I think the snake got a bum rap

[wesw]

....and thus was born the phrase...

...." nice tits!" .

sorry, I had to balance the forces of nature after rube went all smart on us...

[Big RR]

rubato--interesting post; I do find it interesting that the one rule dealt with acquiring the knowledge of good and evil. I honestly cannot see how any god would want to deny creatures he created in his own image that right. Indeed, while some parents try to shelter and protect their kids from the hard realities, it is very few that do not realize that acquiring such knowledge is a prerequisite to maturity. If mere mortals understand this, how could go not understand?

And why would god want to keep these creatures as perpetual infants in a place where he provides all their needs? My dog gives me unconditional love because I supply all of her needs; my children give me a very different kind of love that is not just based on what I can do for them. It is a very different, but far more satisfying love, and I would think an omniscient being would understand that as well.

So I agree with your conclusion that the story had to happen this way; and I don't think any amount of teaching or commandments could have prevented it. indeed, I think the story does not tell of the fall of man, but of the rise of man from an infant into fully formed beings who decide things for him/herselves. This removes man from the dependent state into an independent one, one in which we must suffer as well and enjoy. And it changes man's relationship with god into a more mature one. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that god never wanted them to remain in the Garden, but he wanted them to leave of their own doing.

Now there are some who interpret that story as saying every suffering stemmed from that act, and on the surface it appears that way. But if you follow the rest of the bible, the stories are clear that god did not abandon mankind afterwards, and gave guidance which people could accept or reject. Of course, those who recorded the story couldn't conceive of a god other than a strong and vengeful one (much like the volcano (pillar of cloud by day, pillar of fire by night) they called Yahweh during the exodus), so they wrote it the way they understood.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Good post, rubato. Big RR - there you go again.

And why would god want to keep these creatures as perpetual infants in a place where he provides all their needs? My dog gives me unconditional love because I supply all of her needs; my children give me a very different kind of love that is not just based on what I can do for them. It is a very different, but far more satisfying love, and I would think an omniscient being would understand that as well

(a) God did not want to keep these creatures as perpetual infants
(b) He does understand very well that to choose love is greater than mere fidelity. Or Fidolatry?
(c) He could have avoided their free choice by not putting the tree in the Garden at all
(d) What parent is not fully aware of the inherent risk (and most likely outcome) of telling a child "Don't touch that one when I'm not around"?

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that god never wanted them to remain in the Garden, but he wanted them to leave of their own doing

.

A bit of real Christianity is unavoidable, isn't it?

Now there are some who interpret that story as saying every suffering stemmed from that act, and on the surface it appears that way. But if you follow the rest of the bible, the stories are clear that god did not abandon mankind afterwards, and gave guidance which people could accept or reject

I don't know of any Christian who espouses the first (bolded) part AND claims that God "abandoned mankind afterwards" or DENIES that God gave guidance which people could accept or reject. Such a person would not be a Christian but a something-else who, as you obliquely suggest, hasn't bothered reading the Bible.

Separation from God does not mean God abandoned anyone. It means mankind discarded God. The relationship is disrupted throughout the Bible over and again, with God continuing to love and mankind continuing to disobey. If one does follow the rest of the Bible (and the rules for writing proper nouns) it is absolutely clear that all the troubles in the world originated in that one act of disobedience and are solved by the one act of perfect obedience. Consistently, people are free to choose to accept or reject the latter.

I rather think of Genesis as a true parable but understand others do think it merely myth (while some think it is absolutely factual). To me, it describes God's motive and method allowing all that follows, salvation or self-exile. "God created all things" teaches the Bible and I believe it means "all".

[Big RR]

Meade--there you go again? I don't think you posted much of a disagreement with what I said. However, I have heard/read some preachers and commentators say that god wanted us to remain in paradise and it was only our selfish and disbelieving tendencies from doing so. They focus on god throwing Adam and eve out and god's punishing of them (especially Eve having to bear children in pain) and having to claw for our existence. IMHO I think the fact that god did not ignore mankind but fostered a different relationship with it afterwards shows what the "plan" was--and it was not to keep us dumb and happy in paradise but to get us to take responsibility for ourselves. And I don't think you disagree with that. Nor do I think you believe life is something we suffer only to re-attain our place in paradise in the afterlife--it is what we make of it (and we are expected to make much of it), some religions notwithstanding.

As for what my own feelings, I do think the words of the 15th century carol "Adam lay ybounden" sum it up nicely;

Adam lay ybounden,
Bounden in a bond;
Four thousand winter
Thought he not too long.
And all was for an apple,
An apple that he took,
As clerkës finden written
In their book.
Ne're had the apple taken been,
The apple taken been,
Then had never Our Lady
A-been heaven's queen.
Blessed be the time
That apple taken was.
Therefore we may singen
Deo gratias!

Even then many (and it has to be many if we are still singing the carol 600 years later) realized our life is not a punishment shaped by the "original sin", but is ours to embrace; and the birth of jesus showed god's commitment to us. So thank god they ate the "apple".

[MajGenl.Meade]

Good post, Big RR

As to, "there you go again"... refusal to capitalize some proper nouns but no problem using capitals for others. I regard it as emblematic

[Big RR]

no, I generally do not capitalize pronouns and names at all (it's laziness on my part, I admit it)--and, but the autocorrect does it for me sometimes.

[Sue U]

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that god never wanted them to remain in the Garden, but he wanted them to leave of their own doing.

Then why declare life beyond the garden to be a great punishment, and why curse the poor nachash who was only the instrument of God's will?

[Sue U]

The lesson I get from this is that God lied to Adam, a snake should mind its own business and that eating that forbidden fruit will make you realize that you look better in pants.

Not recorded in the Masoretic Text version of Genesis: "And the woman said, 'Do these fig leaves make my ass look big?'"

[Crackpot]

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that god never wanted them to remain in the Garden, but he wanted them to leave of their own doing.

Then why declare life beyond the garden to be a great punishment, and why curse the poor nachash who was only the instrument of God's will?

So we strive for something better.

[MajGenl.Meade]

As to the serpent, it exercised free will and was the instrument of mankind's fall. Why not curse the serpent? It has something to do with responsibility within the ambit of "it's all God's will anyway". If "God did it" is all we can say, then there is no room for genuine enquiry and eventual understanding, no matter how partial.

Is life beyond the Garden really stated to be a great punishment? I know it always portrayed as such but when you really look hard it's more of a description than a punishment. It is all consequence that comes from knowledge.

A consequence of their knowledge is sexuality and childbirth, and that says God, is going to hurt a lot. But (as Foxworthy and others have said), what man who passes a kidney stone thinks it a great idea to get another one next year?

Mankind's lot in consequence of his choice (listening to Eve instead of God - which also means giving in to his own desire to sin and just using her, and then God, as an excuse) is to work hard and face all the difficulties with a lot of pain. All gardeners know the prevalence of weeds and how easy it is to grow them!

God again says that all this is "because of you" - pointing at Adam. Something else that's because of Adam, God still cares for them and provides clothing - animal skins, which means death has entered the Garden. So the Garden is gone (evidenced by it being er.... gone) and despite Joni, we can't get ourselves back to it.

17b cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground

Do you regard this life as a punishment?

[MajGenl.Meade]

The lesson I get from this is that God lied to Adam, a snake should mind its own business and that eating that forbidden fruit will make you realize that you look better in pants.

Not recorded in the Masoretic Text version of Genesis: "And the woman said, 'Do these fig leaves make my ass look big?'"

[Joe Guy]

[Sue U]

Do you regard this life as a punishment?

Well, since I don't believe there was ever an idyllic life in Eden, and since I don't believe this is a "fallen" world, and since I don't believe in a punishing deity, and speaking only from my own perspective, I do not regard this life as a punishment. However, I am sure there are those for whom the hardships of life may be too much of a burden to bear, and whether or not they are being punished for some sin, would choose to end their lives or to have not been born at all.

Like I said, I'm never sure what this story is supposed to be teaching us, if anything at all.

[Big RR]

So the Garden is gone (evidenced by it being er.... gone) and despite Joni, we can't get ourselves back to it.

I always thought it was still there and guarded by a flaming sword to keep us out.

As for this life being a punishment, Woody Allen had a line in Annie Hall about people being divided into the horrible and the miserable--the horrible being people truly afflicted and suffering greatly, and the miserable, everyone else. So we are being rewarded when we're just miserable.

But seriously, I would thinkt he Garden would be far worse--think how boring it would be with nothing to do (or any reason to do it)--st least once the animals were named.

And Sue--re ending it all--I have seen some people who have suffered tremendously still keep their optimism and joire de vivre, while others who had everything (like the Richard Corey of poem and song) wanting to end it all. You can bemoan that you got a big box of horseshit, or dig in it to find the pony.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't regard it as a punishment either. Certainly no Christian should be seeing life or events in their own life as being punishment for sin. Luke 13:1-5; John 9:2-3 should be prescriptive there. The issue is consequences.

Yes,we all know some mean people who appear to get on just fine and some great folks who seem to have nothing but bad luck. Their sorrow can sometimes be extreme and even terminal.

However, if one doesn't believe this is a fallen world (separated spiritually from God) then being unsure of the purpose of the story is a given, no?

Believing in a literal garden doesn't seem necessary to me. As stated, it appears to me as a parable of actual truth - that God created all things, including mankind; that mankind chose to reject God; that spiritual separation has ever since been a peculiar burden on mankind, in the end, despite our best efforts, contaminating all that we attempt.

To me, trying to understand the purpose of Geneses 3 is rather like reading an early chapter of any book and trying to determine what, in isolation, the author intended.

Thanks for the topic.

[MajGenl.Meade]

So the Garden is gone (evidenced by it being er.... gone) and despite Joni, we can't get ourselves back to it.

I always thought it was still there and guarded by a flaming sword to keep us out.

Barn door..... hey there Big RR, since you don't believe anything else in the Bible , why pitch a tent on that one?

[Big RR]

Because a flaming sword is a cool image; it's probably what was used to light Elijah's chariot.

[RayThom]

Plus, I think the "Garden" looked somewhat closer to this:

[Econoline]

Really interesting discussion, and some very good points made by all the participants.

A couple of comments of my own:

And why would god want to keep these creatures as perpetual infants in a place where he provides all their needs? My dog gives me unconditional love because I supply all of her needs; my children give me a very different kind of love that is not just based on what I can do for them. It is a very different, but far more satisfying love, and I would think an omniscient being would understand that as well.

The gap between the human creatures and a god (יהוה, YHVH, Elohim, whatever) would certainly be as great or greater than the gap between the human creatures and a dog...so maybe god's original plan was to keep the humans as the equivalent of loving and beloved pets? Or maybe the experiment was designed to give the humans the choice whether to be children, or pets?

I would go so far as to say that god never wanted them to remain in the Garden, but he wanted them to leave of their own doing.

I like that.

I think the story of the fall is amazingly beautiful if you look at the underlying logic and necessity of each part of it.

I agree. (And BTW rubato's whole post was really excellent and thought-provoking. )



As for the serpent and its legs... I've long thought of that aspect of the tale as the equivalent of a "Just So Story": Kipling wrote "How the Camel Got His Hump", "How the Elephant got His Trunk", "How the Leopard Got His Spots", et cetera...so "How the Serpent Lost His Legs" would fit right in with those.

[rubato]

rubato--interesting post; I do find it interesting that the one rule dealt with acquiring the knowledge of good and evil. I honestly cannot see how any god would want to deny creatures he created in his own image that right. Indeed, while some parents try to shelter and protect their kids from the hard realities, it is very few that do not realize that acquiring such knowledge is a prerequisite to maturity. If mere mortals understand this, how could go not understand?
... " .

He claimed to make them with self-will so there had to be some thing that he denied them otherwise the only things they could do would be indistinguishable from his will. And the thing had to be consequential, irreverseable. The loss of innocence was the perfect thing. The only sin they could commit was the one that taught them the meaning and consequences of sin.

The perfection of this story, arising presumptively from myth, makes me wonder if I should credit it as more than myth. Every once in a while.

But then the rest of the OT is saturated with stories of a vengeful parochial god and the feeling recedes.

And then there is the astonishing beauty of the paintings in Lascaux and Chauvee so maybe we shouldn't dismiss the possibility of literary genius among the ancients in the face of such artistic genius.


yrs,
rubato