Why Call Him God?

[walker]

I don’t think it’s arrogant - it shows how God is always coming down to meet us. I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

 

And here folks is a quotable quote of the day!

 

This sentence, ironically explains in a nutshell everything yo want to know about buybull gawd.

 

Coming down to "your level" fully indicates that the "god" you think you know is nothing more than a figment of your imagination and particularly, a projection of your "inner self". Your gawd is only real between your ears in a part of your brain that controls dreams and thoughts and imagination, very human I might add.

 

Don't you find it odd that this gawd of yours so omni-frigging-everything is relegated to "occupy" only the "hidden dimension" of our biological/chemical thought processes (something that science has a better handle on btw)? Why would any god, not perceivable via indoctrination (read:brainwashing) or reading text from a beeg book be worthy of worship/adoration anyway? Not to mention that if you really studied your beeg book, it is nothing more than a conflagration of myths and man-made ideas.

 

buybull gawd is a system for people to have a sick relationship with their imaginary inner self.

 

Everything you know of this god of yours is as you say self induced and experiential; meaning, that everything you "know" of this god is/was influenced by external NATURAL stimulae even down to the goosebump holy spook "anointing" or speaking in tongues prophesy, interpretation of prophesy, (the 9 gifts shit). Speaking of which, that holy spook anointing I still feel everyday with my first morning urination, boy does that feel guud.

 

The cop out of not being able to describe gawd outside of human terms surely proves that IT is a figment of a collective imagination. Any god as thought to be by xians would require no description. IT would be self evident and this discussion would be moot. Beautiful sunsets don't count, we all know how that works and has buggerall to do with any deity. Man probably contributes more to pretty sunsets by his own "efforts" in pollution than any fictitious deity.

Oh and the free willy argument vs robots, well all the well trained (indoctrinated) robots regularly attend their temples of adoration to their imaginary friends every week, don't go to church, feel guilt? Where does that come from? God?

 

We call it mass delusion knowing of course that most of us here were under IT's spell for a very long time.

Sounds like you’ve experienced groups of crazy charismaniacs! Congrats for seeing the craziness! Did you witness people lengthening one leg to match the other??

 

I don’t go to church every week and I don’t feel guilty. I must have missed out on that “gift”!

[Ouroboros]

Sounds like you’ve experienced groups of crazy charismaniacs! Congrats for seeing the craziness! Did you witness people lengthening one leg to match the other??

I saw that miracle once.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On myself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The magician that performed the miracle was my physical therapist who corrected my back and trained my core muscles... The reason to this evil demon possession of my legs came from when I injured my knee and the muscles got weaker on one side. That caused the muscles to pull unevenly on the back, which causes the hipbone/pelvis to tilt, which leads to uneven length... But I'm healed now!!! Praise science!!!

 

 

My dad had the same problem his whole life, but Messiah Physical Therapist Christ never healed him, because my dad never went to a Physical Therapist Witchdoctor who knew the right core-muscle-training-incantations.

 

You gotta love that Sciencevoodoomagic when it works... for real.

[walker]

“Coffee with Jesus” - there are a couple interesting youtube skits with this title! Actually, I “have coffee” with Jesus every day … but it’s more than that. He’s not just a friend, He’s also a Father, and a King. I don’t think it’s arrogant - it shows how God is always coming down to meet us. I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

But don't you see how arrogant it is in the first place to believe that the supreme omnipotent, supernatural deity takes a personal interest in you and comes to your level for a visit?

 

I wish you could see how nonsensical your responses are to the questions posed in this thread. Twisted and circular logic. Lack of evidence beyond your own interpretation of a single ancient text of dubious creation and your own subjective thoughts.

 

I mean, just look at what you said about the dead babies: <paraphrase on> The Catholic Church used to say {one thing} but now say {another}. Many Xian churches preach {this other thing}, and but I believe {this fourth thing}. <paraphrase off> It's obvious that none of you know. All of that is just guesswork or wishful thinking or something with no shred of evidence. But none of you like to admit that.

 

There is no evidence that anything happens to one's consciousness (soul, spirit, whatever) after death. The only thing we can know for sure is that once the consciousness is extinguished in the physical body, it's gone. There is no evidence to support any speculation beyond that.

 

So, to me, all the religious speculation about limbo, purgatory, heaven, hell, angels, demons, ghosts, etc, is no more substantial than stories of Santa with his elves and reindeer at the North Pole or any other fictional realm you could name. It's like discussing how many elves work in Santa's workshop, or how his reindeer find enough hay to eat in the Arctic.

No, I don’t see it as arrogant to say that the “supreme, omnipotent, supernatural” deity takes a personal interest in us. I see it as demonstrative of God’s Character - that He cares and loves us this much. He values us this much. Maybe that seems too good to be true?

 

I base what I know on the Character and Nature of God, revealed throughout the Bible and in my life/world. There are foundational Truths, then there are things not fully revealed. Things not fully revealed aren’t necessary to know for relationship with God. If theologians (Catholic and others) read scripture without taking into account that it’s Jewish literature, then I believe their understanding and teachings are going to be off. (I’m not saying they’re “unsaved” however.)

 

I believe scripture gives evidence for an afterlife and gives us hints of what it is like. The second testament is not written in the literary form of a myth, fable, etc. You cam claim that it’s realistic fiction, but then I would ask you to logically explain why you think someone or some group decided to write fiction and present it as non-fiction.

[walker]

I don’t think it’s arrogant - it shows how God is always coming down to meet us. I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

And you don't see the arrogance in that statement?

 

No. I see an Incredible God with Amazing Love.

[walker]

So the tree was more of a symbol than actual. God just put a regular tree there, and it was the symbol for obedience, and the name of the tree was just arbitrary. The name and the tree didn't really matter, it was the symbolic action of disobedience only. Interesting.

 

Does this mean that the tree of life was also just a regular tree and symbolic? If they had eaten of the tree of life it would not have been a miracle eating it, but just the fact they ate from just a tree that God had put a label on?

The tree of “Life” - “chay” or “chiam” (like the toast “To Life!” - L’Chaim!). “Life” here isn’t speaking of just breathing and existing but full, meaningful, joyous, abundant Life. This quality of Life can only be found in relationship with God. Taking the fruit from this tree would show a desire for Life.

 

The sources I heard from was Pentecostal primarily, but also from other denominations and preachers. I've heard about a couple of thousand sermons over my life, maybe in the ten thousands, and read hundreds of books. Never did I hear that the tree of knowledge was just an ordinary tree that God just put a symbolic label on.

 

And I have not heard before that "knowledge of good and evil" really didn't matter or have any importance in the context. It says "tree of knowledge of good and evil," not "pine tree."

 

Besides, if you study any ancient religion or belief, you will see that these things were considered magical back then. Your interpretation is a very typical Christian apologist who reconstructs the story from what it originally meant.

 

Since you already are willing to admit that the tree was only symbolic, then perhaps you can also admit that Eden was only symbolic, and Adam and Eve as well?

There are many Christians, theologians, denominations that believe this is a myth - that it didn’t really happen and it’s purely symbolic. And you are probably familiar with the idea of Adam and Eve eating an “apple” - so some have believed it was an ordinary tree. (Some now say it was a pomegranate.) I’ve not heard of anyone believing there are apple trees, pear trees, pine trees, and tree of the knowledge of good and evil trees. My personal experience with Pentecostalism is they read the Bible very literally - a “the Bible says it and I believe it” kind of approach. There are things about Pentecostalism I like, but I think it’s inaccurate to approach the Bible without a Hebraic perspective.

 

I consider this to be a “True Myth” - its mythical elements are true, not “magical“, and it has many layers of meaning - historical, symbolic, philosophical, psychological, spiritual , etc. There’s too much richness of meaning to put in any one box. No, I don’t believe Adam, Eve, and Eden are only symbolic.

[walker]

“Coffee with Jesus” - there are a couple interesting youtube skits with this title! Actually, I “have coffee” with Jesus every day … but it’s more than that. He’s not just a friend, He’s also a Father, and a King. I don’t think it’s arrogant - it shows how God is always coming down to meet us. I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

So which brand does he prefer? Does he like creamers in his coffee or sugar?

Pure organic coffee - fair trade. No artificial creamers or sweeteners. Sometimes He likes it black - sometimes with cream and sugar.

[walker]

I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

Then what's the point?

To lift me up.

[Ouroboros]

There are many Christians, theologians, denominations that believe this is a myth - that it didn’t really happen and it’s purely symbolic. And you are probably familiar with the idea of Adam and Eve eating an “apple” - so some have believed it was an ordinary tree. (Some now say it was a pomegranate.) I’ve not heard of anyone believing there are apple trees, pear trees, pine trees, and tree of the knowledge of good and evil trees. My personal experience with Pentecostalism is they read the Bible very literally - a “the Bible says it and I believe it” kind of approach. There are things about Pentecostalism I like, but I think it’s inaccurate to approach the Bible without a Hebraic perspective.

 

I consider this to be a “True Myth” - its mythical elements are true, not “magical“, and it has many layers of meaning - historical, symbolic, philosophical, psychological, spiritual , etc. There’s too much richness of meaning to put in any one box. No, I don’t believe Adam, Eve, and Eden are only symbolic.

I see.

 

The way I see it is that you just do like all other Christians do. You pick the parts you want to be literal, and you pick the parts you want to be figurative.

 

It's so much easier to see it for what it is: a story, not history.

[Ouroboros]

Pure organic coffee - fair trade. No artificial creamers or sweeteners. Sometimes He likes it black - sometimes with cream and sugar.

Really? He told you that? You saw him drink that?

 

According to some preachers, Jesus consider coffee to be unholy and an invention of Satan.

 

Why can't you all (Christians) agree if all of you commune with Jesus on a daily basis? Are there different Jesuses?

[Ouroboros]

I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

Then what's the point?

To lift me up.

So through Jesus you are on a higher level than us? You are above us in thoughts?

 

How does this go along with the "unselfish" part of Christianity? Why do you want to be higher up?

[walker]

I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

Then what's the point?

And isn't God everywhere? Why does he have to come anywhere? He should be here already, shouldn't he?

God is everywhere but His Presence can be stronger in some places at some times.

[Ouroboros]

I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

Then what's the point?

And isn't God everywhere? Why does he have to come anywhere? He should be here already, shouldn't he?

God is everywhere but His Presence can be stronger in some places at some times.

Which means he doesn't have to "come" anywhere since he's there already.

 

But I understand from Antlerman that you're not referring to a physical displacement, but rather a mental.

[walker]

Wow. Good point. Walker had me on the tree of knowledge symbolizing trust only, but then why did God need to physically hide away this other magical tree?

 

Or do you believe, walker, that Adam, Havah, and the garden are all allegory and none historical?

I just wrote to Ouroboros on this topic, but no - not just allegory - yes also historical. Not everything is "either-or". The Tree of Life has to do with physical and spiritual life. When Adam broke relationship and trust with God, God mercifully allowed physical death so we wouldn't have to live in this fallen world forever. Would you want to live forever in a broken world of evil, pain, and suffering?

 

The Tree of Life is in Revelation 22 and is part of the redeemed world.

[Ouroboros]

Wow. Good point. Walker had me on the tree of knowledge symbolizing trust only, but then why did God need to physically hide away this other magical tree?

 

Or do you believe, walker, that Adam, Havah, and the garden are all allegory and none historical?

I just wrote to Ouroboros on this topic, but no - not just allegory - yes also historical. Not everything is "either-or". The Tree of Life has to do with physical and spiritual life. When Adam broke relationship and trust with God, God mercifully allowed physical death so we wouldn't have to live in this fallen world forever. Would you want to live forever in a broken world of evil, pain, and suffering?

 

The Tree of Life is in Revelation 22 and is part of the redeemed world.

Yes, but the tree was only a symbol of the trust. The tree was not in itself a power to knowledge, but it was the law regarding the tree. The tree was just a tree, any tree, whatever tree, because the rule was the deal. Hence, the tree was only a symbol.

[Phanta]

The tree or the fruit didn’t change them. Nothing magical there - just philosophical/psychological. The important thing about the tree is that God said don’t eat of it. As Adam and Eve learned from Him they would be tempted to think they could better decide what is good (beneficial) and what is evil (harmful). They would not trust God’s decisions, knowledge, guidance - and would think they knew better. (We see this played out in children growing into the teenage years all the time - we say “a little knowledge is dangerous“!) The moment Adam and Eve decided on their own and acted on it, the relationship between them and God would change - trust would be broken. Taking the fruit showed what had already gone on in their thoughts - it was the action their thoughts led to.

 

Many times we don’t really know how we’ll feel and how things will be after we do something. Experiential knowledge is important, and Adam and Eve had never experienced choosing their way over God’s Way before. They felt “naked” - exposed and helpless - they wanted to “cover up” and hide what they had chosen to do.

 

I don’t know from what sources you heard what you heard.

 

Ok...so you believe there was a real tree of knowledge and a real Adam and a real Havah in a real Eden, but the fruit of the tree had no magical properties. It was the act of not following God's instruction that was the human's downfall.

 

Questions:

 

Was there a real tree of life?

Was there real fruit on it?

Did that fruit have magical powers to give immortality?

What is the function of hiding the physical tree from the humans? How was the tree going to make them like Gods?

 

Phanta

[Antlerman]

I don’t go to His level - He comes to mine.

Then what's the point?

To lift me up.

I'm looking forward to your responses to my posts 144 and 145 in this thread, but in the meantime I want to address this.

 

I understand what you are saying, but it's not that God per se comes down to your level, but what it is in those moments, which you symbolize as "God coming down", is your opening up to what is already there. God exists in all levels, down to the blade of grass, the molecule, the atom, all the way up to the Absolute. What you experience is your opening up to a higher level in you. That is of course if what you are talking about is a spiritual opening, and not some emotional "pick me up" when you're simply feeling down and you encourage yourself symbolically through a belief that God is watching over your daily affairs like a mindful parent. There is a distinction. In short, God can't "come down" to you level, as "God" simply IS, at all levels. It's about opening to the depth that Is.

 

Again, anthropometric language you use, and yes it does affect how we are able to not only imagine the world, but experience it. It both reflects and creates the boundaries of our minds we build to protect and preserve the present realities we live in. I respect you and am saying this through that, "To lift me up", as you say, is narcissistic in mindset. It is self-facing. All this is not about you and your particular ego-identity and God being a loving parent to pick you up as a weak child, it is about you moving beyond yourself into the Realization of that Nature which is already yours and is in all things, and beyond all things.

 

As I listen to you use this language you do, I hear a framework of mythological symbolism, training wheels as it were to covey certain concepts or understandings through. But the problem with that is that at a certain point those "training-wheels" language begins to define the actuality of things, and misses the underlying and transcendent truths beyond it. It creates the limits of that Realization, which is why in part I challenged you in those two posts earlier I referred to explain why you believe we cannot know this until "after death"? I want to explore this more deeply with you, as I see the potential for that with you.

 

As before, I'll see where you go with this...

[mwc]

Isn't the idea that there are two punishments? First, the physical (banishment) and then the spiritual?

Just taking the text at face value? No.

 

I know that there are a number of efforts to do exactly what you're saying, so my answer isn't to say you're wrong, but just to say that I disagree that we're supposed to read it that way not that we can read it that way. I can't say how it was originally meant to be read but as it is right now it takes place in the purely physical realm of the physical universe we are all familiar with and not in some "spirit" realm or on some "spiritual" dimension.

 

That stuff really does come later and, if you want consistency, you can go ahead and apply it anachronistically, but it's not really here that I can see. What I'm saying is the creation takes place all in a physical way in a physical place. The whole story. From the planet down to the plants and animals including the humans. Even the "breath of life" is just a physical breath. It's got to be seen in the eyes of an ancient and not our eyes so it's not just air but the physical breath from a god that kick-starts the people. A little "spiritual," as we might know it, is mixed-in there but the mindset would be different and they'd be less inclined to focus on such a distinction (they couldn't...they couldn't say that one was the "breath from a deity" and one was "just air"...those distinctions didn't exist in their lives like they do our own...so a little "magic" or "spirituality" pervades their lives unlike it does most of our own today).

 

So does one of the punishments include something like a "spiritual" death? That's usually what is invoked at this point and I'm guessing what you're referring to here. Why would it? Where is it mentioned? The whole "if you eat the fruit you'll die" thing? They ate the fruit. They died. I'd have to check but I don't recall the threat including "instant death" as in "if you eat the fruit you'll drop down dead right then and there" but just death. So instead of some "spiritual" punishment they were kicked out of the garden, they couldn't get to the "tree of life" in order to get the fruit that made/kept them immortal, and they died as promised. Humans, like all things, were never immortal but were always destined to die. They needed that "tree of life" and they failed to obtain it. They got "knowledge" which is half the "god formula" of this story but not the other half which is "immortality." Later writers, if we apply their ideas here, tell us that gods basically have this type of knowledge, are immortal, and can lounge around doing what they please. We almost had it. Too bad for us. Oh well, as Philo tells us, it would be easier for a god to become a man than a man to become a god. Odd how a contemporary of "jesus" would say such a thing.

 

mwc

[oddbird1963]

I'd have to check but I don't recall the threat including "instant death" as in "if you eat the fruit you'll drop down dead right then and there" but just death.

 

That's the thing about Gen 2:17. In my reading of it it has always included the language of instant death, unless, of course, there is some documented special nuance of the Hebrew language or ancient Semitic idioms that meant you could say "in the day that you eat from it you will surely die" and mean that at the end of a long life of hundreds of years you will die. Of course, if there is such a special nuance, why didn't it make it into the English translations of the text of the Genesis story of the expulsion of Adam and Eve?

 

Here's the text in three versions:

 

Genesis 2:17

New International Version:

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

King James Version:

 

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

New American Standard Bible

 

17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

 

Now, by "special nuance" I mean a documented instance or two of where this linguistic arrangement is not meant to be taken as a declaration that eating the fruit = you will drop dead withing 24 hours of eating it ("In the day that you eat from it").

 

I think what is at work here is the politically motivated stringing together of origin myths to satisfy the hard core, old school adherents from various regions whose creation myths were different from one another. As we know from experience with religious organizations, sometimes the smallest variance from the traditional norms can cause quite a bit of resistance and outrage from members. The only way I can reconcile the promise of "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" with "okay. Get out of the garden, stay out, and Adam, you get to live 930 years," is that one tradition had the promise of death in eating the fruit and others didn't. But to appease the "poison apple" sect, the compilers of what became the Genesis account left that part in.

[Antlerman]

I'd have to check but I don't recall the threat including "instant death" as in "if you eat the fruit you'll drop down dead right then and there" but just death.

 

That's the thing about Gen 2:17. In my reading of it it has always included the language of instant death, unless, of course, there is some documented special nuance of the Hebrew language or ancient Semitic idioms that meant you could say "in the day that you eat from it you will surely die" and mean that at the end of a long life of hundreds of years you will die. Of course, if there is such a special nuance, why didn't it make it into the English translations of the text of the Genesis story of the expulsion of Adam and Eve?

 

Here's the text in three versions:

 

Genesis 2:17

New International Version:

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

King James Version:

 

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

New American Standard Bible

 

17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

 

Now, by "special nuance" I mean a documented instance or two of where this linguistic arrangement is not meant to be taken as a declaration that eating the fruit = you will drop dead withing 24 hours of eating it ("In the day that you eat from it").

 

I think what is at work here is the politically motivated stringing together of origin myths to satisfy the hard core, old school adherents from various regions whose creation myths were different from one another. As we know from experience with religious organizations, sometimes the smallest variance from the traditional norms can cause quite a bit of resistance and outrage from members. The only way I can reconcile the promise of "in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" with "okay. Get out of the garden, stay out, and Adam, you get to live 930 years," is that one tradition had the promise of death in eating the fruit and others didn't. But to appease the "poison apple" sect, the compilers of what became the Genesis account left that part in.

I think you're kind of missing the point here. Even if in the linguist sense the word is used to describe a physical death, it is used metaphorically. If you doubt that, then can you please explain what the heck a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is? A type of organic fruit that grew in the Mesopotamian valley with a specific growing season? Of course not.

 

Did they die the day that they ate of the "tree of knowledge"? Yes! This is symbolic story of man's opening awareness to his own being, rising from within the forest as no longer yet another creature foraging in subconscious slumber amongst the trees of the garden, but now, he has become able to recognize his own individuality and discern values and his own morality. It is a description of the birth of ego, and an awaking to an existential terror! "I am naked!" Man traded ignorance for knowledge, and made the choice to leave the Garden of his subconsciousness slumber for the fruit of knowledge, the fruit of awareness. And the way back has been forever barred for man in his awareness. We can no longer return to our prior ignorance.

 

Now did the original authors of these myths understand that as I stated? I would say yes on a certain intuitive level, a certain existential sense, pondering the state of man and the societies he lived in at the time, considering a world where such original man may have come from and creating a story to express those impressions. The problem with approaching it as scientific fact, both in a theological apologies, or in 'debunking' it, is that neither look to the meaning in the symbolism of it. As a myth it actually contains a fair amount of truth, in symbolic language of course, IMO.

[Ouroboros]

Did they die the day that they ate of the "tree of knowledge"? Yes! This is symbolic story of man's opening awareness to his own being, rising from within the forest as no longer yet another creature foraging in subconscious slumber amongst the trees of the garden, but now, he has become able to recognize his own individuality and discern values and his own morality. It is a description of the birth of ego, and an awaking to an existential terror! "I am naked!" Man traded ignorance for knowledge, and made the choice to leave the Garden of his subconsciousness slumber for the fruit of knowledge, the fruit of awareness. And the way back has been forever barred for man in his awareness. We can no longer return to our prior ignorance.

Sounds more like they were born into something rather than died. They died from ignorance, from a state of not having knowledge, from the having food but not having anything else, and born into all the glory of knowledge, experience, sensations, for the cost of work. Can one part be expressed as "death from," sure, but it was also "birth into." So it's kind of strange that God didn't include "when you eat this fruit you will surely die, and you will surely be born again into a more fulfilling life."

[Antlerman]

Did they die the day that they ate of the "tree of knowledge"? Yes! This is symbolic story of man's opening awareness to his own being, rising from within the forest as no longer yet another creature foraging in subconscious slumber amongst the trees of the garden, but now, he has become able to recognize his own individuality and discern values and his own morality. It is a description of the birth of ego, and an awaking to an existential terror! "I am naked!" Man traded ignorance for knowledge, and made the choice to leave the Garden of his subconsciousness slumber for the fruit of knowledge, the fruit of awareness. And the way back has been forever barred for man in his awareness. We can no longer return to our prior ignorance.

Sounds more like they were born into something rather than died. They died from ignorance, from a state of not having knowledge, from the having food but not having anything else, and born into all the glory of knowledge, experience, sensations, for the cost of work. Can one part be expressed as "death from," sure, but it was also "birth into." So it's kind of strange that God didn't include "when you eat this fruit you will surely die, and you will surely be born again into a more fulfilling life."

Yes, the process of differentiation is both a birth and a death. It's separation from a previous state, dying to that state, and an emergence into a new one, one fraught with a new world of challenges. I hear this, "If you choose to awaken, you will realize the terror that awaits you venturing out of this slumber. Understand the choice. Once made, you can't go back." Indeed. It is a story both of heroism and of loss. It's like the child who is weaned from his mother's breast to become an individual.

 

It's interesting when you listen to what the serpent says:

 

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye,

and also desirable for gaining wisdom

, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

 

The metaphor is that God warns them the consequence of becoming aware, but the humans take it "literally" about death - and the reason is because they are not yet aware of what "death" means in this sense, that existential death that comes through awakening to face ones nakedness. They had no concept of that. So the serpent explains that it's not a physical death, but dangles the temptation that she was already drawn to! Awakening! Do you see that in here? So they ate, they awoke, and saw they were naked! They were born into knowledge and fell from their ignorance into an existential terror. Their own mortality, their separateness, "poised midway between the beasts and the gods".

 

Man chose to awaken, chose the hard path for the benefit of knowledge and wisdom. Far better than to remain asleep.

[Ouroboros]

Yes, the process of differentiation is both a birth and a death. It's separation from a previous state, dying to that state, and an emergence into a new one, one fraught with a new world of challenges. I hear this, "If you choose to awaken, you will realize the terror that awaits you venturing out of this slumber. Understand the choice. Once made, you can't go back." Indeed. It is a story both of heroism and of loss. It's like the child who is weaned from his mother's breast to become an individual.

Agree.

 

It's interesting when you listen to what the serpent says:

 

4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Yet another thing that was not part of God's image. The humans made in God's image did not have this ability.

 

I believe that the writers meant that Adam and Eve were created in the physical likeness of God, not any other modern apologist euphemistic definition of "image." The more we look, the more we realize that the attributes of the Christian God and humans are wide apart. There's no likeness and no image copied. But for people 5,000 years ago, image really was that, the phenotypical expression, if you will.

 

 

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

And here's something that doesn't really fit with the idea of the tree just being a symbol of obedience and not magical. It's obvious that the story is suggesting that this transformation happened because of eating the fruit, not because God executed the punishment, so I have a hard time buying into the idea that the story wasn't about a magical tree.

 

The metaphor is that God warns them the consequence of becoming aware, but the humans take it "literally" about death - and the reason is because they are not yet aware of what "death" means in this sense, that existential death that comes through awakening to face ones nakedness. They had no concept of that. So the serpent explains that it's not a physical death, but dangles the temptation that she was already drawn to! Awakening! Do you see that in here?

Oh, absolutely. I see the story both as an allegory of the spiritual/conscious awakening of humans, but also the transformation from hunting/gathering society into agricultural, and with it, the religious explanation to why the poor farmers must suffer the hard work and can't go back to the old happy life of hunting. The good 'ol days are gone.

 

So they ate, they awoke, and saw they were naked! They were born into knowledge and fell from their ignorance into an existential terror. Their own mortality, the separateness, poised midway between the beasts and the gods.

The gods are gods because they don't live in fear of death nor worry about existentialism. Like it. A God doesn't have to philosophize about life, because he doesn't really have one. To live, is to experience both suffering and happiness. The Christian God does neither. The Jewish God however did, since he was more like us.

 

Man chose to awaken, chose the hard path for the benefit of knowledge and wisdom. Far better than to remain asleep.

Amen. Well, it's better in some sense, but it was kind of nice being a kid and the parents providing you food and answers. Not having to make any hard decisions or worry.

 

The Genesis story is kind of an analogy of growing up as well. Leaving the childhood where everything is provided for, into the age of responsibility.

[LivingLife]

Had the story gone instead to the eating of the tree of life aka jeebus, then all offspring would have been mindless zombies, there is irony in that if we look at the faithfool today.

 

It does tend to line up with the knowledge = evil/our wisdom = foolishness in gawd's eyes that the crutch espouses.

 

There is however one key verse in this mythology -

 

Genesis 2:5

before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;

 

So it was a set up from the get go that we were to work and the punishment to toil in the fields was already pre-ordained. The choice they made was thus moot or IOW the chess board was already rigged for phailure. It does not matter how you weave this BS together.

 

The garden of Eden utopia only works with sexless beings - yeah folk, there will be no phucking in heaven, jeebus already told us that we would be like the angels in heaven, neither male nor female, perhaps that means we will be hermaphrodites and maybe that is gawds way of telling us to "go phuck yourself."

 

Sorry just feeling a bit ornery today

[oddbird1963]

I think you're kind of missing the point here. Even if in the linguist sense the word is used to describe a physical death, it is used metaphorically. If you doubt that, then can you please explain what the heck a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is? A type of organic fruit that grew in the Mesopotamian valley with a specific growing season? Of course not.

 

Did they die the day that they ate of the "tree of knowledge"? Yes! This is symbolic story of man's opening awareness to his own being, rising from within the forest as no longer yet another creature foraging in subconscious slumber amongst the trees of the garden, but now, he has become able to recognize his own individuality and discern values and his own morality. It is a description of the birth of ego, and an awaking to an existential terror! "I am naked!" Man traded ignorance for knowledge, and made the choice to leave the Garden of his subconsciousness slumber for the fruit of knowledge, the fruit of awareness. And the way back has been forever barred for man in his awareness. We can no longer return to our prior ignorance.

 

Now did the original authors of these myths understand that as I stated? I would say yes on a certain intuitive level, a certain existential sense, pondering the state of man and the societies he lived in at the time, considering a world where such original man may have come from and creating a story to express those impressions. The problem with approaching it as scientific fact, both in a theological apologies, or in 'debunking' it, is that neither look to the meaning in the symbolism of it. As a myth it actually contains a fair amount of truth, in symbolic language of course, IMO.

 

I was speaking of the structure and language of the story. Die means to die - physically. If Adam and Eve didn't physically die in the story, then there is an incoherence there that has confused people for generations. It is fine to engage in the theological and Jungian interpretations that derive from that text and it's incoherence and proclaime "god meant a kind of death - metaphorically".

 

But linguistically and structurally, it seems put together like a high school student at midnight on Sunday with an English assignment due on Monday morning. Various quotes from different sources are forced together into what passes for acceptable prose. You can still derive mytho-theological parallels to other philosophical or psychological points of view, just like you can find meaning in a movie that didn't get great critical reviews.

 

That being said, I must say one of your subsequent posts made me realize something I had never been able to appreciate before. The serpent was more trustworthy than YHWH in the story. Yahweh says, "You will die." The serpent said, "You won't die!" The serpent was right - or at least more correct. We have to come up with "senses" in which in which Yahweh was still correct.

[Antlerman]

I think you're kind of missing the point here. Even if in the linguist sense the word is used to describe a physical death, it is used metaphorically. If you doubt that, then can you please explain what the heck a "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is? A type of organic fruit that grew in the Mesopotamian valley with a specific growing season? Of course not.

 

Did they die the day that they ate of the "tree of knowledge"? Yes! This is symbolic story of man's opening awareness to his own being, rising from within the forest as no longer yet another creature foraging in subconscious slumber amongst the trees of the garden, but now, he has become able to recognize his own individuality and discern values and his own morality. It is a description of the birth of ego, and an awaking to an existential terror! "I am naked!" Man traded ignorance for knowledge, and made the choice to leave the Garden of his subconsciousness slumber for the fruit of knowledge, the fruit of awareness. And the way back has been forever barred for man in his awareness. We can no longer return to our prior ignorance.

 

Now did the original authors of these myths understand that as I stated? I would say yes on a certain intuitive level, a certain existential sense, pondering the state of man and the societies he lived in at the time, considering a world where such original man may have come from and creating a story to express those impressions. The problem with approaching it as scientific fact, both in a theological apologies, or in 'debunking' it, is that neither look to the meaning in the symbolism of it. As a myth it actually contains a fair amount of truth, in symbolic language of course, IMO.

 

I was speaking of the structure and language of the story. Die means to die - physically. If Adam and Eve didn't physically die in the story, then there is an incoherence there that has confused people for generations. It is fine to engage in the theological and Jungian interpretations that derive from that text and it's incoherence and proclaime "god meant a kind of death - metaphorically".

I don't see these as Jungian interpretations that we derive from incoherence (though of course there is something to be said for his theory on archetypes). I'm speaking strictly from a straight forward read of it. If dies means to die physically, than the tree of life has physical branches and physical fruit, as does the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. How are those not metaphorical? And if those are metaphorical, than the statement coming from God about dying from eating of those metaphorical trees is in the exact same context. And my point is that if they took that to mean die physically, it was an expression of the characters own ignorance of what awaited them, their naivety to think it meant physical death.

 

I don't see an incoherence in the myth. Is there a theological value to the myth? Yes, of course, just as there can be in any product of mythology created by human beings participating in life and culture. These are things that are not read from a criticism of the form, and philosophically this makes perfect sense. Human culture has both suffered and benefited from eating of that metaphorical tree of knowledge of good and evil - the tree of awareness; and there has ever since been that death, and not just physical death, but existential death. In this sense it was in fact a "real" death, as an existential death is in fact experienced.

 

We literally do die existentially as well as physically as human beings. So if you wish to read that as a literal death, then there it is. All of what we as humans do or develop in our neurosis, amassing of wealth and power, war, etc., is driven by the desire to escape that existential death, to deny it. We die two deaths. The death of the body, and the death of "self". We fear our own "nothingness".

 

But linguistically and structurally, it seems put together like a high school student at midnight on Sunday with an English assignment due on Monday morning. Various quotes from different sources are forced together into what passes for acceptable prose.

I won't dispute that parts are stitched together. That much is apparent. I don't think it is meant as prose either. It is an origin myth, and the choice of what gets included often is as much part of the overall myth itself as its original components. Again, I don't see an overall inconsistency, unless you're trying to make the text read like factual history within a modern context of what is considered "factual".

 

You can still derive mytho-theological parallels to other philosophical or psychological points of view, just like you can find meaning in a movie that didn't get great critical reviews.

I would be careful to be clear that you can't just derive meaning from just any piece of crap that someone puts out there, some tripe from Hollywood. There are reasons that certain myths have endurance. Now I'm not at all saying of course this means this is "God's Word", but based on what I see, it does express a historical and culturally significant realization of human's of their state of being and expresses that through this myth/edited-myth. That realization is a valid one and has been dealt with by philosophers through the ages. We as well as they were aware of that, and we as well as they, talk about that. What is significant to me is that these things are expressed throughout time across cultures.

 

I don't see any of this as a reading-into the texts. The themes are there, and this is not speaking of Jungian archetypes actually.

 

That being said, I must say one of your subsequent posts made me realize something I had never been able to appreciate before. The serpent was more trustworthy than YHWH in the story. Yahweh says, "You will die." The serpent said, "You won't die!" The serpent was right - or at least more correct. We have to come up with "senses" in which in which Yahweh was still correct.

That just occurred to me as I re-read the story yesterday. In a sense the serpent "being crafty" spoke a half-truth, realizing what it was she as a human desired - to become Aware! She took the statement "you shall die if you eat of that tree", in the wrong way because she lacked that necessary knowledge of good and evil to understand what that actually meant, they would literally die existentially. So the serpent crafted a true statement playing off her nativity and appealing to her existential desire to become Aware, allowing her to overcome her fear to take that step.

 

In the story the serpent is actually the foil, the trickster, who is actually performing a good through being "bad", the anti-hero. He is not the enemy of God, but the foil. Adam and Eve's awakening was in pursuit to become Aware, as in having the Knowledge of God. What they got in taking that step was a fall out of ignorance into facing that Abyss, that existential Void, and the result is an acute awareness of their separation from the Garden. The serpent symbolizes that aspect of ourselves that we use to make those choices that we are in fact necessarily drawn to for our own good and growth. It is good derived through a bad, that bitter pill we swallow to heal the growing disease in our bodies. It was time to leave the Womb.