Homework assignment from Dr. S

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's more intellectually honest than simply doing a copy-paste job on the website.

Thanks for your link - but I think it is beside the point of debate here. We're not trying to debate whether the Gospels are a reliable account o ...[text shortened]... y over time. This is a question of "whether", not "how".

LH

It's good that you used the Gnostic term Logos
Here's a Gnostic definition of it :

Logos; often translated as "word", it's true meaning is much more multifunctional (a better translation would be "reason" ) . The Logos is the light that gives Gnosis via communication. It is the Christ (not to be confused with Jesus). First there was a thought, then the word. We pass on knowledge in this world through words. It is something that gives us guidance by "seeing" or a certain amount of comprehension.

even "light" might not be an adequate word here.

I'm not a Gnostic, at least not by any of the definitions Ireneus made up, but then neither was Valentinus.

I don't totally agree with the above definition of Logos , prefering the word "message" and Im not sure if Christ should be distinguished from Jesus. John thought not.

Originally posted by frogstomp
this needs no comment from me

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for ...[text shortened]... now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Okay, can I first say how much I love the book that started all this off? 'Perelandra' by CS Lewis (also known as 'Voyage to Venus'😉 is a favourite of mine, mainly because of the central temptation sequence that inspired this thread.

Back to what I quoted...

I don't see how all these quotes about KNOWLEDGE of good and evil lead to the conclusion that God CREATED evil.

Seriously, I don't.

And what exactly is evil in the first place? I would suggest it has to do with rebellion against God.

Now, I suppose you could extrapolate that back to God - he created beings capable of evil because they had their own will and were therefore capable of rebelling - but to really lay the blame at His feet you have to ignore the role of the actual evildoer.

Bear in mind here that the fall of Adam and Eve isn't really the first fall, but the second. It's not quite written explicitly in the Bible, but many people would say that Satan was a fallen angel - he rebelled, before encouraging humans to do likewise.

I think this perspective would change some of the comments being made here - on this basis, you can't view the first few chapters of Genesis as taking place in some universal unspoilt paradise that wasn't damaged until Adam and Eve fell. The damage had already started.

Originally posted by orfeo
Okay, can I first say how much I love the book that started all this off? 'Perelandra' by CS Lewis (also known as 'Voyage to Venus'😉 is a favourite of mine, mainly because of the central temptation sequence that inspired this thread.

Back to what I quoted...

I don't see how all these quotes about KNOWLEDGE of good and evil lead to the conclusion th ...[text shortened]... unspoilt paradise that wasn't damaged until Adam and Eve fell. The damage had already started.

Considering I'm arguing against a literal reading of Genesis and there is no mention of Angels, fallen or otherwise in the first 6 days, maybe you can inject other things into it at will, but to do so just proves my point.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Considering I'm arguing against a literal reading of Genesis and there is no mention of Angels, fallen or otherwise in the first 6 days, maybe you can inject other things into it at will, but to do so just proves my point.

Actually, there's not even a mention of the Temptation and Fall in the first 6 days...

Genesis is but one part of the Bible. The equation of the serpent with Satan appears elsewhere. The references to Satan as a fallen angel also appear elsewhere.

If you're going to restrict debate to the first 3 chapters of the Bible, and ignore the other 966, then any discussion of the nature of God and the universe is going to be pretty short!

Originally posted by orfeo
I think this perspective would change some of the comments being made here - on this basis, you can't view the first few chapters of Genesis as taking place in some universal unspoilt paradise that wasn't damaged until Adam and Eve fell. The damage had already started.

I would have to say - yes and no. Yes, the "Universe" was already damaged in that beings had rebelled against God (and who's to say there weren't others?)

But I think the point of the Genesis story is that none of this had any impact on the natures of Adam and Eve. I believe this stems from the question of power or authority. The "fallen angels" had no authority over humans, hence their corruption would not touch humans. Humans, on the other hand ...

Originally posted by orfeo
Actually, there's not even a mention of the Temptation and Fall in the first 6 days...

Genesis is but one part of the Bible. The equation of the serpent with Satan appears elsewhere. The references to Satan as a fallen angel also appear ...[text shortened]... of the nature of God and the universe is going to be pretty short!

Genesis1 describes the entire creation, 6 days and then god rested. There isn't any other creation mentioned either in the other 966 chapters either, is there?

Originally posted by frogstomp
Genesis1 describes the entire creation, 6 days and then god rested. There isn't any other creation mentioned either in the other 966 chapters either, is there?

There is a second creation story in Genesis chapter 2 vs 4-25. It is considerably different and although there seems to be some debate on this issue it was written 300-500 years before the story appearing in chapter 1.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
There is a second creation story in Genesis chapter 2 vs 4-25. It is considerably different and although there seems to be some debate on this issue it was written 300-500 years before the story appearing in chapter 1.

TheSkipper

Parts of Genesis1 reads like it's alluding to the 5th Tablet of the Enuma Elish.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Genesis1 describes the entire creation, 6 days and then god rested. There isn't any other creation mentioned either in the other 966 chapters either, is there?

What is thread discussing, creation or temptation?

Originally posted by orfeo
What is thread discussing, creation or temptation?

I happened to be discussing the "temptation" and a different chapter that when taken into consideration, Adam would have good reason the think that it was the Serpent that was telling the truth...I had been answered with the dodge of " "And, as a matter of fact, they did die as a result of their sin."

but Adam would only see Eve had survived. Who was being deceptive?
I don't take it literally or as a lesson about good and evil and think it only makes sense as a farmers lament for the loss of the perceived "paradise" of the hunter gathering culture of their ancestors.