jb, this hits on something - "Anyway, I think I agree with your conclusion, though, that as far as defining "evil," Genesis seems to make an argument for self-awareness or consciousness as the characteristics that make us god-like."
Laleo, more and more I look at the bible as a way to filter and understand some things that are beyond me. God is one. What God "is" seems beyond my grasp if He's done and does everything the bible says. My own world view as a person leads me to believe that the physical world works in cooperation with another, call it "spiritual", whatever - that there's forces at work that are clearly apparent but need definition and perspective to fully grasp.
I saw the movie "City of Angels", with Nicholas Cage, where he plays an angel who interacts with humans because he cares so deeply for them. He's playing next to Meg Ryan, whom he is attracted to and he's trying to help her work her way through a difficult time as she struggles to understand the forces at work in her life. In one scene he asks her to close her eyes, and then he takes her hand and rubs her wrist. He asks "what am I doing?" She says "you're touching me". He asks her "how can you tell?" She says "I can feel it". He pauses and she opens her eyes. He says "You should trust your feelings more".
The point's a simple one - things can be happening to us and around us that we ignore or don't stop to give attention to because we don't grasp them through the sense of our choice at the time. In her case, not seeing the hand touching her didn't stop her from knowing that she was being touched. But in other circumstances would it be that obvious, and what if the information coming to her weren't so common and "normal"?
Viewing God as a "father", a creator who loves and provides gives me a view I can understand. I can work within my own parameters much easier and as in Genesis, God is described doing things the way we would. Whatever the processes were though God can't be doing things the way we would, so I think to at least some extent of a lot it has to be viewed as you describe. Your description of it being light hearted and playful is interesting - those word aren't usually associated with those chapters and it casts them in a different light. :)
In jb's statement, it reminds me of how incredible choice is. One way to view the record with Eve and Adam would be they learned good and evil by doing something wrong when tempted that way. Another way would be that they simply exercised their ability to choose. Obedience and disobedience do seem to be the key parts to the record. In exercising choice they were god-like with "free will" to determine for themselves what they would do. Obedience and disobedience seem to imply choices being made. I can't choose to fly like a bird because I can't, no matter how hard I flap my arms or how high I jump. But I can choose to try and jump off a cliff and flap. And fall.
Again, good and evil seem to fall to acting within the range of choices that are possible for me to make. If I choose correctly, "good". If I choose incorrectly, splat.
I think this view may cover things the bible records like Jesus saying "believe and don't doubt and that mountain can be cast into the sea". The net result of such a choice would depend on it being the correct choice. Possible? Within the range of a God I can first only understand through my own perceptions, yes. Within the range of what God really is, I have no idea. Such a thing would really only be important to me, not God. But viewed in a light hearted way, sure. The greatest of life's challenges are doable and livable within the choices I make.
There are elements of this passage that certainly make it look like fable. The idea that eating a piece of fruit can give one knowledge of good and evil for instance. It may very well be an allegory or myth, but I'm just not ready to look at Scripture that way-- not yet anyhow.
How come? Seems to me that releasing ourselves from having to convince ourselves that something like the creation story is true to fact might actually free us to hear the message, rather than get bogged down in the improbabilities of permanently flaming swords (is there a tireless, if perspiring, cherub somewhere in the Middle East still guarding the firey entrance to paradise?), talking serpents, trees that dispense life and knowledge, and poison fruit.
Re-reading the creation story reminded me of a contemporary author out of Uruguay, Eduardo Galeano, who wrote a story titled The Story of the Lizard Who Had the Habit of Dining on His Wives. I wish I could find an on-line version of the tale, but it's still copyrighted, so if you happen to find yourself at a library or a bookstore someday, maybe take a few minutes to read it (it's short). It's published in an anthology called The Art of the Story. Real short synopsis: While a woman is sitting by the river reading a story about a lizard who eats his wives, she meets a lizard man and eventually marries him and eats him on their wedding night.
What does this have to do with Genesis? (I knew you'd ask.) The animal imagery, for one. The complex theme, for another. Also, in this story, when the lizard man meets the woman, he asks:
"What are you reading?"
She lowers her book, looks at him calmly, and replies:
"Legends."
"Legends?"
"Ancient voices."
"What for?"
She shrugs her shoulders.
"Company."
I'm reading a book right now, although I haven't gotten past the introduction. It's by a (now deceased) Dutch priest/scholar/psychologist/author (Henri Nouwen) who found meaning and inspiration in a Rembrandt painting of the Prodigal Son. In fact, he found so much meaning and so much inspiration that he not only traveled to Saint Petersburg to spend six hours in the Hermitage studying the original, while the changing patterns of the sun brought different details to light (way more time than I would have spent), he also spent the two years previous to that with a reproduction hanging above his desk. He wrote an entire book about his encounter with this painting, which, so far, is keeping my interest. My point? (I knew you'd ask.) I think some things (and people) become what we need them to be for us at a certain time in our lives, often not because it's what they actually are, but because it's what we long for.
Example: The Way. One of the reasons I don't spend a lot of time trashing it, other than to say that most of the teachings were silly, most of the leaders foolish, and mostly a waste of time (okay, so maybe that is "trashing it," depending on your definition), is because for those many years it fulfilled something that I needed it to be. Same with the Bible. Maybe in the same way that Rembrandt (long dead) became one of Nouwen's teachers, the Bible was one of mine. And yours. But I can't take it literally anymore.
Think about it. There are two versions of the creation story, each with a different take on the series of events. Even beyond the improbability of either of them being literally true, there are other things that can't be true. Like, Cain, for instance. God puts a mark on him so no one will kill him, then he settles in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Funny thing is, Nod is already populated. With people. Where did they come from? Just exactly how fertile is Eve that she can bear enough children to populate an entire city, and the rest of the known world?
Really, Jerry, how can those facts be taken literally? Taken for what it is -- a story, or an imperfect history of the Jewish people -- certain "truths" about life, and power, and relationships, and purpose can be read and understood while still acknowledging certain things that we all know to be real; such as, serpents don't talk, God doesn't walk, trees don't know or care or bequeath wisdom, and all the rest of it.
And, yeah, there are a lot of political implications to the question of what is good and what is evil.
socks, I enjoyed your post. Lots to consider, for sure.
To poke a bit more at the record in Genesis, I can see the meaning of it being very simple. Imagining the conversation as written -
The earth is there and man is the keeper, the tender of it. Man's world has everything he needs and man is everything the earth needs. The two "trees" - life and knowledge of good and evil. Man lives and is able to choose between good and evil. God says don't eat of that tree - in essence don't choose good sometimes and evil at others, don't know good and evil, just know good. That's what you have the opportunity to do if you're Adam and Eve, people. Live right, do good.
Eve simply uses her choosing to choose something wrong, against the natural law and order that God has set in place. She "eats" of that tree.
I think it's sad that there's such a tendency to try and identify the sin, to the end of identifying some worst or most evil sin that was committed against God's instructions. I feel that just as there was no "apple", there's no specific reference to exactly what Adam and Eve did that was wrong as if it was a single rule.
The simplest understanding of the record is I think that humans have been given life and a chance to tend this life they've been given. All "Adam and Eve" had to do was live on the earth, tend it, replenish it and live happy lives. But they chose to know both sides of the fence, so to speak. So the natural order and harmony was broken.
I wanted to add - I don't think we have to have an "Adam and Eve", first woman and first man wandering around a garden. Maybe there was, and if so that would be wonderfully sweet. If not, the basic ideas set forth can be understood in an equally beautiful way.
How come? Seems to me that releasing ourselves from having to convince ourselves that something like the creation story is true to fact might actually free us to hear the message, rather than get bogged down in the improbabilities of permanently flaming swords (is there a tireless, if perspiring, cherub somewhere in the Middle East still guarding the firey entrance to paradise?), talking serpents, trees that dispense life and knowledge, and poison fruit.
Good quesion. I'm not sure. I suppose I assume that If I look at it as myth or allegory ,then I will stop looking for practical or spiritually powerful truths therein--or be accused of doing so and categorized as a faith blaster. I'm certainly moving in that direction. I've seen and cited plenty of evidence in the last two years that undermines the Fundie outlook, but I still have powerful experiences asslociated with Scripture, so I have to find an understanding of it that allows for the reality of those experiences.
Re-reading the creation story reminded me of a contemporary author out of Uruguay, Eduardo Galeano, who wrote a story titled The Story of the Lizard Who Had the Habit of Dining on His Wives. I wish I could find an on-line version of the tale, but it's still copyrighted, so if you happen to find yourself at a library or a bookstore someday, maybe take a few minutes to read it (it's short). It's published in an anthology called The Art of the Story. Real short synopsis: While a woman is sitting by the river reading a story about a lizard who eats his wives, she meets a lizard man and eventually marries him and eats him on their wedding night.
What does this have to do with Genesis? (I knew you'd ask.) The animal imagery, for one. The complex theme, for another. Also, in this story, when the lizard man meets the woman, he asks:
I'm reading a book right now, although I haven't gotten past the introduction. It's by a (now deceased) Dutch priest/scholar/psychologist/author (Henri Nouwen) who found meaning and inspiration in a Rembrandt painting of the Prodigal Son. In fact, he found so much meaning and so much inspiration that he not only traveled to Saint Petersburg to spend six hours in the Hermitage studying the original, while the changing patterns of the sun brought different details to light (way more time than I would have spent), he also spent the two years previous to that with a reproduction hanging above his desk. He wrote an entire book about his encounter with this painting, which, so far, is keeping my interest. My point? (I knew you'd ask.) I think some things (and people) become what we need them to be for us at a certain time in our lives, often not because it's what they actually are, but because it's what we long for.
Example: The Way. One of the reasons I don't spend a lot of time trashing it, other than to say that most of the teachings were silly, most of the leaders foolish, and mostly a waste of time (okay, so maybe that is "trashing it," depending on your definition), is because for those many years it fulfilled something that I needed it to be. Same with the Bible. Maybe in the same way that Rembrandt (long dead) became one of Nouwen's teachers, the Bible was one of mine. And yours. But I can't take it literally anymore.
Think about it. There are two versions of the creation story, each with a different take on the series of events. Even beyond the improbability of either of them being literally true, there are other things that can't be true. Like, Cain, for instance. God puts a mark on him so no one will kill him, then he settles in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Funny thing is, Nod is already populated. With people. Where did they come from? Just exactly how fertile is Eve that she can bear enough children to populate an entire city, and the rest of the known world?
Oops. Never thought about that one. Good question.
Really, Jerry, how can those facts be taken literally? Taken for what it is -- a story, or an imperfect history of the Jewish people -- certain "truths" about life, and power, and relationships, and purpose can be read and understood while still acknowledging certain things that we all know to be real; such as, serpents don't talk, God doesn't walk, trees don't know or care or bequeath wisdom, and all the rest of it.
And, yeah, there are a lot of political implications to the question of what is good and what is evil.
socks, I enjoyed your post. Lots to consider, for sure.
Well the only thing Genesis has in its favor is the fact that all of the eyewitnesses are dead. In other words, if if was set in Jerusalem 250 B.C. I'd say it's nonsense. But since it describes the beginning of Creation, and I believe that God created all of this, who am I to say what it originally looked like. Although the idea of a sweaty tired Cherubim somehere in the Middle East is a hoot. And I have asked myself before, when reading Genesis, "Where is this place now?". But of course, it would have been wiped out in the Flood, relieving the Cherubim of duty. But you do make some very good points, both about the WAY and Genesis.
I suppose part of the reason I'm hesitant to classify Genesis as anything but literal truth is because I've been told by several Bible teachers (including the Answers in Genesis folks) that it's the foundation of Christian truth and that if you get rid of Genesis, Christianity crumbles, corruption ensues, hedonists run rampant, and Commies play checkers in the sunlight. I don't want to be counted as a Commie checker player. I got enough problems already.
I guess I feel the opposite -- that when I DO assume that something that cannot be true to fact is a myth, then (maybe) I find whatever "truths" lie therein.
I'm no Genesis scholar, so keeping that in mind, this might be yet another of my pedestrian interpretations, but why can't the theme be as simple as "Be careful what you wish for . . . "? I mean, here we have Adam and Eve, both busy and happy and productive and in harmony with life and nature, then Eve is seduced into wanting more. When she gets more, she suddenly wishes she had less, because self-knowledge can also bring the curse of seeing yourself for who you are, and being not only shamed by that knowledge, but also not yet having the wisdom to rise up to the responsibility that knowledge might bring.
Didn't the idea of tikkun olam (that the human task is to repair the world) arise from the creation account? -- because God brought order out of chaos, and man, at the fall, became God-like, knowing good and evil, it is now man's responsibility to create order out of chaos. Or something like that. I guess my point is that we can all read the Genesis account and get something out of it, which may or may not be the same for each person, but if it directs us toward some greater good, then maybe it's what the writer (even if the writer is God) intended.
Jerry, lots of people have had powerful experiences resulting from their study of Scripture. It doesn't mean each account is literal. The Bible incorporates a lot of different writing styles, different perspectives, different approaches to understanding God and creation -- historical accounts, myths, prayers, parables, poetry, musings, dictums, you name it. It seems to me that the unifying element might be along the lines of the basic assumption that a sovereign God exists. After that, God seems to make himself known in a variety of ways to a variety of people, and some of it will speak to you and some of it won't. It would only make sense that if you are one who is seeking God, or some type of ultimate reality, you would feel an affinity to those who went before you, and cleared part of the path. Wouldn't it?
Don't reach for those checkers yet. Besides, that's a seedy crowd that hangs out on the boardwalk at Coney Island. Maybe you'll just join some mainstream, contemporary, middle-class, Christian denomination and blend in like the rest of us.
Sidetracking YET again, Laleo you remind me of when Jesus said we should be like children.
I can imagine a child hearing the parable of the "good samaritan" and being asked "so who was the neighbor to the guy who got beat up" and the child saying "why the man who stopped and helped him!"
I can also imagine a child of a certain age saying "why was the man travelling alone, Jesus? My mother always says I should walk with a friend. He shouldn't have been out all alone! Was that the road out on the east side of town, because that's a bad road! How come that man left all that money? Wasn't he scared that the inn keeper would steal it? And how come he was carrying all that money? He could have been robbed too!!! Was this in the winter Jesus because..."
That parable has a simple conclusion "as is" but we know in that kind of a setting there could have been people in the group asking many questions and offering many interpretations, but in the record we see a single point being made and realized.
And of course it's a parable. No one asks "did it really happen?" because the message isn't based on it being a real event, it's wrapped inside an event that could have occured and was understandable to the audience being spoken to.
In the same way I think a record like Genesis holds learning as you say, when we look at it like a child, like a person who hears it and makes the jump from "but what about?" to a single recognition of what's being written. Within that the message can be very diverse, very immediate and also have many levels, IMO. The "oooooh!" or "A HA!" moment can strike again and again, over time as we revisit it.
Evil may be relative, but the relativity is a true thing
which then makes evil a true thing
relative to the bedeviled thing
like when an innocent snake bites the most ignorant and innocent man...;)
seems quite natural to me, for the ignorant man to blame the snake
but another thing altogether to understand why it is a good reason to be thankful and pardon them both
also (but not exclusively), i think its interesting and useful to consider the cast and props and plots of the early chapters of genesis as more representational of certains stages of our interior "spiritual evolution."
where there is this garden, wilderness, whatever
full of a jungle of instincts, including all this primal sexuality
and this single-minded snake that is always flicking its tongue and asking sinful questions
and these growing systems of life and knowledge and whatnot
and somehow, we gotta get this "snake" out of the dust
and somehow lift it up in the wilderness
get to those better temptations
deeper questions
etc...
:blink:
on a side note...socks, i think this is cool:
In the same way I think a record like Genesis holds learning as you say, when we look at it like a child, like a person who hears it and makes the jump from "but what about?" to a single recognition of what's being written. Within that the message can be very diverse, very immediate and also have many levels, IMO. The "oooooh!" or "A HA!" moment can strike again and again, over time as we revisit it.
i've heard it likened to a deeply romantic relationship with a text
where, at first, all we see is the skin of the lover's hand, or only the eyes of the lover's face
but with longevity of inquiry, "new" and better questions arise
more and more of the lover's "body" is revealed
from one structure of faith to another
like a series of many good and useful "failures" and "breakings"
though this can be most true of the world's most enduring texts
but also, if enough time is invested, any piece can be subject to such higher spiritual eros
(such as PFAL, Dianetics, Shakespeare, Star Wars, anything...)
regardless as to whether the "suitor" is aware or concerned with the actual details of the author's intent
I suppose part of the reason I'm hesitant to classify Genesis as anything but literal truth is because I've been told by several Bible teachers (including the Answers in Genesis folks) that it's the foundation of Christian truth and that if you get rid of Genesis, Christianity crumbles, corruption ensues, hedonists run rampant, and Commies play checkers in the sunlight. I don't want to be counted as a Commie checker player. I got enough problems already.
:D :D Jerry, altho' I shy away from the appeal to authority and fear that this concept of keeping Genesis as literal, ... or else, is based upon, I *love* the humor in how you portrayed it.
Basically the whole underlying premise that drives the Creationist (and Intelligent Design) movements, even if they don't fully realize or admit it, is portayed in Jerry's post. That if evolution is true, the whole foundation of Christianity falls flat, and the rest of the beliefe system goes with it. (or so they believe)
And if Genesis, the Bible, christianity, et al., can be so easily crumbled at the proving/communicating of evolution/dismantling of the Creation story, ... well, what does that say about the whole Christian belief system to begin with? How can Absolute Truth be threatened by a theory to where the theory must be stopped?
Besides, I'll play checkers with Commies, or anybody else for that matter, any time. And even share a or two.
See? See? There you have it friends. Garth fell for the secular humanist line and now, not only is he playing checkers with Commies, he's guzzling beer!
Come to think of it, I kinda like beer and checkers.
Maybe I'll take another look at that allegory thing.
Sorry, this is a long response but I haven't posted much lately so perhaps you'll all bear with me.
In relinquishing his authority in this world Adam also relinquished his relationship to God. Whether or not Adam would have naturally rebelled against God isn’t made clear in the scriptures, the fact is the serpent (devil) offered him (or rather Eve) a choice and they took him up on it.
It’s interesting to consider that the devil wanted to exalt himself above God; he wanted to be worshipped as God was. It’s clear this was his intention in rebelling against God. Perhaps we begin to see the characteristics of evil in this. The devil offered man a choice, man took it and found himself in the same rebellious and condemned state the devil was in, at odds with God, dead in sins and an enemy of heaven. In tricking man the devil committed murder.
Now man is in the same state that Lucifer was in. The devil could now use man as a shield from God’s judgment. He tempted God; if God now passed judgment on Satan he would have to pass judgment on man also, a real conundrum.
Many have asked why God would put a “tree” in the garden to tempt man. God always warns man about what might cause him problems. We erroneously assume God created this tree to trip up man. What if God told man enjoy the garden but watch out for those cliffs over there, if you fall you’ll be killed? The cliffs aren’t there as a trap, they’re just part of the landscape. How is the warning about this tree any different? Would we wonder if Adam jumped off a cliff? No we’d call him a fool. What’s the difference? God gave a spiritual warning to man and he ignored the warning.
Since it’s not clear what the tree was exactly and since we can’t go to local garden center and buy seeds for a “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” then we can only speculate about what exactly this thing was. We know one thing, it was something that could cause a problem for man and God warned him about it. I don’t see anything so far that we can find fault with God about.
The devil was subtle; he changed God’s words. In tricking man he partially accomplished his goal, he put himself above man and between man and God. For all intents and purposes man was subservient to Satan. Now Satan had the legal right to accuse and demand God’s judgment on man. He had the legal right to control the outcome of the one who God created to worship him. In effect forcing man to worship him instead of God. Man no longer had the ability or authority to worship God because he transferred that authority to the devil. Man traded a relationship with eternity for a relationship with sin. And yes he did make the choice to do it, tricked or not he could have refused but he didn’t. He did it with his eyes wide open.
God created man and woman and gave them a wonderful place to live and provided all they needed for a wonderful and fulfilling life. God also provided them companionship, authority over their environment and even warned them about the dangers around them. More than that God provided a way for man to have a relationship with his creator. What hadn’t he done for man? What did he do to make them want to rebel against him? And yet for all of that man still chose another option and he’s been in a condemned state ever since. Again we don't know what the garden looked like, it was probably much like the earth is now. The difference is found in the relationship man had with God.
Fortunately BEFORE God passed judgment on man he promised a messiah and with the ministry, sacrifice and ascension of the lord Jesus Christ man now has a way out of the death he’s found himself in.
How could we have a clearer picture of goodness than we have in the earthly life of Jesus Christ? How could we have a clearer picture of evil than looking at what the devil did and continues to do? He did it selfishly, he did it arrogantly and he did it knowing full well that it meant death for man. The devil caused a righteous man to sin and in so doing he condemned him to death. He provoked man to trade righteousness for death. This, my friends, is evil. He’s the one who accuses. He’s the one Jesus Christ called the father of lies. He’s the one who wanted to be higher than God. God never did anything to provoke this treatment from the devil or from man. Call it what you want, evil, disharmony with God, absence of goodness, it’s all the same thing and when you begin to see it for it what is you realize just how bad it stinks.
Jesus Christ is for the Christian the standard of goodness and love and harmony with God. Even today men challenge us with their words to think of something other than Jesus Christ. At times even using God’s Word in error to accomplish this goal. The world attempts to steer us away from glorifying him in our hearts, minds and words. He’s the one who saved man from the condemnation of the fall of Adam (Romans 5). If people think this is just a story, that this isn’t true, that the story of “creation” is somehow refuted by the theory of evolution then they’ve been just as tricked by the devil as Adam was. The first chapters of Genesis weren’t written to explain how the universe came into existence but rather to explain God’s original heart for man and how man came to the state he now finds himself in. It doesn’t even fully explain the devil, the subject is man until Genesis 3:14 and the subject is the Messiah (Jesus Christ) after Genesis 3:15.
We would do well to recognize evil for what it is and it isn’t natural. Wars don’t occur because they’re part of the natural state of the world. Are there religious wars in nature? Is greed part of the evolutionary process? Is slavery a normal occurrence in the natural world? Do animals build atomic weapons? Do animals inflict genocide on other animals? The sheer magnitude of destruction committed by man alone should show us there is something different about man from the rest of nature. Evil is not supposed to be part of the equation. If you want proof that Genesis was true put down your science book and pick up a newspaper, the proof is on the front page every day.
The whole story about the devil, the incarnation of evil, tempting man and woman to disobey God and therefore experience evil themselves still leaves man with the choice of succumbing to evil or not.
Adam and Eve made the wrong choice while still in the state that God had created them in, before being supposedly tainted by Lucifer, and before becoming like him.
Jesus Christ came in order to "save" man from his sinful state and restore him back to...what? The state in which they succumbed to "evil" in the first place!
Humans, including those alleged first humans, have within them the ability to do good, or to do evil. They have the ability to choose one or the other, or any one of the shades of grey in between. They can also be taught, or persuaded to do good rather than evil.
True, but fortunately through the actions of Jesus Christ mans choice to do evil doesn't have to remove him from the grace of God, as it did in Adams case.
As much as Adams choice to sin doomed him to death, our choice to believe and accept Christ destines us for salvation and eternity.
Jesus Christ doesn't return man to the state Adam was in, fortunately. Our state is a new one, wholly in God's grace despite our shortcomings. It's a good thing, if Adam couldn't do it in his environment than the possibilities of us making it are impossible.
Of course we shouldn't use our liberty as an occasion to sin, far too many christians know their salvation and use the liberty they've been given to do whatever the old man gives them the impulse to do. Often hurting others in the process. I think there's a good reason why Paul makes this distinction in Romans. The gift God gives has a responsibility attached to it.
Once again the example is Christ, if his life was enough to save us then the example of his life should be good enough for us to try to emulate.
Recommended Posts
socks
jb, this hits on something - "Anyway, I think I agree with your conclusion, though, that as far as defining "evil," Genesis seems to make an argument for self-awareness or consciousness as the characteristics that make us god-like."
Laleo, more and more I look at the bible as a way to filter and understand some things that are beyond me. God is one. What God "is" seems beyond my grasp if He's done and does everything the bible says. My own world view as a person leads me to believe that the physical world works in cooperation with another, call it "spiritual", whatever - that there's forces at work that are clearly apparent but need definition and perspective to fully grasp.
I saw the movie "City of Angels", with Nicholas Cage, where he plays an angel who interacts with humans because he cares so deeply for them. He's playing next to Meg Ryan, whom he is attracted to and he's trying to help her work her way through a difficult time as she struggles to understand the forces at work in her life. In one scene he asks her to close her eyes, and then he takes her hand and rubs her wrist. He asks "what am I doing?" She says "you're touching me". He asks her "how can you tell?" She says "I can feel it". He pauses and she opens her eyes. He says "You should trust your feelings more".
The point's a simple one - things can be happening to us and around us that we ignore or don't stop to give attention to because we don't grasp them through the sense of our choice at the time. In her case, not seeing the hand touching her didn't stop her from knowing that she was being touched. But in other circumstances would it be that obvious, and what if the information coming to her weren't so common and "normal"?
Viewing God as a "father", a creator who loves and provides gives me a view I can understand. I can work within my own parameters much easier and as in Genesis, God is described doing things the way we would. Whatever the processes were though God can't be doing things the way we would, so I think to at least some extent of a lot it has to be viewed as you describe. Your description of it being light hearted and playful is interesting - those word aren't usually associated with those chapters and it casts them in a different light. :)
In jb's statement, it reminds me of how incredible choice is. One way to view the record with Eve and Adam would be they learned good and evil by doing something wrong when tempted that way. Another way would be that they simply exercised their ability to choose. Obedience and disobedience do seem to be the key parts to the record. In exercising choice they were god-like with "free will" to determine for themselves what they would do. Obedience and disobedience seem to imply choices being made. I can't choose to fly like a bird because I can't, no matter how hard I flap my arms or how high I jump. But I can choose to try and jump off a cliff and flap. And fall.
Again, good and evil seem to fall to acting within the range of choices that are possible for me to make. If I choose correctly, "good". If I choose incorrectly, splat.
I think this view may cover things the bible records like Jesus saying "believe and don't doubt and that mountain can be cast into the sea". The net result of such a choice would depend on it being the correct choice. Possible? Within the range of a God I can first only understand through my own perceptions, yes. Within the range of what God really is, I have no idea. Such a thing would really only be important to me, not God. But viewed in a light hearted way, sure. The greatest of life's challenges are doable and livable within the choices I make.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Re-reading the creation story reminded me of a contemporary author out of Uruguay, Eduardo Galeano, who wrote a story titled The Story of the Lizard Who Had the Habit of Dining on His Wives. I wish I could find an on-line version of the tale, but it's still copyrighted, so if you happen to find yourself at a library or a bookstore someday, maybe take a few minutes to read it (it's short). It's published in an anthology called The Art of the Story. Real short synopsis: While a woman is sitting by the river reading a story about a lizard who eats his wives, she meets a lizard man and eventually marries him and eats him on their wedding night.
What does this have to do with Genesis? (I knew you'd ask.) The animal imagery, for one. The complex theme, for another. Also, in this story, when the lizard man meets the woman, he asks:
I'm reading a book right now, although I haven't gotten past the introduction. It's by a (now deceased) Dutch priest/scholar/psychologist/author (Henri Nouwen) who found meaning and inspiration in a Rembrandt painting of the Prodigal Son. In fact, he found so much meaning and so much inspiration that he not only traveled to Saint Petersburg to spend six hours in the Hermitage studying the original, while the changing patterns of the sun brought different details to light (way more time than I would have spent), he also spent the two years previous to that with a reproduction hanging above his desk. He wrote an entire book about his encounter with this painting, which, so far, is keeping my interest. My point? (I knew you'd ask.) I think some things (and people) become what we need them to be for us at a certain time in our lives, often not because it's what they actually are, but because it's what we long for.
Example: The Way. One of the reasons I don't spend a lot of time trashing it, other than to say that most of the teachings were silly, most of the leaders foolish, and mostly a waste of time (okay, so maybe that is "trashing it," depending on your definition), is because for those many years it fulfilled something that I needed it to be. Same with the Bible. Maybe in the same way that Rembrandt (long dead) became one of Nouwen's teachers, the Bible was one of mine. And yours. But I can't take it literally anymore.
Think about it. There are two versions of the creation story, each with a different take on the series of events. Even beyond the improbability of either of them being literally true, there are other things that can't be true. Like, Cain, for instance. God puts a mark on him so no one will kill him, then he settles in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Funny thing is, Nod is already populated. With people. Where did they come from? Just exactly how fertile is Eve that she can bear enough children to populate an entire city, and the rest of the known world?
Really, Jerry, how can those facts be taken literally? Taken for what it is -- a story, or an imperfect history of the Jewish people -- certain "truths" about life, and power, and relationships, and purpose can be read and understood while still acknowledging certain things that we all know to be real; such as, serpents don't talk, God doesn't walk, trees don't know or care or bequeath wisdom, and all the rest of it.
And, yeah, there are a lot of political implications to the question of what is good and what is evil.
socks, I enjoyed your post. Lots to consider, for sure.
Edited by laleoLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
To poke a bit more at the record in Genesis, I can see the meaning of it being very simple. Imagining the conversation as written -
The earth is there and man is the keeper, the tender of it. Man's world has everything he needs and man is everything the earth needs. The two "trees" - life and knowledge of good and evil. Man lives and is able to choose between good and evil. God says don't eat of that tree - in essence don't choose good sometimes and evil at others, don't know good and evil, just know good. That's what you have the opportunity to do if you're Adam and Eve, people. Live right, do good.
Eve simply uses her choosing to choose something wrong, against the natural law and order that God has set in place. She "eats" of that tree.
I think it's sad that there's such a tendency to try and identify the sin, to the end of identifying some worst or most evil sin that was committed against God's instructions. I feel that just as there was no "apple", there's no specific reference to exactly what Adam and Eve did that was wrong as if it was a single rule.
The simplest understanding of the record is I think that humans have been given life and a chance to tend this life they've been given. All "Adam and Eve" had to do was live on the earth, tend it, replenish it and live happy lives. But they chose to know both sides of the fence, so to speak. So the natural order and harmony was broken.
I wanted to add - I don't think we have to have an "Adam and Eve", first woman and first man wandering around a garden. Maybe there was, and if so that would be wonderfully sweet. If not, the basic ideas set forth can be understood in an equally beautiful way.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Good quesion. I'm not sure. I suppose I assume that If I look at it as myth or allegory ,then I will stop looking for practical or spiritually powerful truths therein--or be accused of doing so and categorized as a faith blaster. I'm certainly moving in that direction. I've seen and cited plenty of evidence in the last two years that undermines the Fundie outlook, but I still have powerful experiences asslociated with Scripture, so I have to find an understanding of it that allows for the reality of those experiences.
Oops. Never thought about that one. Good question.
Well the only thing Genesis has in its favor is the fact that all of the eyewitnesses are dead. In other words, if if was set in Jerusalem 250 B.C. I'd say it's nonsense. But since it describes the beginning of Creation, and I believe that God created all of this, who am I to say what it originally looked like. Although the idea of a sweaty tired Cherubim somehere in the Middle East is a hoot. And I have asked myself before, when reading Genesis, "Where is this place now?". But of course, it would have been wiped out in the Flood, relieving the Cherubim of duty. But you do make some very good points, both about the WAY and Genesis.
I suppose part of the reason I'm hesitant to classify Genesis as anything but literal truth is because I've been told by several Bible teachers (including the Answers in Genesis folks) that it's the foundation of Christian truth and that if you get rid of Genesis, Christianity crumbles, corruption ensues, hedonists run rampant, and Commies play checkers in the sunlight. I don't want to be counted as a Commie checker player. I got enough problems already.
Peace
JerryB
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
I guess I feel the opposite -- that when I DO assume that something that cannot be true to fact is a myth, then (maybe) I find whatever "truths" lie therein.
I'm no Genesis scholar, so keeping that in mind, this might be yet another of my pedestrian interpretations, but why can't the theme be as simple as "Be careful what you wish for . . . "? I mean, here we have Adam and Eve, both busy and happy and productive and in harmony with life and nature, then Eve is seduced into wanting more. When she gets more, she suddenly wishes she had less, because self-knowledge can also bring the curse of seeing yourself for who you are, and being not only shamed by that knowledge, but also not yet having the wisdom to rise up to the responsibility that knowledge might bring.
Didn't the idea of tikkun olam (that the human task is to repair the world) arise from the creation account? -- because God brought order out of chaos, and man, at the fall, became God-like, knowing good and evil, it is now man's responsibility to create order out of chaos. Or something like that. I guess my point is that we can all read the Genesis account and get something out of it, which may or may not be the same for each person, but if it directs us toward some greater good, then maybe it's what the writer (even if the writer is God) intended.
Jerry, lots of people have had powerful experiences resulting from their study of Scripture. It doesn't mean each account is literal. The Bible incorporates a lot of different writing styles, different perspectives, different approaches to understanding God and creation -- historical accounts, myths, prayers, parables, poetry, musings, dictums, you name it. It seems to me that the unifying element might be along the lines of the basic assumption that a sovereign God exists. After that, God seems to make himself known in a variety of ways to a variety of people, and some of it will speak to you and some of it won't. It would only make sense that if you are one who is seeking God, or some type of ultimate reality, you would feel an affinity to those who went before you, and cleared part of the path. Wouldn't it?
Don't reach for those checkers yet. Besides, that's a seedy crowd that hangs out on the boardwalk at Coney Island. Maybe you'll just join some mainstream, contemporary, middle-class, Christian denomination and blend in like the rest of us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Sidetracking YET again, Laleo you remind me of when Jesus said we should be like children.
I can imagine a child hearing the parable of the "good samaritan" and being asked "so who was the neighbor to the guy who got beat up" and the child saying "why the man who stopped and helped him!"
I can also imagine a child of a certain age saying "why was the man travelling alone, Jesus? My mother always says I should walk with a friend. He shouldn't have been out all alone! Was that the road out on the east side of town, because that's a bad road! How come that man left all that money? Wasn't he scared that the inn keeper would steal it? And how come he was carrying all that money? He could have been robbed too!!! Was this in the winter Jesus because..."
That parable has a simple conclusion "as is" but we know in that kind of a setting there could have been people in the group asking many questions and offering many interpretations, but in the record we see a single point being made and realized.
And of course it's a parable. No one asks "did it really happen?" because the message isn't based on it being a real event, it's wrapped inside an event that could have occured and was understandable to the audience being spoken to.
In the same way I think a record like Genesis holds learning as you say, when we look at it like a child, like a person who hears it and makes the jump from "but what about?" to a single recognition of what's being written. Within that the message can be very diverse, very immediate and also have many levels, IMO. The "oooooh!" or "A HA!" moment can strike again and again, over time as we revisit it.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
what a great thread, imo
heerz my present rant on the subject...
Evil may be relative, but the relativity is a true thing
which then makes evil a true thing
relative to the bedeviled thing
like when an innocent snake bites the most ignorant and innocent man...;)
seems quite natural to me, for the ignorant man to blame the snake
but another thing altogether to understand why it is a good reason to be thankful and pardon them both
also (but not exclusively), i think its interesting and useful to consider the cast and props and plots of the early chapters of genesis as more representational of certains stages of our interior "spiritual evolution."
where there is this garden, wilderness, whatever
full of a jungle of instincts, including all this primal sexuality
and this single-minded snake that is always flicking its tongue and asking sinful questions
and these growing systems of life and knowledge and whatnot
and somehow, we gotta get this "snake" out of the dust
and somehow lift it up in the wilderness
get to those better temptations
deeper questions
etc...
:blink:
on a side note...socks, i think this is cool:
i've heard it likened to a deeply romantic relationship with a text
where, at first, all we see is the skin of the lover's hand, or only the eyes of the lover's face
but with longevity of inquiry, "new" and better questions arise
more and more of the lover's "body" is revealed
from one structure of faith to another
like a series of many good and useful "failures" and "breakings"
though this can be most true of the world's most enduring texts
but also, if enough time is invested, any piece can be subject to such higher spiritual eros
(such as PFAL, Dianetics, Shakespeare, Star Wars, anything...)
regardless as to whether the "suitor" is aware or concerned with the actual details of the author's intent
(which is often a different matter entirely)
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
:D :D Jerry, altho' I shy away from the appeal to authority and fear that this concept of keeping Genesis as literal, ... or else, is based upon, I *love* the humor in how you portrayed it.
Basically the whole underlying premise that drives the Creationist (and Intelligent Design) movements, even if they don't fully realize or admit it, is portayed in Jerry's post. That if evolution is true, the whole foundation of Christianity falls flat, and the rest of the beliefe system goes with it. (or so they believe)
And if Genesis, the Bible, christianity, et al., can be so easily crumbled at the proving/communicating of evolution/dismantling of the Creation story, ... well, what does that say about the whole Christian belief system to begin with? How can Absolute Truth be threatened by a theory to where the theory must be stopped?
Besides, I'll play checkers with Commies, or anybody else for that matter, any time. And even share a
or two.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
See? See? There you have it friends. Garth fell for the secular humanist line and now, not only is he playing checkers with Commies, he's guzzling beer!
Come to think of it, I kinda like beer and checkers.
Maybe I'll take another look at that allegory thing.
MGD anyone?
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
But ONLY good quality American beer, like Moosehead. ..... Waittaminute, that's a Canadian brand.
:blink:
... well, just as long as it ain't Coor's. That's known as Kansas Colored Water to the rest of the country.
(P.S., I love these new smilies, Paw!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Glad you like it, SGL. :)
I'm in hiding, incognito, A la.
Shhhh...I'll check the PM's, but stay low.... :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dizzydog
Sorry, this is a long response but I haven't posted much lately so perhaps you'll all bear with me.
In relinquishing his authority in this world Adam also relinquished his relationship to God. Whether or not Adam would have naturally rebelled against God isn’t made clear in the scriptures, the fact is the serpent (devil) offered him (or rather Eve) a choice and they took him up on it.
It’s interesting to consider that the devil wanted to exalt himself above God; he wanted to be worshipped as God was. It’s clear this was his intention in rebelling against God. Perhaps we begin to see the characteristics of evil in this. The devil offered man a choice, man took it and found himself in the same rebellious and condemned state the devil was in, at odds with God, dead in sins and an enemy of heaven. In tricking man the devil committed murder.
Now man is in the same state that Lucifer was in. The devil could now use man as a shield from God’s judgment. He tempted God; if God now passed judgment on Satan he would have to pass judgment on man also, a real conundrum.
Many have asked why God would put a “tree” in the garden to tempt man. God always warns man about what might cause him problems. We erroneously assume God created this tree to trip up man. What if God told man enjoy the garden but watch out for those cliffs over there, if you fall you’ll be killed? The cliffs aren’t there as a trap, they’re just part of the landscape. How is the warning about this tree any different? Would we wonder if Adam jumped off a cliff? No we’d call him a fool. What’s the difference? God gave a spiritual warning to man and he ignored the warning.
Since it’s not clear what the tree was exactly and since we can’t go to local garden center and buy seeds for a “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” then we can only speculate about what exactly this thing was. We know one thing, it was something that could cause a problem for man and God warned him about it. I don’t see anything so far that we can find fault with God about.
The devil was subtle; he changed God’s words. In tricking man he partially accomplished his goal, he put himself above man and between man and God. For all intents and purposes man was subservient to Satan. Now Satan had the legal right to accuse and demand God’s judgment on man. He had the legal right to control the outcome of the one who God created to worship him. In effect forcing man to worship him instead of God. Man no longer had the ability or authority to worship God because he transferred that authority to the devil. Man traded a relationship with eternity for a relationship with sin. And yes he did make the choice to do it, tricked or not he could have refused but he didn’t. He did it with his eyes wide open.
God created man and woman and gave them a wonderful place to live and provided all they needed for a wonderful and fulfilling life. God also provided them companionship, authority over their environment and even warned them about the dangers around them. More than that God provided a way for man to have a relationship with his creator. What hadn’t he done for man? What did he do to make them want to rebel against him? And yet for all of that man still chose another option and he’s been in a condemned state ever since. Again we don't know what the garden looked like, it was probably much like the earth is now. The difference is found in the relationship man had with God.
Fortunately BEFORE God passed judgment on man he promised a messiah and with the ministry, sacrifice and ascension of the lord Jesus Christ man now has a way out of the death he’s found himself in.
How could we have a clearer picture of goodness than we have in the earthly life of Jesus Christ? How could we have a clearer picture of evil than looking at what the devil did and continues to do? He did it selfishly, he did it arrogantly and he did it knowing full well that it meant death for man. The devil caused a righteous man to sin and in so doing he condemned him to death. He provoked man to trade righteousness for death. This, my friends, is evil. He’s the one who accuses. He’s the one Jesus Christ called the father of lies. He’s the one who wanted to be higher than God. God never did anything to provoke this treatment from the devil or from man. Call it what you want, evil, disharmony with God, absence of goodness, it’s all the same thing and when you begin to see it for it what is you realize just how bad it stinks.
Jesus Christ is for the Christian the standard of goodness and love and harmony with God. Even today men challenge us with their words to think of something other than Jesus Christ. At times even using God’s Word in error to accomplish this goal. The world attempts to steer us away from glorifying him in our hearts, minds and words. He’s the one who saved man from the condemnation of the fall of Adam (Romans 5). If people think this is just a story, that this isn’t true, that the story of “creation” is somehow refuted by the theory of evolution then they’ve been just as tricked by the devil as Adam was. The first chapters of Genesis weren’t written to explain how the universe came into existence but rather to explain God’s original heart for man and how man came to the state he now finds himself in. It doesn’t even fully explain the devil, the subject is man until Genesis 3:14 and the subject is the Messiah (Jesus Christ) after Genesis 3:15.
We would do well to recognize evil for what it is and it isn’t natural. Wars don’t occur because they’re part of the natural state of the world. Are there religious wars in nature? Is greed part of the evolutionary process? Is slavery a normal occurrence in the natural world? Do animals build atomic weapons? Do animals inflict genocide on other animals? The sheer magnitude of destruction committed by man alone should show us there is something different about man from the rest of nature. Evil is not supposed to be part of the equation. If you want proof that Genesis was true put down your science book and pick up a newspaper, the proof is on the front page every day.
Now I think I'll go play a game of checkers...
Edited by dizzydogLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Dizzydog -- great post!!
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The whole story about the devil, the incarnation of evil, tempting man and woman to disobey God and therefore experience evil themselves still leaves man with the choice of succumbing to evil or not.
Adam and Eve made the wrong choice while still in the state that God had created them in, before being supposedly tainted by Lucifer, and before becoming like him.
Jesus Christ came in order to "save" man from his sinful state and restore him back to...what? The state in which they succumbed to "evil" in the first place!
Humans, including those alleged first humans, have within them the ability to do good, or to do evil. They have the ability to choose one or the other, or any one of the shades of grey in between. They can also be taught, or persuaded to do good rather than evil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dizzydog
True, but fortunately through the actions of Jesus Christ mans choice to do evil doesn't have to remove him from the grace of God, as it did in Adams case.
As much as Adams choice to sin doomed him to death, our choice to believe and accept Christ destines us for salvation and eternity.
Jesus Christ doesn't return man to the state Adam was in, fortunately. Our state is a new one, wholly in God's grace despite our shortcomings. It's a good thing, if Adam couldn't do it in his environment than the possibilities of us making it are impossible.
Of course we shouldn't use our liberty as an occasion to sin, far too many christians know their salvation and use the liberty they've been given to do whatever the old man gives them the impulse to do. Often hurting others in the process. I think there's a good reason why Paul makes this distinction in Romans. The gift God gives has a responsibility attached to it.
Once again the example is Christ, if his life was enough to save us then the example of his life should be good enough for us to try to emulate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.