What do you think is meant by the tree of knowledge of

[seaglass]

good and evil and why God would not want Adam and Eve to eat from it? I understand the disobeying part, I just don't understand why that particular tree. I'm seriously wondering about this.

[Mind_your_head]

1. What do you think it means? n/t

[seaglass]

2. Seems God would want Adam and Eve to have the

brains of animals, not knowing good or evil. Doesn't make sense though.

[greyl]

31. Exacty. That interpretation doesn't make sense. nt

[seaglass]

47. Thank you for your enlightening contributions to this thread. n/t

[greyl]

129. No problem. What are your favorite parts of my post #16? nt

[0rganism]

107. Why wouldn't it make sense? Are you not an animal?

Perhaps the reason God denied the fruit of the tree of knowledge to humanity was that we couldn't possibly digest it.

[Marie26]

128. Ignorance is bliss.

Losing ignorance means losing bliss, but is the price for knowledge. That's what I get out of it, anyway.

[C_U_L8R]

3. It could explain the fundies...

for they certainly do refrain from
eating from the tree of knowledge.

:-)

[Mind_your_head]

7. Very true

(wish there was a "high-five" smiley)

:-)

[C_U_L8R]

8. High five

right back at ya

[JDPriestly]

4. Here is what I think.

Assuming the world is the "creation" of God, it is an expression of God or at least a part of an expression of God. We can say that it is maybe even a part of "God." Most everything that exists in the world, whether gases, rocks, plants or animals, do not, as far as we know, consciously perceive being separate from God or his creation. They simply are whatever they were created to be and at all times one with God in that sense. The story of Adam and Eve assumes that a single woman and then a single man suddenly became aware of the fact that they were separate from God, that they could think thoughts, that they could act according to their own thoughts, that they could conceptualize God as something separate from themselves and themselves as something separate from God. At the moment that they sensed that they were able to think and feel as individuals separate and distinct from God, that they had the ability to exercise their own "free" will, they became aware of good -- being close to God, living "God's will," and evil -- being separate from God or living according to their own will. Religion describes that kind of sense of being separate from God as sin, as evil. Therefore, when Adam and Eve realized that they could live according to their own will, not just God's, they became aware of the choice they had to make between good and evil, between sin and virtue, between being separate from God or close to God, living according to their own selfish wills or living according to the "Will of God." Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil when they realized that they were created with free wills. And we have been trying to find out what good and evil really are and what God is ever since.

What I don't understand is, assuming my understanding of that story and of what sin is and what free will is, why isn't abusing the environment the greatest sin? Isn't abusing the environment a symptom of begin completely separate from God and God's creation?

[TreasonousBastard]

12. That's close...

and the whole point of it is that if man is to worship God it must be of his own free will, and the myth of the garden is how man came to have his free will. It also sets the stage for the Judeo-Christian concepts of the duality of good and evil. After all, there's no point to good if there is no evil, and there's no point to God if there is no Devil.

The story is not to be read as how Satan seduced Eve into doing a bad thing, but it was something that was inevitable and necessary for everything else to work. Similar to how Judas might be seen as a tragic, not evil, figure, in that he was a necessary instrument for the prophecies to be fulfilled.

Literalists tie themselves into knots dealing with Biblical myths like this, but many, if not most, Christians and Jews who actually think about these things read their Bibles as a whole and look at how the myths and histories interact to make a point.

Yeah, some of us do think that abuse of God's creation is pretty high on the list of really, really, bad sins. Adam was not given the power to use the planet for his own purposes, but to preserve and nurture it. Augustine was making that point early on, but seems to have changed his mind a bit later. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, but methinks some of the greedier Church fathers made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Having given the planet to Adam without an instruction book, God is perhaps seen by many churches as letting him, and us, do with it what we wish.

Free will comes in there, too. While we may have charged by God to husband the land, not mine it, we have the ability to use it selfishly, and often do. Most churches seem to have left environmentalism out of their agendas, but a few consider it important. Quakers consider it one of the more important leadings, and some of the fundagelicals are getting on board with their Creation Care.

[JDPriestly]

15. Emphasis n on the evil

The emphasis on our culture sometimes seems to be on evil, but actually Adam and Eve had knowledge of both good and evil, which means they had knowledge of how it is for us when we are truly close to God -- as in a state of true prayer, true worship. For anyone who has experienced that sense of oneness with the world, with love of life, of "God," the knowledge of good is a wonderful thing. Especially here on DU, we tend to look at the downsides of religion and forget the gift that is given us in those moments in which we experience goodness, whether it is experienced in helping someone, taking care of our environment, or just prayer, or loving our friends and family.

If we see the purpose of human life as the training or learning of the soul and preparation for some kind of spiritual after-life (as I do), then we need to seek the knowledge of the good -- oneness with God as much as possible. I fault the religions for putting such an emphasis on sin, and I'm thankful that my Dad, a minister, emphasized, rather, the experience of good. The secret of a spiritual life in my view is to maximize the amount of time spent knowing good -- not because it is virtuous or pleases some authority, but because it is a wonderful experience for the soul -- which is the part of us that can transcend our physical lives. That is to me the real purpose of the spiritual or religious life.

I think that a lot of our resentment of the religious right is based on the fact that we feel they cheat us by focusing too much on the knowledge of evil. Other powerful religious institutions have done the same thing over time. If we are really trying to know good -- be close to God -- we don't have time to do horrible things to each other or the environment. The odd thing is, considering how rewarding it really is to spend our lives trying to know good, that we spend so much of it thinking about evil. That's where the real issue of original sin comes in to play in my view. Babies are born with a sense that everything around them is an extension of themselves. Gradually, they develop a sense of individuality and separation from everything. In a sense, that is when they become aware of evil. They cannot live unless they have a sense of individuality, but it is because of the sense of individuality -- of separateness and ego -- that they experience sin. So, I guess we have to be drawn to sin to some extent. Maybe we would not survive early childhood without being able to separate ourselves from our surroundings. You explain this well, but I still find it hard to really grasp. By the way, I am a Unitarian.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. Methinks "evil" carries a stronger message ...

than "good." It's always more satisfying to rail gainst "evil" than promote good. Just look at the political debate here on DU-- far more blasts on our "enemies" than threads about any good stuff going on.

Personally, I don't put much stock in the good&evil stuff. We do have a dual nature, and theologians and philosophers have been fooling around with explaining whether the dual nature is intrinsic within us, or extrinsic with something like Satan leading the "evil" charge and taking us down the path to perfidy. This has lead to things like Calvinism, and worse.

Quaker theology doesn't discount the dual nature, but considers it largely irrelevant to what's important. Whatever it is, we're stuck with it and we don't care much whether or not it's Satan or our own inner id that might cause us to do harm, but look for leadings coming from our relationship with God to guide us toward what we consider a proper life. Long before the "What would Jesus do?" crowd came along, that sort of thinking was leading our lives.

A lot of resentment of religion does come from the thundering sermons threatening us with hellfire if we don't do or think exactly what that particular preacher says to. My grandmother left the Catholic church after a sanctimonius priest told her, while giving my grandfather the last rites, exactly how many years he'd spend in Purgatory for skipping Mass. I've been having some email correspondance with someone whose husband is a minister and has a degree in theology herself, but is having one of the crises in faith coming from all the local churches, even her husband's, just not having the spiritual nature that she thinks is necessary.

Unitarians are cool, btw. The wife of the local Unitarian minister is an active attender at my Quaker meeting and our vigils.

[waiting for hope]

5. My take is that the story

exemplifies the difference if being in a state of ignorant bliss (childlike) versus being aware of all the strife and hardships that come along the path of life. I.E. - I had a cat for 14 years and a few months ago I lost him to cancer - I remember driving home from the vets with an empty cat carrier and thinking that it really sucks being an adult....;(

[murray hill farm]

9. Seems to me that years ago, i heard the story of Lillith

who had been the first wife of Adam, who had later been banished from the garden of eden for being, shall we say...tooooooo uppity, toooooooo strong willed, tooooooooooooo like a man for adams taste...so he asked god to make him a new wife...one more sedate and maybe even subserviant..so god did this..and made eve. Lillith returned to the garden...looking like a snake...and said to eve, "girl...u eat the apple from that tree of knowlege...have a will of your own" and so eve did...and the rest is history.

[waiting for hope]

11. I remember that one too

but I think it was in one of the Gnostic books - sometimes Jewish folklore has a way of filling in gaps created in the Hebrew Scriptures in order to satisfy questions and curiosity.

[unblock]

6. i was told it meant carnal knowledge

though i never understood that, as "be fruitful and multiply" appears earlier in genesis. perhaps it was meant to be some sort of sexual self-awareness.

[InaneAnanity]

10. The tree was diseased

God was trying to keep Adam and Eve from getting sick. Fungal infection of some sort.

[zbdent]

13. Two options

Option 1 - The more the people know, the more they figure out that (so to speak) God ain't really all that He said he is . . . and knowledge will be the downfall (remember, early church loves the uninformed; why do you think you had to pledge your life to the Church to learn to read?)

Option 2 (lifted from the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy books) - God was playing "Gotcha!"; it was a setup, meaning that "Man" was supposed to do this anyway; the "Don't think about X" syndrome. The more you know that you can't think about something, the more you think about it - or "Don't screw up your lines."; before that, you had your lines down pat - now you definitely blow the lines.

[Evoman]

14. Tree shmee

I think the first sin says more about God being an asshole than about Adam or Eve being bad. He tells them, don't eat this fruit, then dangles the apple or whatever right in front of them. Then he lets Satan come into the garden. What? No fucking wards against the prince of evil? Then, he casts out Adam and Eve knowing full well as soon as he created them they were going to fuck up. He designed it that way.

The knowledge of the tree was knowing that they didn't have to be slaves to the dick creator. And we are the better for them having eaten it.

Ha.

Evoman

[greyl]

16. Here's another interesting explanation:

This is a very short version of the theory as it appeared in Daniel Quinn's Ishmael:

... I learned to see things from the hunter-gather/aboriginal/Leaver point of view. I learned, for example, that the subjugation and slaughter of the aboriginal peoples of the New World bore an uncanny resemblance to the story of Cain and Abel. Cain the tiller of the soil "watered his fields with the blood" of Abel the herder (a metaphorical way of saying that he killed Abel in order to gain the territory he wanted to farm). This is of course exactly what we did on coming to the new world. All our fields were watered with the blood of hundreds of thousands (perhaps even millions) of hunting-gathering Abels.

The authors of the story of the Fall were Semites -- the ancestors of the Hebrews who claimed the story as their heritage. But the agricultural revolution didn't begin among the Semites, it began among their neighbors to the north, the Caucasians. So the Fall was not something that happened to THEM. I formed a theory -- like all theories, an explanation to be judged on the basis of how well it explains the facts it sets out to explain. My theory was this: Like Cain (and us), the Caucasians began to encroach on the territory of their neighbors -- the Semites being their neighbors to the south. They began to water their fields with the blood of the Semites.

The Semites (the theory continues) needed some sort of explanation for this behavior on the part of their neighbors to the north. Their neighbors were acting as if they were the gods of the world, as if they had the right to decide what and who shall live here and what and who shall not. They must believe, therefore, that they have the very knowledge the gods use to rule the world. And what is that knowledge? It's the knowledge of good and evil, because whatever the gods do, it's good for one but evil for another. It's impossible for it to be otherwise. Their neighbors were acting as if they ate at the gods' own tree of wisdom, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But embracing this knowledge carried its own penalty. Instead of living the easy and carefree life they formerly enjoyed, they were now living by the sweat of their brows as tillers of the field. Eating at the gods' tree of wisdom is assuredly going to carry a curse, and the authors of the story felt sure that this curse would be the death of man (Adam, in Hebrew).

http://www.ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/Detail.CFM?Record=619

There are 6 more paragraphs at the link as introduction.

In Ishmael, Quinn suggests that those who eventually took the story of The Fall to be their own(us) were not the authors of the story, and that's why it hardly makes sense to anyone in our culture.
He suggests that the authors of the story were not our cultural forefathers, but that they were writing about our cultural forefathers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x47857

[believerinchrist]

17. In order for there to be a tree

of the knowledge of good and evil, there had to be both good and evil present. Since Jesus stated that only God is good,let's presume that as a truth. That means that, in the garden of Eden, there also had to be the force of evil. Now, let's say, since God valued His "good" creation and understood the force of evil was going to come against them, He warned them of the danger to come--don't eat of this tree because it will kill you. Had He not spoken to them, He would have been derelict in His responsibilities.

One thing many people miss in this story is that Adam and Eve were victimized. Until evil came against them (the serpent is a symbol of evil), they had never heard a lie. They were innocent, and once they were conned, they did not know what to do. God sought them out, explained what they had lost, and clothed them (because of their feelings of guilt). The force of evil had gained an inroad into the human race, but God was there to help and to work out a plan to redeem His "creation" from that evil.

In John 8, Jesus stated that Satan (the force of evil) was a murderer from the beginning. You see, God is not against the human race, He is against evil. He knows that human beings are not the originators of evil, but the victims. He did not blame Adam and Eve; nor does He blame us. The reason Jesus Christ lived among us was to defeat the force of evil. While he was on this earth, he never "sinned"--let go of God--no matter how hard the force of evil came against him. He stood firm because He understood the power of the love of God. On that cross, Jesus defeated the force of evil--he let go of God and gave his life for us. One of my favorite Bible verses is this "For he (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (II Corinthians 5:21)

If this "interpretation" of what Christ did on the cross is true, there still is one huge question--Why is there still evil? The simple answer--God loves each individual and gives each individual freedom of choice. He is willing to wait on us. While the choices we make may hurt us and others, those choices do not change His love. I believe some day very soon the human race will understand the absolute power of God's love.

[funflower]

28. Welcome, believerinchrist. Here's my question....

Why exactly did Jesus have to "pay the price" for all of our sins? I don't ask my son to pay the price for my daughter's sins or vice versa; I just forgive them without asking for an animal or human sacrifice of any kind. Why can't God do that? After all, He is omnipotent and I'm not.

[believerinchrist]

29. God and humans are not the only ones involved.

I think this is one of the biggest misunderstandings in the world today. Many people believe that everything that happens on this earth can be laid at the feet of God--that is not so. The Bible tells us that God gives humans the choice of life or death (Deuteronomy 30:15-20). There are two forces working in the world: good and evil. Genesis 1 tells us that God's creation was good; the second chapter tells us about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now, before the serpent came to Eve, neither Adam and Eve had any knowledge or understanding of evil. So, when the serpent lied to Eve, she did not know what a lie was, and thus, she was able to be conned. The serpent (the force of evil) became the ruler of the human race, and physical death was the price he exacted from human beings. God pushed Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden, so He could work His plan to set the human race free from evil.

God set up a series of animal sacrifices to help humans navigate the evil in the world. By making these sacrifices, people were able to obtain God's help in dealing with evil. (Remember, humans had the choice in these matters--God could not and would not override their choices.) Even in this, the force of evil perverted these sacrifices by demanding human sacrifice. God spoke in no uncertain terms to Abraham when He provided a lamb to replace Issac as a sacrifice; He, the only true God, did not want human sacrifice.

Now, the purpose of the force of evil was to keep humans away from God, so when Christ came to this earth, the force of evil came against him. No matter how hard the force pushed, Christ did not let go of God (he did not sin). He was unique in the world for while his outer being (his physical body) was human, his inner man (his spirit) was from God. His righteousness (freedom from unbelief) enabled him to overcome evil.

Christ understood that a human being had to wrestle authority away from the force of evil and that he had the ability to do it because he was one with God. God made him the promise that if he laid down his life, God would return it to him and the whole human race would be "saved." In order to do that, Christ knew he was going to have to do the hardest thing any human has ever done--he would have to let go of God. This is a great paradox--in order to do God's will, Christ would have to become sin. He did it. While hanging on the cross, Christ gave his spirit back to God and then cried the words that have echoed through human history--"My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?" At the point of his death, the power of the force of evil was completely and irrevocably destroyed.

If this is true, why is the force of evil so powerful in our world? The human race still has the choice, and it takes time to clean up deception. God's focus is on individuals, not on nations or denominations or any other grouping--He is working diligently to answer questions and meet needs. In general, we, as humans, need to get our eyes off of other people and onto God.

One final observation--the word omnipotent is only used once in the King James Bible (my favorite) and that is in Revelation 19:6 when the force of evil is decimated by Christ (as he returns) and his followers. From that point, all humans will understand the love of God and will freely choose Him. Evil will be destroyed (not the human race nor the earth), and God (good) will be all powerful.

[funflower]

30. Very eloquent. A few more questions, though....

God set up a series of animal sacrifices to help humans navigate the evil in the world. By making these sacrifices, people were able to obtain God's help in dealing with evil.

Why would God choose animal sacrifices as a means for humans to "navigate the evil" and "obtain God's help in dealing with evil"? Seems odd and unnecessary to me. I think a more sensible view of animal (and human) sacrifice is that it originated with humans who were looking for a way to appease the supernatural powers they perceived to be causing them problems and that the whole idea did not start with God at all.

God made him the promise that if he laid down his life, God would return it to him and the whole human race would be "saved."

First, I like your universalist bent. Second, why would God make or need Jesus to lay down his life in order for God to "save" the human race? Presuming the "force of evil" (called "Satan" and other names in the Bible), was alive and well prior to Christ's first coming to Earth, that still doesn't explain to me why God would require Jesus to sacrifice his earthly existence in order for God to "save" the human race.

when the force of evil is decimated by Christ (as he returns) and his followers. From that point, all humans will understand the love of God and will freely choose Him. Evil will be destroyed (not the human race nor the earth), and God (good) will be all powerful.

I've always understood that the reason Satan (the force of evil) is allowed to roam free in the world today is to give humans a viable choice between good and evil. How is it that, following the return of Christ, after Evil has been destroyed, human beings will then "freely" choose to worship God. It seems to me that if good is the only choice, free will no longer exists.

[believerinchrist]

39. First, God did not require the sacrifice of animals

the force of evil did. (I'm going to use "the force of evil" rather than the name Satan because the devil has been so caricatured through the years that many people ridicule the concept of him. Most people understand the destruction evil brings.)

The whole purpose of the serpent's deceit was to kill off the human race. By initiating the sacrifice of animals as a substitute "death," God was able to give the human race a way of escape from extinction. And God did initiate the practice--Genesis 3:21 says, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them." The only way God could have clothed them in skins was to kill animals. (By the way, He covered Adam and Eve because of their feelings of guilt; to be blunt, God didn't have a problem with their nakedness, they did. And, their shame came only after they had been conned by the serpent.)

Second, because God gave the human race the choice between good and evil, He could not unilaterally destroy that choice. Therefore, He needed a human being to defeat the power of the force of evil--someone who understood exactly what the choice was and would choose God and good. Knowing that the humans born through the relationships of men and a women had a hard enough time just remembering that God was there (all the Mosiac Laws were given to keep the concept of God alive in that group of people), God "created" a human being with His seed--the spirit of righteousness. Jesus Christ never sinned--never let go of God--no matter how hard evil came against him. Because he loved God and loved the human race, he chose for himself to go to the cross; he knew that because he had never let go of God, the force of evil could not destroy him. He had already obtained the promise from God that if he would die, God would raise him from the dead, so he chose to die. Of course, the force of evil thought the plan of God to "save" the human race was destroyed with Christ's death. Little did he know that Christ's death brought new life (not yet fully manifested) to the human race.

Finally, the concepts of the human race choosing good and there still being freedom of choice are part of another paradox. Understanding the mystery of this "contradiction" demands an understanding of the love of God and its power. When God created the human race, He built within men and women the desire to be loved by Him. The force of evil has worked to keep humans from understanding the truth of the love of God. I believe when it is time for the return of Christ and the destruction of the kingdom of evil, every person's eyes will be open to see how much God loves each and every one of us. And, when that happens, everyone will leave all the deceptions we've been plaqued with behind and will run into His arms.

[funflower]

41. You know your stuff, believer. However, the core of the thing still

doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Second, because God gave the human race the choice between good and evil, He could not unilaterally destroy that choice. Therefore, He needed a human being to defeat the power of the force of evil--someone who understood exactly what the choice was and would choose God and good.

OK. I understand the concept that Adam and Eve had conceded some territory to "the force of evil."

Because he loved God and loved the human race, he chose for himself to go to the cross; he knew that because he had never let go of God, the force of evil could not destroy him. He had already obtained the promise from God that if he would die, God would raise him from the dead, so he chose to die.

What I don't get is why God "needed" a sinless human to voluntarily sacrifice his life, if temporarily, in order to win back that territory. Why did God need Jesus on a cross rather than the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West?

Unless I understand the theology of substitional atonement (which, I believe, really wasn't articulated clearly until St. Augustine came along) as merely a step forward from the primitive idea that animal or human sacrifice will appease the gods so they will (we hope) stop sending so many locusts or flooding your farm every year, it makes no sense to me.

on edit: corrected typo

[believerinchrist]

50. Okay, let's look at this from a different perspective.

Genesis 1:28 says God invested authority over the earth (and everything living in the earth)in Adam and Eve. The force of evil coveted that authority (Isaiah 14:12-17) and went after it. The serpent was subtle and knew exactly how to manipulate Eve into yeilding that authority to him by lying to her.

Because He had freely given the human race both authority and choice, God could not revoke the ability of the force of evil to bring death and destruction to the earth. Only a human could do that, so God began working His plan. To make a long story short, one day, He found a young woman whose heart was towards Him and who had the faith to conceive a son while still a virgin--He was able to put part of Himself into a human being. That part of God--the spirit of righteousness--was what enabled Jesus Christ to overcome evil while he walked on the earth.

Because Christ never let go of God, the force of evil had no authority to destroy him. Yet, because of his lack of sin, Christ knew that if he did die, death could not hold him. Thus, as a human being, he could wrestle the authority over the earth away from the force of evil by being the ultimate sacrifice, and then, he could provide the way for the whole human race to overcome evil by being resurrected. So, because of His love for God and of his love for the human race, Christ chose to die and God did raised him from the dead.

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ had nothing to do with appeasing God (although many Christians appear to believe that they did). The purpose of Christ was to destroy the force of evil (Hebrews 2:14), and make the way for the whole human race to be set free from death and destruction. Since Christ's resurrection, God has been diligently working within the hearts of human beings to lead them into understanding the power of His love. His love, not any religion, is what will win the world away from the force of evil.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. "The ultimate sacrifice" to what?

You say Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, but what was he sacrificed to? Not God, you say, because it "had nothing to do with appeasing God". Why did Jesus' death and resurrection end the authority of evil over the earth? If it was a question of not dying, wouldn't earlier instances, such as Lazarus, Elijah or Enoch, have done that?

[believerinchrist]

70. Okay, I want to give this some more thought.

Sacrifice, in the sense of sacrificing to something, may not be the best choice of word. I also want to find the words I need to explain why Christ's death and resurrection worked. So, I'll try to get back to you tomorrow. Have a good day until then.

[believerinchrist]

78. I think a better word than sacrifice would be transaction.

The power of the force of evil is death; in other words, death and destruction are its focus and goal. When that force came against Adam and Eve in the form of a serpent, its goal was to annihilate the human race. Evidently, what God accomplished by clothing the couple in skins postponed that physical death--it was many years before they died and the human race continued on. Even when evil had such a hold on the earth that the force of evil demanded the earth be flooded, Noah found grace because he sacrificed animals and sought after God. One inference I draw from these circumstances is that the sacrifice of animals legally met the requirement as a substitute for the destruction of humans. The biggest problem with animal sacrifice was that it had to be repeated.

When Christ died on the cross, he completed several legal transactions. In Revelation 12, Satan is referred to as the accuser of the human race (I consider everyone to be my "brother"). When Christ asked God to forgive those who were involved with his crucifixion (representing the whole human race), he broke the power of Satan's accusations and assured the ultimate reuniting of God and His beloved human population. Next, because Christ did not sin, he was not required to die--the force of evil had no hold on him. By giving up his life in place of the animal sacrifices, he was able to legally meet the demand of physical death for the human race once and for all. He did not die to satisfy God's lust for revenge--he died to meet the demand evil had brought upon the human race. Once that demand was fully met, God raised His Son from the dead--righteousness prevailed over evil and death. Jesus Christ accomplished every thing that was necessary to break the force of evil over the human race, and he did it in such a airtight legal manner that the goal of evil to annihilate the human race was destroyed.

The problem with Lazarus, Elijah, and Enoch is that their freedom from death was not transferrable to anyone else. Although these men walked so closely with God that they were able to escape physical death, they were not able to be the substitute for anyone else. God wanted the whole human race to be set free from the power of evil, so Jesus stepped up and did what was necessary to accomplish that purpose.

[trotsky]

90. What is this about "legally" and "legal transactions"?

Where did this law or legal system come from? You speak as if it's totally outside your god's control. He's bound by the legal system as much as we are. So evidently, somebody is the boss of god. Somebody else makes the rules for god. Why don't we worship the boss, then?

[believerinchrist]

93. God made the decisions and the rules,

and of course, He follows them. When He decided to give the human race free will, He limited Himself. We might ask if He wasn't afraid that His plan wouldn't work. The answer is no, He wasn't, and the reason is because He knew His love would draw humans to Him. Of course, evil has tried to blind the human race to the love of God, but God is patient. He is steadily working within the hearts and minds of humans to help them understand the love He has for them. This is not about religion or human power or control--it is about love that is freely given to everyone.

[trotsky]

94. But his love DOESN'T draw humans to him.

The idea of god, from a historical perspective, appears to have set more people against each other in their opinion of god rather than bring them together to love god. You blame this on this outside force - evil - that apparently god has no control over. Not understanding this at all.

[believerinchrist]

96. How do you know God's love isn't drawing humans to Him?

There have been and are many people in this world who aren't using God to clobber each other, but are living their lives loving God and their neighbors. I don't know how anyone can look at the world and not recognize that there is good and evil. Both of these had to come from somewhere. That's one thing science can't explain--where did they come from?

Just to briefly summarize my understanding: God decided to create and wanted to give the human race freedom of choice; He created an alternative to Himself in order to make the choice viable; once He created the human race, that alternative conned the humans (God couldn't stop it because then He would have robbed the couple of their freedom); God worked out His plan through the years through the Hebrew nation and the death and resurrection of Christ. Today, He is working to help humans understand that His love is greater than evil and that, through Christ, we have the power to overcome evil with good.

Good is compassion, mercy, and grace. Evil is judgment, hatred, and revenge.

[trotsky]

98. Sure there are people who aren't killing each other over god.

And many of them are atheists, agnostics, and believers in other religions.

Some believers find peace and love in their quest for understanding god. Plenty more don't. They find such an intense desire to rid the world of "evil" (just as you describe it) that they view people with different opinions of god as modern-day serpents, looking to further corrupt humans and take them away from god. How can you disagree with such people? You've just validated their entire line of reasoning by indicating that you accept it. Heck, you not only accept it, you embrace it as your theology too!

Please open your mind and study some of the more liberal theologians. The ones who don't necessarily view Genesis as a factual account. The view that you have of the bible is the most dangerous one to hold.

[believerinchrist]

101. I'm sorry if you are offended at what I understand--

I do not study what theologians say--my understanding has come as I have spent time in prayer and studying the Bible by myself for over 35 years. My greatest desire is to please God by loving Him with everything I have and giving grace, mercy, and compassion to everyone with whom I come in contact.

I view human beings, no matter who they are, as being loved by God. The way I "do away with evil" is to love people and to be kind to them. When did I ever say that humans are evil? To the contrary, they have been victimized by the deceit of evil, but God's love is greater!

No one really knows if the Genesis account is true; but I have found understanding there that makes sense to me. And, like Hamlet said, "To thine own self be true."

[trotsky]

102. It's not about being offended.

It's about being scared. Your mindset - hanging everything on what you think an old book says - is what has directly led to the worst religious abuses: witch hunts, inquisitions, suicide bombers, flying planes into buildings. I notice you did not address how to deal with people who think that by killing non-believers, they're just fighting back against modern-day serpents.

Again I strongly urge you to seek out what other theologians have said. Please. After all, it's always possible that the serpent has deceived you, right?

[believerinchrist]

105. I am the least scary person I know.

And I don't blindly hang everything I believe on the Bible--anyone can take words from the Bible and find justification for anything, including the most wicked things imaginable. As I have searched the Bible (I began at age 18), I have wanted to know and understand "truth" in order to overcome evil in my life. I take seriously Isaiah 1:18 and have set my heart to reason with God. What I have found has led to a greater appreciation of Christ, a greater love for God and my fellow humans, and desire to see evil destroyed--AND EVIL IS NOT HUMAN!!! (Yes, people do evil things, but the force behind evil is not human.) I don't see how anyone who understands the Bible can look at Christ on that cross and hear his words, "Father, forgive for they know not what they do" and continue to think that God is going to condemn any human being.

Quite frankly, unless God opens a door for me, there is no way I can reach the people who think they're doing God a favor by killing anybody--that is so against what I see in the Bible. I know the Old Testament is full of people saying God told them to kill and destroy. I have some understanding of why that is so, but I find it hard to put in words other than God is taking the human race from where it has been and is and is leading it to where He wants it to be. When Christ came, with the exception of clearing out the moneylenders (and there is no record of anyone being hurt), he stood against violence. Since I am just a small voice, the most I've been able to do is to pray and ask God to open human eyes to see the truth that will set each individual free from the things that are bringing pain and suffering to his/her life.

Quite frankly, I don't have time to seek out other theologians--my life is full with teaching high school English, taking professional coursework, fulfilling family obligations, and posting. Besides, I'm just stubborn enough that I want God to give me understanding. And, I judge my thoughts and beliefs using criteria like these: does it make me love God, does it make me love my neighbor, and does it make me humble (so I don't think too highly of my "knowledge").

Yes, I suppose it is possible the serpent has deceived me, but, you know, I feel I have grown in my ability to love people. Is that evil?

[NMMNG]

44. Um

God set up a series of animal sacrifices to help humans navigate the evil in the world. By making these sacrifices, people were able to obtain God's help in dealing with evil. (Remember, humans had the choice in these matters--God could not and would not override their choices.) Even in this, the force of evil perverted these sacrifices by demanding human sacrifice. God spoke in no uncertain terms to Abraham when He provided a lamb to replace Issac as a sacrifice; He, the only true God, did not want human sacrifice.


God was the one who asked Abraham to sacrifice Issac in the first place. It was not some other being or "force of evil" that did so. True he changed his mind when Abraham had Issac tied down and had the knife poised over him, but it was God who originally told Abraham to make the human sacrifice (and to prove his loyalty no less).

[believerinchrist]

51. I know many people believe what you have written,

but over the years, I have developed a different understanding.

One of the most hideous acts the Hebrews did off and on in the years that followed the reign of King David was to sacrifice their children in the high places. God knew this was going to happen, and He wanted the Hebrew nation to understand He did not require human sacrifice.

In today's world, human sacrifice is pretty much unheard of, but in Abraham's day, it was common among idol worshippers. So, when God told Abraham to go and sacrifice Issac, Abraham did not consider it unreasonable. Hebrews 11:17-19 tells us that Abraham had the promise of God that his seed would be called in Issac and that Abraham believed if he sacrificed Issac, God would raise him from the dead. By asking Abraham to bind and sacrifice Issac and then providing a lamb for the sacrifice, God made a loud and clear statement--unlike other gods, he did not require human blood to be spilled by the hands of His followers.

[NMMNG]

59. The Bible does say

That Abraham believed that even if he sacrificed Isaac that God would resurrect him. However there is nothing stating that God only demanded animal sacrifice or even the sacrifice of Isaac because the Idolaters engaged in such practices. It clearly says in Genesis 22:12, where the angel of God is speaking to Abraham:

12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."


God demanded the sacrifice of Isaac as a test of Abraham's loyalty, plain and simple.


This is further reinforced in Genesis 22:15-18

15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."



And God did demand animal sacrifice of His followers. See Leviticus 22, which describes in detail what sacrifices are acceptable and how they should be prepared. Leviticus 17:11, Exodus 29:38-46, Hebrews 9:22 and Hebrews 10:1-4 all further illustrate why God required His people perform animal sacrifices for Him.

[believerinchrist]

66. One of the biggest issues God had with the Hebrews

was their propensity to sacrifice their children to idols. All they had to do was to look at Abraham's experience to know that God did not demand human sacrifice. Of course, this situation "proved" Abraham's loyalty, but God had already made similar promises to him before this instance. While God put animal sacrifices temporarily in place to hold evil at bay, He refuted the sacrifice of the beings He created in His own image.

[BiggJawn]

45. What about Jepthah?

Gawd was pretty quiet when Ol' Jep came back from whupping up on his neighbours and promised Gawd that for a victory salute he'd sacrifice the first person out of his door when he returned home.

Oops! lookie, it's Jepthah's DAUGHTER! That sucks!

And, as we recall from the Inerrant Word of GAWD, Ol' Whiskers didn't supply a substitute in THIS instance.

Maybe because it was only a GIRL, and not a SON?

[believerinchrist]

52. The main difference between this Abraham and Jephthah

is that God asked Abraham to sacrifice Issac and provided a lamb to replace Issac while Jephthah rashly volunteered to kill someone if God gave him success. It was very foolish of Jephthah to make that vow and to follow through with it. Later on, as more of the knowledge of God became available to people, humans began to realize God did not require human sacrifice (this instance was very early in the history of the Hebrew nation). Later on, God spoke clearly to the Hebrew nation that human sacrifice was wrong.

Remember, people in those days believed the sun and stars revolved around the earth and spoke that. Likewise, in the Bible, there are many things said about God that were misunderstandings that are corrected in later writings.

[A HERETIC I AM]

58. The idea that everyone thought the stars revolved around the earth....

is not borne out by the facts. The understanding that the earth revolved around the sun dates back several millenia before biblical times.

[believerinchrist]

67. Really? Was it a common belief ?

Can you give me more information?

My point is that, as our understanding of our world has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years, so should our knowledge of God and His purposes be growing.

[BiggJawn]

61. So Gawd couldn't intervene in the case of Jepthah's daughter?

Either He COULD not, thus He's not omnipotent, or he WOULD not, in which case I call Him a blood-thirsty jerk-off.

Yes, and until 1992, the Vatican still considered Galileo a heretic for expound on Copernicus' Heliocentric theory.

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, during the trial of Galileo

You seem to be well-versed in the Bible. Have you ever questioned anything you've read?

[believerinchrist]

68. I question everything--I don't take anything for granted.

I also do not claim to have truth--these are just my understandings.

Again, the word omnipotent is only used once in the King James Bible in Revelation 19 as evil is destroyed and God becomes all in all. Until that point, God has limited Himself to give humans freedom of choice.

Remember, this instance with Jepthah was very early in Hebrew history. The writer(s) of these stories could not go beyond what they believed at that point. They had no understanding of the grace, compassion, and mercy of God; they also lived in a time where human sacrifice was socially accepted (evil really had a hold on them). They also believed, at that time, that they had to bargain with God.

[BiggJawn]

73. And we don't now?

"They also believed, at that time, that they had to bargain with God. "

Still do. Or have you never heard anyone ask for prayer for somebody who's sick and not quite ready to "Meet God" yet?

"The writer(s) of these stories could not go beyond what they believed at that point. "

So what you're saying here is that the "Bible" is NOT the "In-errant Inspired Word of God"? Really? Boy, that sure goes against what the Rev. Greg Dixon of Indianapolis, IN used to preach when he'd puff up and glare at the TV camera and declare 'It's either the King James Version, or it's PERVERSION!".

This "grace, compassion and mercy" business... "Belive in Me, based on nothing more than an acient arcane book full of contradictions and vague allegories, or when you die, I will send you to torture and torment for Ever and Eternity." doesn't sound very compassionate or merciful to me. Sounds like an abusive parent or spouse.

[believerinchrist]

79. When I hear anyone say that every word of the Bible is true,

I realize he/she does not understand the book. No, I do not believe the Bible is the inerrant inspired word of God. It is an anthology of narratives about different men and women and their relationships with God. Unlike any other book in the world (that I know about), it is written by many different writers over several thousand years. This book shows a progressive understanding of God, and within its pages is everything we, as human beings, need to know in order to love God, love our neighbors, and overcome evil.

Have you ever read Genesis 1 and 2? They seem to contradict each other; this really bothered me and I asked God about it. One day, as I was reading them, I realized that there were two point of views contained in those chapters. The first chapter explained the creation from God's standpoint and the second, from the human standpoint. These two viewpoints continue all through the Bible, and oftentimes, the human viewpoint does not express truth. One good example of that is found in the book of Job. Chapters 3-31 relate the conversation between Job and his three comforters. By the end of the narrative, Job stated his words were without knowledge (they weren't truth), and God said what the other three said was not right. Everytime I hear someone quote from those chapters as being the truth, I shudder. And, I have never really cared about what other people say; I want to know what God meant and I want to know it from Him.

Now, about bargaining with God--I've even done it. One of the hardest things for us humans to understand is that God's love is freely given to us. I think we live so much in this world where we have to negotiate things to survive, we carry that aspect over to God. Many times in the Bible, people made deals with God--sometimes they worked out and sometimes they didn't. I'm pressing into refraining from bargaining and working on seeking Giod and His wisdom instead. Sometimes things take time because God has to deal with my misunderstandings first.

Understanding context is so important in understanding the Bible. For example, when the New Testament was written, the authors had no concept of what our world is like now. Part of rightly dividing the scriptures is understanding what things should be applied only to the society the authors lived in and what concepts should be transposed to our lives today. The early writers of the Old Testament lived in a world where human sacrifices were common and where there was very little scientific knowledge (compared to today)--in many ways, their understanding of God reflected the times they lived in.

Again, the Bible does not support the notion of an eternal hell. In Revelation 21, at the Great White Judgement--where many Christians think unbelievers are going to be cast into eternal hell--God ends up wiping all the tears away from the eyes of people. At that point, every single destructive work of the force of evil will be exposed and every person will understand the love of God. I lay odds that when individuals comprehend the fullness of God's compassion, mercy, and grace towards each one of them, they will freely choose Him.

I know what I understand is quite different from what is preached in many churches. The Bible is full of paradoxes and of concepts that span the whole book. I have spent much time seeking God for knowledge, understanding, and wisdom, and what I have gained has strengthened my love for Him and for the human race.

[BiggJawn]

86. Thank you...

..for your in-depth explanation.
"Mainstream" religion must be almost as painful for you to witness in action as it is for me.

[believerinchrist]

89. God's love will prevail!

The way I handle all the evil things happening in the world is to remember that each person involved is an individual and that God loves each and every one of us.

[trotsky]

46. See, here is the thing which really makes no sense.

...before the serpent came to Eve, neither Adam and Eve had any knowledge or understanding of evil. So, when the serpent lied to Eve, she did not know what a lie was, and thus, she was able to be conned.

SO WHY IS IT HER (and Adam's) FAULT?!?! Why was she blamed when she had no capacity for discerning the evil of the serpent's intentions? :wtf:

[believerinchrist]

53. You are absolutely right--it was not Eve's fault.

Many believe that when God spoke to Adam and Eve, He was punishing them. He wasn't--He was just stating the effects of the crime that was committed against them. The force of evil won the round, but the match was by no means over. Christ spoke the words that the force of evil was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44); Christ came specifically to destroy the power of evil. His death destroyed it for the whole world, period (I John 2:2).

[trotsky]

57. So it's not Eve's fault, but she was punished anyway.

She was in no place to understand what it meant to do wrong (evil), but she gets punished for it regardless.

Sorry, but I don't see how you explained anything.

[believerinchrist]

69. God did not punish Eve;

evil ensnared her and brought loss to the human race. God has been working within the parameters of freedom of choice to bring knowledge and understanding to humans to enable them to be set free from evil. God warned Adam that eating the fruit of that tree would bring death. He could do nothing more because anything more would have robbed the couple of their freedom.

The understandings I have are quite different from the normal Christian thought, but they are logical and make sense to me.

[trotsky]

72. You make it sound like there are forces beyond your god's control.

"God did not punish Eve" - Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." So that's not a punishment, eh?

"Evil ensnared her" - did the serpent place itself in the garden, unbeknownst to God? Where did he come from, then?

"God has been working within the parameters of freedom of choice" - so God has to follow rules? Who made those rules? God's dad? The President of Gods?

"God warned Adam that eating the fruit of that tree would bring death." - Yes, he supposedly did. But you're missing the point - Adam (and Eve) didn't know what death was. They didn't know what suffering was. They didn't know how to tell right from wrong (good and evil). It would be as if I told you that if you drive your car, you will be blarked.

Sorry, the theology still doesn't make any sense to me.

[believerinchrist]

82. I need to take some time to answer your challenges,

and I won't be able to post tomorrow because I have parent-teacher conferences. I'll try to talk on Friday--until then, have good days!

[believerinchrist]

87. Rather than call my thoughts theology. I label them understanding.

God gave the human race freedom of choice, and in order to do so, He had to have an alternative to Himself; the created serpent (Lucifer, who decided to try to rule over his peers and fell into darkness--Isaiah 14:13-14) represented that alternative. Yes, Adam and Eve did not understand a lie or death, but they had a relationship with God and there was nothing stopping them from asking God about the serpent. God could not stop the serpent from tempting the couple--free will demands a choice. God made the rules before He began creating--He decided to give human beings freedom of choice: thus, He limited Himself. This is so hard for people to understand. The one thing that God did not limit is His love and that love is and will prove to be greater than evil.

The most important words in Genesis 3:16 are "...you will give birth to children..."; although the force of evil had succeeded in deceiving the couple and bringing death into the world, evil could not stop human life. Of course, evil brought pain with it--in the matter of childbirth, the pain is temporary and greatly rewarded (I know--I've given birth seven times). And, if one considers being ruled over by a husband to be punishment, it is temporary because when everything is resolved, there will not be a distinction between male and female in the kingdom of God (Galatians 3:28).

[trotsky]

92. Still not seeing your reasoning.

there was nothing stopping them from asking God about the serpent

Well, true, but since they didn't know right from wrong, they wouldn't have felt a need to ask god about the serpent. Talking with the serpent was no different than the rest of their day, I would suppose. And besides, god is all-knowing and all-seeing, isn't he? Surely he saw this conversation going on, and chose not to intervene? How do we know it would have been different if they had asked god about the serpent - would he THEN have intervened?

Not buying your spin on the punishment of women. The focus is not on the continuation of the human race, the focus is on the purported words of god - "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing". The force of evil may have brought death, but god himself CAUSED women to feel great pain in childbirth. It's like it wasn't bad enough for evil to have brought death, god has to rub salt in the wounds. Sheesh, what kind of monster would do that?

Consider for a moment that the account of Adam & Eve is allegorical. It's fiction. You don't have to parse and spin and rationalize the crazy story, because it's just that - a STORY.

But I suppose you can't do that. Your faith rests on there having been a literal creation, an actual Adam, an actual Eve, and an actual talking snake that screwed it all up for us. Yikes.

[believerinchrist]

95. You're looking at the creation story with 21st century eyes.

The writer(s) of Genesis were looking at it with primitive eyes, and it appears they did not have any understanding of the force of evil. For example, they made no connection of the serpent with Satan. They had just eaten of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil--they had not yet experienced the ramifications of evil in their lives (look how strong evil has gotten in the last 75 years--nuclesr bombs, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction). If God had explained the ins and outs of how evil was going to attack them and us, they would not have understood. God spoke to them in terms that they could comprehend; much like when I tell my two-year old that if he runs out into the street, he will be strongly disciplined. If he disregards my admonition and runs out into the street, am I a monster if I discipline him? He's innocent and doesn't understand what a car can do to him. My discpline may well save him from great harm.

By the way, discipline is different from punishment in that disclipline teaches and punishment destroys. Both hurt.

I don't believe this story is crazy, and that is because I've spent over 35 years studying the Bible and asking God for understanding. I've seen the impact this understanding has had on my life--it's made me love God more and love people more. It's made me look with new eyes at the dynamics in the world and given me hope that God's love is truly greater than the evil in this world.

[trotsky]

97. Discipline isn't supposed to be permanent.

Discipline that's permanent (pain from childbirth, suffering, misery, death) is cruel and unusual.

The limited, flawed, "evil" human beings who wrote our totally secular Constitution understood that.

I fear any society based on the bible as you interpret it. Hopefully that will never, ever happen.

[believerinchrist]

100. Yes, a child grows up and discipline is not longer needed.

I was talking about the beginning of the history of God and the human race, not the ending. There is immense pain and suffering in the world, and I can't explain everything; but what I understand is that the love of God will eventually deliver the human race from that pain and suffering. He cannot just make everyone choose good, but He can labor to help humans understand the depth of His love.

I don't want a society based on my understanding--that's ludricrous. I want the human race to experience God's love, period. Everything else will work out.

By the way, pain from childbirth is not permanent--it is temporary. Now, suffering, misery, and death may appear to be pretty permanent. Listen to another one of my favorite Bible verses, "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have LIFE, and that they might have it more abundantly." (more abundantly than the loss, death, and destruction the thief--evil--brings) John 10:10 I sincerely hope what Christ stated is true, and that human race will find good, life, and light in God through Jesus.

[trotsky]

103. A ridiculous analogy.

How many billions of humans have grown up and died, yet they suffered god's "discipline" all their lives?

Oh I know, you think it's a matter of the entire human race growing up, right? Well in that case, what happened to the idea that god loves each and every one of us individually? Why should those of us who have the misfortune of being born into this rule system set up against us, have to suffer so much? I didn't agree to play by these rules - I was simply dropped here. How fair is that?

From the amount of pointless suffering and pain I see in the world, your god's "labor" to help us understand the "depth of his love" looks like he's been on a cigarette break for the past 2 million years.

Pain from childbirth is indeed a permanent condition - on the human race. See, you're switching back and forth between individuals and humanity as it suits you. God inflicted the punishment of birthing pains on every woman - because of the misdeeds of the supposed first woman. To extend your child running into the street analogy, it would be like beating your child for having done that, then beating him again every time he gets near the street, and also beating your grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so on, every single time. This is "discipline"?!? This is "love"???

Look, I have read the bible. Thoroughly. For every nice-sounding verse, there is an account of murder, incest, genocide, or just the worst of human behavior - all either commanded or accepted by your supposedly loving god.

[believerinchrist]

104. To each his/her own.

While your experience with the Bible has been negative, mine has been positive. I find the words that Jesus spoke, in particular, to be powerful in my life. To love my neighbor as myself and to treat them as I want to be treated, to ask God and receive help to meet the challenges I face, and to receive encouragement to press into good are just the few of the benefits I've received.

I can't undo all the inequities that misuse of the Bible has produced in this world, nor am I responsible for them. And, maybe I'm not explaining my understandings clearly--it's difficult to summarize what I "learned" over the years. From my heart, I believe that God's love (and I mean love) will prevail and the human race will understand it. All the devices the force of evil has put into place to confuse and push humans away from God will be revealed and destroyed. As I see it, what other hope does our world have? Look at our world--one wrong move and our world could be blown apart.

[Goblinmonger]

48. Another question that is begging to be asked

Who created Satan/evil? If it is God, why can't he just destroy it? Or, given you "free choice" between good and evil bent, why didn't he do SOMETHING to protect Adam and Eve, who you freely admit were less than prepared to deal with Ol' Pitch Fork, from the evil ways of his creation? That's kind of like sending in a 3-year-old into a debate round for their life against John Stewart.

[believerinchrist]

54. It's getting late, I have to go to bed.

I will try to discuss your question tomorrow. Until then, have a good day tomorrow.

[believerinchrist]

63. Get ready to be blown away!

Isaiah 45:7 is explicit: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." When I first came across this verse a number of years ago, I asked God (in prayer) how a good God could create evil--I really wanted to know. As I searched the Bible and thought about it, I began to develop an understanding which is logical and may well be factual. In Deuteronomy 30:15-20, God gave humans a choice between life/blessings and death/cursings. If God created everything, then before He started the process, He had to be the only one to exist. If He was all there was, there would be no choice and His created beings would have no will of their own. So, God had a challenge on His hands--how could He give choice--and the solution was "simple." All God would have to do is remove Himself from a "place," so there would be a place where God was and a place where He was not. In other words, there would be good and there would be evil. And, where there was good, there was light and life; where there was evil, there was darkness and death. Before God created anything, the place of evil was unoccupied.

Now, the Bible contains many references about angels and demons, but the only creation it discusses is the physical creation of our earth and the universe. It is feasible that the world of angelic spirits had been created previously. Both Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 contain literary pictures of the fall of Lucifer. From this description, we can surmise that Lucifer was a beautiful creation and that he was perfect. This angelic being fellowshiped with God and knew truth; he also had a free will. From within himself, he began looking at his own beauty and desiring to rule over his peers and to be like God.

Deuteronomy 30:20 contains the admonishment to "cleave unto him (God): for he is thy life." Lucifer had drawn his life from cleaving to God--but, in order to move and "sit" next to God, he would have to let go of Him. When he let go of God, Lucifer "descended" into the place where God was not. He managed to convince one third of the angels to follow him and they all ended up in the place of evil. The place where God was not became occupied by Satan and his cohorts.

Genesis 1:2 says "And the earth was without form, and void; and DARKNESS WAS UPON THE FACE OF THE DEEP..." Remember there were only two places--where God was and where God was not. It appears God went to where evil was in order to create our world. The first thing He did was to bring light into the darkness and good into the evil. He knew going into His creation process that Satan would try to destroy his "good" creation, but He had a plan in place.

God did all He could to protect Adam and Eve--He warned them about the temptation that was Satan was going to bring against them. He could not remain true to free will if He in any way tried to force them not to eat that fruit. While Adam and Eve could have said no--there was nothing stopping them from refusing--God has never "blamed" them for the con job Satan pulled. Just like in today's world, if someone is conned out of his/her life savings, we don't throw the victim in jail (God did not punish Adam and Eve). However, once those life savings are stolen, the victim has to endure the consequences--his/her life may forever be changed. The death and destruction that came upon the human race is the direct result of Satan's successful ploy against Adam and Eve.

[greyl]

34. Put yourself in the sandles of the authors of the story of The Fall. nt

[believerinchrist]

38. The authors of the story of The Fall

did understand that one day a human being would defeat the power of evil. In Genesis 3:15, when God spoke the result of the serpent's deception, He said "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed (the virgin birth); it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Throughout the Old Testmanet, there are promises galore about the Messiah. While the various authorsof the Old Testament may not have known the name of Jesus Christ, they did understand that one day God would send a man who would set them free. Christ came and not only made the way for the Hebrew nation to be set free from evil, but also the rest of the human race.

[funflower]

42. What makes you think that "thy seed and her seed" bit is about the virgin

birth? So snakes and humans don't get along well. Where do we get the virgin birth out of that?

[believerinchrist]

55. I'll try to talk with you tomorrow, I've got to go to bed soon.

Have a great day tomorrow!

[believerinchrist]

64. The Bible talks a lot about the "seed."

I use what is written throughout the scriptures to try to understand what happened in the beginning. Usually, when talking about future generations, the seed refers to a man's offspring. The fact that God spoke of Eve's seed tends to suggest that there will be someone unusual involved in bruising the serpent's head. Also, throughout the Bible, serpents symbolize the kingdom of evil.

[funflower]

71. I ran a search for "seed on BibleGateway.com, and, it was used almost

always to refer either to an actual seed from which you can grow a plant or to one's descendants, as in "Abraham's seed," or "Israel's seed" in reference to the Jews. I don't understand why "Eve's seed" would refer to Jesus; it seems to me that it refers to all of humanity.

I must say that you know your Bible better than 99% of people I come across, and you have also thought about it more deeply than most. However, much of your reasoning seems to be based on the desire to reach the foregone conclusion that orthodox Christian theology is essentially correct, at least wrt to the essentials of creation, the fall, salvation, the future, etc.. You seem to want to, in Milton's words, "justify the ways of God to Man" rather than to want to find the truth wherever it might be. Perhaps this is your conscious desire; perhaps it is unconscious.

Nice "talking" with you, believerinchrist! Welcome to DU!:toast:







on edit: fixed typos

[believerinchrist]

81. It could be both--after all, Jesus Christ was human,

and I believe we are going to join him in overcoming evil and bruising the head of the serpent. Oh, and I do want to find truth! A long time ago, I realized that what I understood in the Bible was only as good as what I lived. Jesus spoke the words--"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." I want that to be proved in my life. Also, if there is any chance at all that Christ could come back in my lifetime and that I could escape death, am I ever willing to learn all that is necessary for that to happen. And, if it doesn't, well, I have enjoyed my times with God and I believe I have been a "better" person for the time I have spent.

I admit I do want to justify the ways of God to Man--I think God is misunderstood and gets a bum rap. We humans relish our freedom of choice, but when those choices produce bad things in our lives, we tend to blame God. And, when evil seeminly prevails, we turn to God and blame Him. Jesus told his followers to overcome evil with good. How much time do we spend seekig God for knowledge, understanding, and wisdom? Would our world undergo a great change, if we quit looking at people and their rules and judgments and if we investigated God with open hearts? I don't know!

By the way, I won't be able to talk tomorrow because I have parent-teacher conferences. I enjoy talking to you, too.

[funflower]

85. "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Wise words.

Definitely one of my favorite bits in the Bible.

We humans relish our freedom of choice, but when those choices produce bad things in our lives, we tend to blame God. And, when evil seemingly prevails, we turn to God and blame Him.

This is certainly true. Humans spend a lot of time trying to sort out which immortal being (God or Satan) is responsible for what. Atheists, as well as theists who don't believe that God intervenes in human affairs, don't have that problem. They have no choice but to look to themselves or to objective circumstances as explanations for things that happen.

Would our world undergo a great change, if we quit looking at people and their rules and judgments and if we investigated God with open hearts?

I agree this would be a good thing; however, I would add that things would change if people investigated God with open minds as well as open hearts.

[believerinchrist]

91. The one thing I see about athesists is

they don't have anyone to turn to when they face circumstances beyond their control. One scripture that I really love is Romans 8:28 where it says that God makes all things work together for good. Time after time, as I'm patient, I see God helping me to overcome bad things.

I absolutely agree with your statement about open minds. As I have been investigating the Bible and God, I've asked Him many times to show me where I was getting things wrong. I'm more than willing to be wrong in order to find truth.

[salvorhardin]

49. Where does evil come from if god is all powerful?

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
— Epicurus (341–270 B.C.)

[believerinchrist]

56. I think I might have an answer to Epicurus,

but it will have to wait until tomorrow. I've got to go to bed--I have a full day of teaching tomorrow!

Just be sure to have a great day tomorrow!

[believerinchrist]

65. In order to give freedom of choice, God had to do two things.

He had to create an alternative to Himself--evil--amd He had to limit His actions so as to not control the choices that were made. The word omnipotent is only used once in the King James Version of the Bible, and that is in Revelation 19:6. At that point, Satan and his cohorts are rounded up and dealt with at the return of Christ; no longer will they be able to bring evil, destruction, and death to the human race. God in His grace, mercy, and compassion will reach out to everyone with truth, freedom, and justice.

Epicurus spoke the cry of the human heart before it receives an understanding of the power of the love of God expressed through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without that understanding, the evil in the world seems louder than the ability of God.

[salvorhardin]

74. So god is punishing humans then

Gives them free will and then punishes them for not choosing the way he wants. Seems like a spoiled brat of a child to me.

And after satan is dealt with, do all those people who chose to thwart god's will before that point get out of hell? No? They continue to burn forever? Why? Just because they happened to exist before god deigned to get rid of evil and happened to choose to do or believe something that pissed off the old hypocrite?

Sorry, but that god just not sound like a loving, merciful and compassionate entity to me.

[believerinchrist]

77. It's too bad I can't share what I have discovered all at one time.

As I have searched through the Bible for over 35 years, I have come to the conclusion that no human being will spend eternity in hell--the Bible just does not support that thought. What Christ did, he did for the whole human race. When he was on the cross, he asked God to forgive those involved because they didn't know what they were doing. I believe that forgiveness extends to everyone because who of us fully understands the consequences of our words and actions.

I want to be very clear with this--GOD DOES NOT PUNISH PEOPLE! Yes, the writers of the Old Testament talked a lot about God bringing bad things to pass; however, their understanding was much like that of small children. If I tell my three year old not to go out into the street, I would not give him/her a lecture on the power of a car or truck. I would tell the child not to run out into the street or I would strongly discipline him or her. So it was with God--the people of the Bible for the most part did not have the context to understand the complexities of God. Look at the world these people lived in--they had a thimbleful of knowledge compared to our knowledge today. If we can look at the Bible as bringing a progressive knowledge of God to the world, and know that that knowledge was not completed with Revelation, we will gain new understandings that will set us free from evil.

Do not confuse God with what religion teaches. Christ didn't come for groups, he came for individuals. Over and over in the New Testament, believers in Christ are admonished not to judge anyone but themselves. As I have worked through my own weaknesses and have experienced the grace and mercy of God, I have great hope His love will win the human race. His focus is not on making people conform to some pre-set ideal, but to help people when they are surrounded by destructive circumstances. Listen, if my child should disobey my command, run out in the street, and get hit by a car, I am not going to get a gun and kill it. I would do everything in my power to make sure that child would recover, and would hope my efforts would succeed (they might not). Either way, I did everything in my power to keep that child safe. So, it is with God.

[salvorhardin]

80. Well, I'm glad that you have such a liberal interpretation of your faith

And I've never had a problem with people such as yourself who choose to interpret and practice their religion in this way. Unfortunately, many Christians do not take this view. There's at least 4,000,000 of them in the U.S. and all indications are that number is growing larger every day.

[believerinchrist]

83. Oh, but I believe their hearts are going to change,

when they realize just how empty the promises they've been given by men are. I believe God is working in the hearts of people to set them free from evil. This process takes time because He has to deal with our misunderstandings first. When I read the Bible, I see hope for the human race, for I believe God's compassion, grace, and mercy is much greated than the force of evil.

[salvorhardin]

84. I hope you're right

And it happens soon because I don't know how much more damage our country can take: http://www.neuralgourmet.com/node/784

[believerinchrist]

88. The Bible says that before the return of Christ,

there is a great falling away (II Thessalonians 2:3). Here is another paradox--churches are getting bigger and more prominent in the policies of government, yet believers seem to be falling away from the teachings of Christ which highlight grace, mercy, and compassion being extended to everyone. This is necessary--people have to see the ultimate uselessness of religion and the power of the individual relationship with God. My confidence lies in the ability of God's love to overcome the evil that surrounds us and in God's faithfulness.

[Warpy]

106. They ate but it didn't kill them

so god lied to them.

The snake said they'd know what god knew, that good and evil existed and that it wouldn't kill them. He told the truth.

My question is whether or not god and the devil have been somehow confused in this story. After all, the being who told them the truth and allowed them to grow up was the snake. The being that kept them captive as his little experiment and lied to them about it was god.

And who the hell DID Cain marry, anyway?

[trotsky]

108. That is a hell of a good point, Warpy.

As many times as I've been over the story of A&E, I never quite thought of it that way.

...the being who told them the truth and allowed them to grow up was the snake. The being that kept them captive as his little experiment and lied to them about it was god.

That's just, well, damning, isn't it? :)

Makes you wonder, if there is any truth to the story, that maybe we have our good & bad guys mixed up? There is a mean, nasty horrible ruler of the universe and one of his creations rebelled and has been trying to get humans to live up to their full potential since "the beginning"? Hmmmm....

[treegiver]

109. I was saving that for the kicker in the "God lied" thread...

but you said there was no point to such posts, so I didn't pursue the matter.

Nicely put, Warpy.

"The governors of the world believe, and have always believed, that virtue can only be taught by teaching falsehood, and that any man who knew the truth would be wicked. I disbelieve this, absolutely and entirely. I believe that love of truth is the basis of all real virtue, and that virtues based upon lies can only do harm." Bertrand Russell

[trotsky]

110. Yeah, what I meant was...

those kinds of threads usually just piss everyone off and it spills over to elsewhere. When the fundamentalists bring it up first, I have no problem pointing out reality.

[believerinchrist]

111. First, the Hebrew reading of Genesis 2:17 (where God spoke to Adam) is

"dying thou shalt die"--in other words from the point of eating that fruit, the human beings would begin to die until death overcame their physical bodies. How many times have we heard (at least I have) that humans begin to die the moment they're born? Satan did lie to Eve when he said ye shall not surely die--is Eve still alive? What's more, he told her that knowing good and evil would make them like gods--if that was true, why is the world in the mess it's in? I mean if we truly were like gods, why can't good prevail (by good, I mean love, kindness, non-destructiveness, etc.)?

Jesus Christ valued truth; in fact, he equated himself with truth. Either he was an arrogant freak or he was speaking the truth. What is the truth--that God loves the human race, that He wants us to have life and blessings (read Deuteronomy 30:15-20), that He wants us to have peace with Him, ourselves, each other, and our earth. Christ's words ring loud today--"You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free!"

[trotsky]

112. You're leaving off the critical part.

"for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

It's a story. It didn't really happen. Talking snakes have never existed. There was never a Garden of Eden.

[believerinchrist]

113. The Hebrew reading of that would be

"for in the day that thou eatest thereof, dying thou shalt die." Death is a process that began at the point of consuming the fruit. Yes, at times, people die suddenly, but for many, death is a process. Evidently, for Adam and Eve, it was a process--for Abel, it was sudden. When it's all said and done, death did enter the world, because people died.

You know, neither one of us can say with any certainty whether the Bible is a myth or is factual. When it's all said or done, believing the Bible contains truth is a matter of faith. I've been a believer for many years and my understandings have changed and grown. There have been times when my heart has been broken and my life in shambles, and I have pleaded with God for help. Without fail (although sometimes it has taken time), I have received the strength and help I've asked for. From my standpoint, God is faithful.

[trotsky]

114. I can say with certainty that many things in the bible are myth.

Snakes have never talked. A flood never covered the entire earth. Etc.

Your faith should not be dependent on a book, anyway. Surely it is stronger than a collection of texts compiled & edited by hundreds of people, most of whom had their own political and religious agendas.

[believerinchrist]

115. You know, the flood is not just a biblical "myth"--

many cultures have an oral history of the great flood. If, by chance, the world (before the flood) was just one land mass (as scientists have theorized and the Bible infers) and if, while it was raining, there were earthquakes and volcanoes under the waters (Genesis 7:11), then there could be the strong possibility that the flood did indeed cover the earth's land mass. And, when the waters abated, the face of the earth could have been radically changed.

The serpent could be a symbol--writers use symbols all the time. I think one of the problems people have with the Bible is they try to read it like a code of laws and they look for contradictions. Underlying the individual narratives found in the Bible is a thread of the concept of God's love. Humans' understandings of God changed over the many years covered by its pages.

My faith is not just dependent on the Bible. A long time ago, I told God that I just didn't want to know the concepts within its pages--I wanted to live them. As I have spent time in prayer and reading the Bible, I have dealt with many issues in my life that were destructive. I have experienced the knowledge, understanding, and wisdom God has given me. That is what makes my faith strong--God's faithfulness to me. And that is why I value each and every human being in the world and pray for them (not always individually) and my prayer is that good will overcome evil in this world.

[trotsky]

116. Many cultures have an oral history of *a* flood.

And to primitive cultures, their little corner of the world WAS the world. Think about it: cultures first started near rivers. The fertile crescent, anyone? And rivers flood. Sometimes to incredible flows that cover enormous acres and acres of land. The entire world, if you're an early farmer working a fertile valley.

Sorry, but even if it weren't physically impossible for the earth to have been covered by water, we simply have no geological or paleontological evidence that it was. No, there is no possibility that a global flood ever occurred. Never.

My faith is not just dependent on the Bible.

Good. Then you can let go of the myth of a global flood, right? Because it didn't happen.

[believerinchrist]

118. I'm sorry, I can picture it in my mind...

I didn't say there was a global flood. I said there was a flood in a particular area of the earth (one land mass--there is scientific evidence of one land mass) and there were earthquakes and volcanoes underneath the water covering the rest of the earth. When the earthquakes and volcanoes settled down and the flood waters dried up, the earth's face had changed dramatically. (The methods scientists use to date fossils and other things can be skewed by heat and water which would have been present at that time, can't they?)

And, there is no way either one of us can say definitely what happened--just like neither one of us can definitely state that God exists, that there is a heaven or a hell, or that good will prevail over evil. It is a matter of faith, and that faith comes from the inside of a person. My faith has been tested in many ways, and it has grown stronger over the years. I am not out to change you or any one else. I enjoy sharing ideas--it makes me think and that is never bad.

[trotsky]

119. You're introducing NEW impossibilities.

The scientific evidence of one land mass puts the date of that happening over 200 million years ago.

Human beings did not exist 200 million years ago.

There are some questions that cannot be answered. Whether a flood happened that covered all the land on the earth (or however you want to restrict it) is not one of those. We know it did not happen. Certainly not within the timeframe that humans have existed.

[believerinchrist]

120. Let's call it a draw--

I have an explanation (that makes sense to me) about the 200 million years ago, but there is no way I can "prove" it. My understanding of Genesis (I do not claim it's "truth") is incidental to my faith in God. What happened in the early years of human history will just be a choice of conjectures for us who live in today's world. What happens today in my life is my reality. Today, I have experienced the faithfulness of God--when I go to Him and ask for help, He's there. As my understanding of Him has grown, so has my love and compassion for my fellow human beings. I may not be able to feed lots of people or to set them free from whatever hardships they are facing, but in my high school classroom, I can be a positive influence (without ever stating the name of God or Christ) in my students' lives. And I can share my ideas with everyone here and enjoy the discussions we have. Life is good!

[trotsky]

121. A draw only in the sense that

you think your bible (or your own explanations) get to trump any known facts, apparently.

You seem to have difficulty separating your relationship with your god from the mythology of the bible. In no way does admitting the flood was merely a myth invalidate your faith, or your relationship.

But denying science and denying reality in favor of your myth is dangerous. It's what gave us the right-wing fundies and their 2nd coming of Jesus: George Chimpy Bush.

[believerinchrist]

122. I'm not denying science per se--

just that there is more than one way to look at a set of data, and that scientific theories are dependent upon the people who "develop" them. Look at the confusion in the scientific studies coming out about health issues-- HRT therapy, supplements, low fat diets, etc. Besides, science cannot answer some of the most important questions in the world; most importantly, the "why" question.

I keep reading comments about the mythology of the Bible. I find it curious that most of the other types of mythology no longer have wide acceptance--most people do not believe in Zeus. Yet, the Bible is still believed in by multitudes of individuals of many different nationalities and denominations. Why? If the Bible is just a myth, why do so many people (not just fundamentalists--which I am not one) cling to it? Could it be they are finding some of the answers they are looking for in its pages?

Also, George W. Bush is not the 2nd coming of Christ! I hope someday the "Christians" who want to condemn and control what other people do, will understand the power of the love of God. Also, remember fundamentalist right wingers are found in every religion, not just Christianity--it is a issue of control and it is a definite problem in our world. I am believing that God will deal with it and set people free.

[trotsky]

123. You may not think he is,

but the people who do, use the same fact-denying thought process that you do. Simply dismiss those things you don't agree with, no matter how much evidence there is, because you don't like them. That describes most Republicans today to a T.

By the way, approximately 4 billion people DON'T cling to your bible for answers about life. Its prevalence today is more due to the fact that it became the religion of world conquerors rather than the religion of the Prince of Peace.

[believerinchrist]

125. Bear with me while I set up another analogy...

Let's take a look at a major downtown intersection (any town or city) and place a different individual (watching the intersection) on each of the four corners. Then, let's have two cars--a red Honda and a silver Ford--collide. If we were to ask each of the four individuals what happened, we would possibly get four completely different accounts. Not only would these individuals perspectives be different, but so would their contexts be different. Let's say one of them was a "Buy American" consumer and another had had a horrible experience with a Ford vehicle. Do you think they would say the same thing? The fact would be that the car accident happened, but the descriptions of how it happened would be "interpretations."

We all know somehow our earth and the life in it came into existence (a fact)--and none of us were there to experience it happening. Depending on the contexts of our individual lives, our "interpretations" on how our world came into existence will be different (which is one reason I like to exchange ideas). My context is that I've experienced the love, compassion, grace, and mercy of God in my life in ways that have gone to the very depths of my being. I don't base what I believe on what other people say or do--I base it on my experience with God. So, of course, I'm going to look at the Bible in a positive light and to try to reconcile what observations science has come up with and what is written in its pages. I also realize that scientific observations and theories are viewed and constructed by humans, and some humans have their own agendas. And, also, within the scientific community itself, there is strong disagreement over the interpretations of facts.

BTW, I like your words "the religion of the Prince of Peace."

[trotsky]

126. Seriously, you guys need to come up with new analogies.

I've heard the tired old traffic accident one dozens of times. Usually it's given out in the context of trying to make sense of the wildly contradictory gospel accounts of the resurrection story. Regardless, it's flawed because in no way do discrepancies in eyewitness accounts of a car crash come even remotely close to the incredible differences between flavors of Christianity. To stretch your car accident witness analogy, we'd have to have one of them saying that took place at night on an empty road in a rural area of Iowa between a blue SUV and a red pickup, and another saying that it was in broad daylight in a busy intersection in Calcutta between a bicycle and a car.

In science, disagreement is good. People have to make their case. What you do not mention is that in the areas where there used to be considerable disagreement, there is now harmony. Science gradually moves towards consensus. But you know, a principle never so solid that it can't be overturned now and then. Take the recent discovery that neutrinos have mass - that totally upsets the standard model of fundamental particles. More research will be done to confirm the discovery, and then theories will be altered, and a new consensus reached.

That process is completely absent with adherents of religion.

[believerinchrist]

127. My understanding of God has changed over the years

because I'm hungry for valid understandings that will answer my questions. And I'm not looking at the flavors of Christianity--I looking for what makes sense to me. I really agree with the concept that many Christians are stuck in primitive understandings of God which equate Him with an autocratic despot. And I agree that a surface understanding of the Bible would tend to support that idea. But, when a person casts the "accepted" theories of God and the Bible aside and really starts searching and connecting some dots, a whole new understanding can come.

Aw, shucks, I thought I came up with the analogy on my own--I really haven't heard it before. And, I agree disagreement can be positive when it is civil and not personal. I like discussing things with people who don't agree with me--it stretches my mind. If what I understand can't be challenged, then its not a strong understanding.

[treegiver]

124. You're right.

I was trolling a bit. Just testing the water. Seems fine.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. It means the writer, probably a priest, was worried about people

making their own decisions about good and evil, rather than accepting what he said. So he made up a story that humans weren't meant to have a moral sense of their own, but only obtained it via the intervention of the serpent (and I don't know how close the identification in Jewish religion of the serpent with the devil is). That then reinforces his own authority, because his ideas of good and evil supposedly come from the only god there is, rather than humans doing 'unnatural' thinking for themselves.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. It's just an allegory "explaining" why human beings

have a sense of morality and free will and animals don't.

Living close to animals, the ancient Hebrews certainly noticed that while animals have a sense of self-preservation and maybe even a sense of fairness and unfairness, they don't have a lot of choices about their behavior. A wolf will act like a wolf, and a sheep will act like a sheep, which is different from how a camel or horse acts. A wolf isn't going to start grazing, and sheep aren't going to organize themselves into packs to hunt down wolves. We may not like the way a certain animal behaves, but we don't assign a moral judgment to it. We don't call wolves murderers, and we don't say that cats are adulterers. When a dog eats some half-decayed pile of ooze, it's not trying to gross us out--it's just being a dog.

People have the widest range of possible behaviors of any creature. They can choose to be violent or gentle, to lie or to tell the truth, to steal or to be honest, or anything in between. They can eat both meat and plant-based foods. They can be faithful to one spouse or have multiple partners sequentially or all at once. They can be selfish or generous.

The ancients must have wondered why this was true of people and not animals. They made up the story of Adam and Eve to explain why people had choices and notions of right and wrong.

[seaglass]

20. That was a beautiful explanation, thanks. I think I spent too

many years doing analytical work, taking things apart so that it becomes harder sometimes to see things whole.

[trotsky]

22. Just to be slightly contrarian...

Many times our behavior is strongly influenced, if not downright dictated by factors beyond our control. Genes, disease, upbringing, etc. Humans are not completely free moral agents, "choosing" to do all their actions.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. True, but we still have more choice in any given situation

than the typical animal does.

We have our instincts, genetic makeup, and cultural upbringing, but we're not absolutely bound by them. Name any situation that humans find themselves in, and you'll probably be able to think of several ways that people have responded to them. Why they make specific choices is not as important as the fact that they have the potential to make choices. When faced with a possible threat, they don't have to panic and run, as a horse does. They don't have to follow the herd as a sheep does. They don't have to automatically pursue anything that appears to be running away as a dog does.

The point is not to argue free will vs. determinism. The point is that I interpret the Adam and Eve story as an allegory, the ancient Hebrews' explanation for why humans are more adaptable and exhibit a more varied range of behaviors than animals do. (The "original sin" interpretation is a later interpretation first brought up by Paul.)

[ThJ]

23. What it means

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is just that - divine knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve obviously knew right from wrong or else no such choice could have been presented to them; however, by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they could make themselves into gods (they could have godlike knowledge), which is ultimately the sin of man - attempting to make himself into a god.

[seaglass]

25. That is an interesting take and sounds true but it leads

me to more questions...for instance, if Jesus was the model for how we should live, then it is a quest to live a life of perfection and what would be more godlike than that?

[ThJ]

26. Good question

The thing about trying to live a Christlike life is that we cannot do it. As human beings, our sinful nature prevents us from ever achieving the perfection of Christ, but through Christ, through God's grace, we can walk in his footsteps, however poorly.

This is not something one can achieve on one's own. It is only through Christ and faith in him. We have to recognise our own sinful nature and walking in the footsteps of Christ can only serve as a reminder of that nature, so in that respect we are trying to become god, but recognising our own shortcomings and putting our faith in He who is God.

[seaglass]

27. Perhaps that was the knowledge we were being protected from

that however much we tried for perfection we would inevitably fail.

[greyl]

33. That doesn't make sense to me and is

an immeasurably dark attitude toward life, imo.

I suspect that when you quote from Genesis, you're doing something very different from what I'm doing when I quote from Genesis. You are quoting the Word of God, whereas I'm just quoting from a very ancient story that a beleaguered people told their children to explain what was going on in that part of the world. If it is "the Word of God," then of course we should just resign ourselves to death. But if, as I am obviously asserting, it's just an old story, then there is no reason why we should resign ourselves to death.

http://www.ishmael.org/Interaction/QandA/list.cfm

[seaglass]

35. No it's not a dark attitude unless you believe that there is a

possibility of perfection, which to me is delusional. It says nothing about the value of the attempt for perfection, in fact I would say knowing that perfection cannot be attained but still doing what is right shows a greater strength of character than believing perfection is attainable.

[greyl]

32. The authors of The Fall weren't concerned with Jesus.

Old Testament, remember?
They were concerned with the murderous tillers of the soil from the north, who behaved as though they had the knowledge of the gods - the knowledge of what shall live and what shall die.

In Hebrew, Adam means "man" as in "humankind".

[seaglass]

36. I meant it in terms of consistency of thought, not literally. n/t

[BayCityProgressive]

37. Here are a few ideas

According to kabbalah absolutely nothing in the Old Testament should be taken literally. The way that they explain the creation story is that The Creator Is a source of infinite giving and sharing but had no one to give itself to, so the creator created a spiritual vessel called Adam Kadmon. This vessel's only purpose was to recieve the light and energy of the creator. The vessel had to do nothing to gain the creator's light it only took from it. The allegory of the tree of good and evil is that the vessel felt shame because it did not earn anything it was given by the creator, so it shut itself off from the creator. The creator's light instantly retracted causing the "big bang". In this perspective Satan is not "evil" in the traditional sense of the word. He is merely a force that is the opposite of the creator's light. If the object is to become more like the creator to EARN his rewards then Satan is like the spiritual force of gravity, something neccisary you must overcome to earn the Creator's light.

I could also be the Devil's Advocate here and say that maybe God is the problem in the whole creation story. the Tree of Life was right next to the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil...God told them they could eat from the tree of life but NOT from the tree of good and evil...now does this make any sense at all? The humans could first eat the tree of life AND THEN the tree of knowledge and be just like God? God also said that they would "surely die" which in fact they did not die right away.Also God walks thru the garden asking adam where he is..should an omnipotent god have to do this?? what if this "god" was merely a spirit that did not want humanity to become like him and the serpent (representing wisdom) was trying to help humanity to stand up and become everything it could be. In this theory the god of the garden of eden is not the creator of the universe but an evil force that was holding humanity back from their potential...:evilgrin:

[opiate69]

40. I tend to go with Frank Zappa's take on it

The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree? Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. "You eat this apple, you're going to be as smart as God. We can't have that."
-- Frank Zappa

The essence of Christianity is told to us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the Tree of Knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your fucking mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions.
-- Frank Zappa, interview, Playboy, May 2, 1993

So, when Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, if you go for all these fairy tales, that "evil" woman convinced the man to eat the apple, but the apple came from the Tree of Knowledge. And the punishment that was then handed down, the woman gets to bleed and the guy's got to go to work, is the result of a man desiring, because his woman suggested that it would be a good idea, that he get all the knowledge that was supposedly the property and domain of God. So, that right away sets up Christianity as an anti-intellectual religion. You never want to be that smart. If you're a woman, it's going to be running down your leg, and if you're a guy, you're going to be in the salt mines for the rest of your life. So, just be a dumb fuck and you'll all go to heaven. That's the subtext of Christianity.
-- Frank Zappa

[Brilligator]

75. Cheers

Those are some of my favorite quotes. I was looking through to see if anyone posted them yet so I could post them if someone hadn't already.

positiveatheism.org :toast:

[unschooler]

43. I think it means that humanity, symbolized by Adam & Eve, grew up and

evolved to a point where we are consciously aware of good and evil. This is a GOOD thing! God is the overprotective parent in this story, and the serpent is the Promethean character who brought us the key to the next step in our development as a species.

Although, who knows? Maybe God was right, and we should have remained innocent, childlike and unaware of the moral possibilities.... It's a choice every individual has to make, as well. I think the healthy thing is to grow up, even if it is painful. My vote is for Adam & Eve.

[erinlough]

62. There are adam and eve type stories spread throughout mythology

basically the powerful protector had one thing the initiate should not experience. In many myths women were warned and eventually sought out the dangerous and warned thing. The discovery usually resulted in pain and an initially worse life but eventually paid off with a glorious payoff, much better than staying in the dark.

The books I read on this, I read long ago and I am too lazy to look them up. However, "Women Who Run With Wolves" and Bill Moyer's book about mythology are two of them.

I have always thought of the Beauty and the Beast story as this type of myth. The beauty can enjoy any part of the palace except for the one room. Of course she can't stay away and causes the Beast, who she now loves, death and eventually ressurection as the human prince...and they live happily ever after. There are many stories through almost all mythology that illustrate the same theme.



It is human to be curious, which is why I am amazed by incurious people, they seem inhuman to me (*). I think the story tells us what makes us human, what makes us transform is knowledge and the knowledge we find can cause both pain and transformation. Why are most of the initiates women? I haven't a clue.

[Disturbed]

76. Why are most of the initiates women?

Men wrote those stories.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

99. To me it means

going from the Unity of the One Being into the illusion of diversity. And in the stories (for there is more than one creation story in Genesis), God is really giving people a choice-and we do have free will.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

117. I equate it with the Tree of Life

and I once did a huge stained glass window of it. 18 feet long by 6 feet tall. It was for a hospice.

To me, knowledge and life are the same.

I have no theological basis for this. I totally made it up, but that's okay.