die. If I prevent an elderly man from getting to his heart medicine and he dies, I'm culpable.
I think the second possibility a bit too fantastic to consider, but needed to be mentioned. But it seems to me the whole thing comes down to these points:
1) If death was in the world as part of the created order, then God is responsible for establishing death as part of that order to begin with. God may or may not have decided it was a good thing to exempt humankind from that.
2) If death entered the picture as a result of the actions of humankind, then the question of “culpability” depends on how you read the story from there. And I really think you do have a Pandora’s Box. Maybe that's why I tend to read these stories more "existentially."
With regard to how we view death (which is a tad off-topic, I know): If there is no God, would we consider the natural order “flawed” because of death, or just say “that’s the way it is,” and deal with it as part of our existential journey? Is the natural order flawed just because we can imagine some notion of “perfection” that the natural order does not reflect? Does positing “God,” automatically raise a question that may not be there otherwise, or does it arise when we posit certain attributes for God (or the Brahman, or the Tao, or whatever)? I grieve when people I know and love die, but, other than that, death in itself has never been a big concern for me.
Okay, you’re leading me into deep thinking here, so I’d better go now and “think some deep thoughts”—i.e., take a nap!
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by kirksey957Good idea. How about if I go read Job again and then start a new thread?
This may be wandering a bit, but Iwould be interested in a discussion about the parallels between this passage and God being complicitis in Job's suffering.
Have you read Harold Kushner's When Bad Things Happen to Good People?