Trying to understand the temptation in Eden

[fhansen]

A fair perspective. However at that point we should just drop the father metaphor altogether, because what kind of strange, needy parent would choose to create a child that would be forever completely dependent on them for any true happiness in life?

Similarly, what parent doesn’t want their child to grow up with a knowledge of good and evil - that seems to play into the dependency construct. ?] You can talk about the obedience aspect, but there was/is also clearly a change in understanding reflected in the story (and which would play out in our lives). Are me meant to be non-intellectuals just limiting our ability to reason to mere obedience like we’re forever 5 years old?

Appreciate that you’re giving me a different way to think about some of the issues, just not sure I see yet how they get us out of the quicksand.

We depend on God for our very existence whether we want to acknowledge it or not. At some point lack of humility becomes the only obstacle standing between ourselves and Him IMO. The term “Father/Creator” might be a more precise descriptive of the actual relationship. We’re to intellectually arrive at, not without His help, the point where our awareness of His goodness causes us to freely “want to need Him”, so to speak. But in some regards we’ll always be a 5 year old in relation to Him, no matter how much we know, again, whether we wish to acknowledge this or not.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

I don’t think the story literally means that Adam and Eve had no conception of good or evil. Otherwise they could not have made a meaningful choice – ie it would not have been a mortal sin (which requires knowledge as well as consent and grave matter) and only a mortal sin makes one lose grace.

It wasn’t some kind of surprise gotcha test.

I agree with this, I believe God walked and talked with them for many days and hours making them understand. They literally walked with God every day. They knew exactly what was expected of them and what the consequences would be which is why the consequences were so strong. The fallen angels knew more than man and understood more than man which is why their sins were not forgiven, Adam & Eve were the closest to God that any human beings would ever be on earth which is why their disobedience had such strong consequences putting the whole human race into a fallen state.

You make a fundamental error here. They had knowledge of Good. God is Good and they knew him!

They did not have knowledge of evil.

This is an important distinction to make.

God gave them free will. But what good is free will if it’s not exercised? If I told you you were free to do whatever you want. Go and enjoy the world. And them I make it so you have no choice on what you do , perhaps shackle you to a fence, where is your free will?

Similarly if God creates a world with no free choice requirements, there is no free will.

Exactly! They already knew good so the only new knowledge gained was the knowledge of evil. They made the choice that they wanted to know and learn about evil because they already knew good by knowing God. And they got what they wanted because all of mankind knows about a lot of evil now.

Are you a literal fundamentalist ?

Do you really think that While God was dwelling with man in the garden he only spoke a couple paragraphs to man?

The authors wrote the gist of the story. I have no doubts God Adam and Eve had many many long conversations and discussions as any friends would.

I totally agree! They walked with God and had a relationship with God then they chose to believe a talking animal over what God told them. They didn’t have any problem not eating of the tree until the devil came to them and talked them into eating it. They ignored it all the other time. There was no curiosity or mystery, they were perfectly fine to ignore the tree till the devil came to them and started telling them lies. God said it and they obeyed without question and without thinking about it.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

If they had the necessary knowledge and experience to be culpable for the choice, then how do you explain the new knowledge that was gained once they ate the fruit?

As for love and trust: the whole parable suggests a feeble grasp of human psychology and the effect of secrecy. I don’t care who you are or how wonderful your friend/spouse/parent is, if you live in a wondrous mansion and they tell you, “Don’t ever go in that one room upstairs,” that will automatically undermine your trust. One of the things I can’t grasp in this story is that the serpent seems far more insightful about human psychology than God, including the points you make in your own argument. ?]

And still we must ask: why would God need to keep a secret room or a forbidden tree? That smells like the kind of tests that people lay for their boyfriends/girlfriends in high school to make them show they love them. [also ?] If it was dangerous, why put the stupid thing in the middle of the garden? Do we leave chainsaws in the middle of the playroom?

Telling someone not to do something doesn’t automatically undermine their trust and it doesn’t automatically make people want to do the thing you warn them about. The label on bleach says do not drink or it will kill you, how many people in the world suddenly have an uncontrollable urge to drink the bleach just because the label says not to? If a prescription label says don’t take more than 3 a day or it will kill you, do you have the urge to take more than 3 just to see what will happen? LOL! Do you lose trust in the doctors because they say not to take more than 3? If a priest tells me not to go into a room because I will die if I go in there, I’m not going in that room! I don’t care what’s in there** if what is in there is going to kill me!** If someone tells me that doing something is going to kill me, I’m not going to do it. I’m not going to get curious and try it just to see if it’s really true. LOL! Most people don’t do things like that. We avoid things people tell us to do all the time without thinking about it if they warn us that doing so is dangerous. And we do it without even thinking about it and it doesn’t make us lose trust in anyone and it doesn’t make people want to do the opposite just because someone said not to do it.

Adam & Eve were perfectly fine not eating of the tree, they ignored it and went about their life forgetting about it till the devil came and told them lies, then they made the choice to believe him over God. They were not curious about the tree till the devil came and told them lies. They chose to believe evil and to learn about evil, and it was a conscious, informed choice they made. You can’t accidentally eat an apple. You may think things in your heart and wonder about things in your heart, but you have to make a conscious decision to go and take an apple and eat it. Even if they had wondered and doubted God, and questioned God, as long as they didn’t actually eat that apple they would have been fine.

 

[Neoplatonist]

I find it interesting that the personal values you display in this discussion are probably the very ones that caused Adam to Fall - and so chain your understanding here.

You appear personally ambivalent wrt trust in authority versus following personal reason.
Perhaps you do not see what can be wrong with disobeying “unreasonable” authority (or what is virtuous/mature in following such an authority). You find it hard to see how an authority can be valid if its commands appear unreasonable. That’s a fair statement. Yet what you really mean is that if YOU personally cannot see the reasonableness of a command then you do not need to obey it .

And I believe this is exactly the crisis portrayed in Genesis.

You make some good points in favour of reason:
Yes, God’s command was not purely arbitrary - the Tree must have also been bad.
(ie obviously good in itself otherwise it would not have been created, but seriously bad in some way for humans at that time).

In fact I would go so far as to opine that Adam’s knowledge of the evilness of that Tree may have been communicated to him simply via Natural Law rather than personal Revelation (a spoken command from God). The personal command may be no more than a personifcation of the law that speaks in our hearts.

You keep going on about why the geneticly mutilating evil in the middle of Eden?
Your slightly misguided life values have caused you to totally miss the point.
That’s the interesting thing about Church Teaching. When we object to it it reveals our faults at least as much as we do its .

Its a given. Accept it. The potential for suffering is somehow important and intrinsic to Creation as a whole (thats why the Tree is in the centre of the Garden). If it weren’t then the God who loves and cares for us wouldn’t have made it. Maybe its there for reasons nothing to do with us - good for some other reason.
It doesn’t matter. We are warned off in very clear terms “you will surely die.”
And we will surely die is not really a wrathful God punishing us also/mainly? a natural law consequence of the Eating.

The 2nd thing you may not understand is that much of our happiness, health and self-mastery in Eden is not man’s by right/nature but is a pure gift of God for friendship sake (“original justice”). This might also be symbolised by the Tree. The command not to eat and the obedience thereof may well symbolise the realisation and trusting acceptance that goodness/live/happiness is given - it cannot be taken. The moment you try and take it for yourself it turns to dust (literally).

God stopping them from eating of the Tree of life is usually understood as a mercy. Its a difficult passage but it goes something like this…To eat of it in a Fallen state would mean an eternal living death for Adam and Eve and the impossibility of future Redemption. Think of a mind-meld with a non Vulcan who cannot take the knowledge overload as a Vulcan by nature can. Fallen man cannot handle stolen Divine knowledge - let alone eternally.

We cannot be happy without God’s friendship, in fact we cannot even have a properly working “human-nature” without the subordination that friendship with our Creator involves.

Excessive trust/reliance on personal reason/insight as the basis for obedience is a seriously flawed approach to life. It is the basis of an unhealthy individualism that sees life more about taking than receiving. It intrinsically denies true friendship and solidarity whether human or divine.

Are you really implying that we should not attempt an intellectual understanding of divine things and struggle to find a way to reconcile those visions of the good with our earthly minds, but should, instead, just blindly obey and focus on the virtues of humility and subservience? (How do we avoid the path to Nuremberg here?)

I think if the fallen angels had maybe spent a little more time seeking understanding things might have gone a bit better. I certainly find that I am learning and thinking about the issues in new ways from hearing different perspectives; I guess if that makes me some sort of flawed character, then so be it.

 

[in_servitude]

When I read Scott Hahn’s discussion of this event in his book, “A Father Who Keeps His Promises,” I was shocked to see how much was there that does not appear to be there.

Here are a couple of points from that book, but I still recommend reading his book because you seem so interested in this area. There’s a lot of theology right in those first few chapters of Genesis. I’m repeating from my memory, so if I mess up the logic here, my apologies to everyone here and to Hahn.

1. Adam was given the job to a) till the garden and 2) keep the garden. The word used for “keep” in Hebrew likely meant to guard.
2. Adam was present while the serpent was talking to Eve (due to the plural use of the word “you” by the serpent). It would be like saying, “Y’all won’t die,” in Texan.
3. Adam knew the serpent was a liar because he directly contradicted God (Y’all won’t die was in direct opposition to what God said.) So, Adam had confirmation that the serpent was up to no good.
4. Adam just watched Eve eat the fruit, and she handed it to him and he ate it.

The Church teaches that (I’m pretty sure) it was Adam’s sin that caused the fall of humanity. He was supposed to protect Eve, and he chose not to do that. So, it isn’t like Adam and Eve are sitting under the tree with a burning desire to eat the fruit - and that’s all the story is about. Adam didn’t do his job - and the consequences flowed from there.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . He was supposed to protect Eve, and he chose not to do that. . .

Thank you for this perspective.
Turning from God, not trusting and following the dictates of love, the relationship between Adam and Eve is broken.
Thus we are left with, “Your yearning will be for your husband, and he will dominate you.”
He was to protect her, but without love, this aspect of the relationship is transformed into control and domination.
We each seek a giving union with others, who when they forsake love, use us for their own purposes; their being other (Eve) to us (Adam), we are all inclined to do the same to one another.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Are you really implying that we should not attempt an intellectual understanding of divine things and struggle to find a way to reconcile those visions of the good with our earthly minds…?

No .
I have just shown you a way of doing just what you say, unfortunately you may not have the horsepower or required Christian values needed to see it yet.

Instead of emotionally re-acting in this less than intelligent “all or nothing” type manner why not ruminate over our responses for a few days. That would truly be “listening.”

It seems that if you are unable to grasp something someone suggests to you here then you immediately assume the other person’s insights/reasons must be stupid.
But a truly intelligent person would first assume they didn’t understand the other’s contribution.
Pride is often the weakness of intellgient people, esp young men, but an understandable one as most of us oldies were young once and have been to that lonely place.

The following comments probably won’t help you because you seem locked into less than intelligent ways of dealing with things you do not understand/disagree with (as was Adam wrt the Tree).

Are you really implying that we should… just blindly obey and focus on the virtues of humility and subservience?

Subservience is not a virtue.
Yes, humility is a virtue but you do not yet understand what it is. This is precisely because you look to have a distorted understanding/experience of the relationship between trust/faith and reason … and hence of obedience.
Admittedly it doesn’t come easily or quickly.

I think if the fallen angels had maybe spent a little more time seeking understanding things might have gone a bit better.

Again, due to a less than harmonious understanding of the relationship of faith/reason in personal life you have misunderstood the nature of Angels and you do not realise that what you opine here contradicts Catholic Angelology.

At the very instant of their creation, angels understood all that they could possibly understand given the present conditions they were in (they were not in Heaven, ie not receipients of the Beatific Vision). Their sin also was to do with not obeying in matters they could not pierce to by their own natural powers - great as they were. In other words, their sin was to do with matters that ultimately needed to be taken on faith not reason.

I certainly find that I am learning and thinking about the issues in new ways from hearing different perspectives; I guess if that makes me some sort of flawed character, then so be it.

You certainly are not a flawed character in the sense you mean it here . We are all flawed characters in one way or another, that is to be expected. We are also limited characters by our very human nature. That is why we are saved by faith and friendship with God and others…not by our own perfection.

I do understand where you are coming from and I am very sympathetic to your intellectual position (though it is less than adequate) as I have been there myself.
The world teaches young men that maturity comes through disobedience, breaking away from the herd and making one’s own decisions. Well, its wrong but it is redeemable if one’s heart is in the right place to start with (afterall humanity was redeemed despite disobedience).

However the original plan was to grow to maturity through freely given obedience/trust (not subservience) in legitimate authority.

The problem of course is that, outside the gates of Eden, no-one does a good job of “standing-in” for God on earth (“call no man your Father”) so no human authority ever come’s across as 100% legit or “reasonable.”

However, the Christian insight (given by Jesus himself) is … unless a legitimate human authority commands you to sin you are to obey lovingly, even if it seems stupid and you disagree. By all means talk about it again after you or others get hurt and you are proven correct (sometimes one may be). Keep the relationship going, be a servant…
Of course noone wants to do that - yet that is exactly what Jesus taught:
“Turn the other cheek”,
“give your tunic as well”
“Father if it be your will take this (stupid) cup away from me”
“He became obedient (to his Father’s Will) even unto death…”

Or in purely human terms the core teaching of Buddha, the way of Anatta (“no self”).

 

[dmwessel]

Ah, see, NOW we’re getting to the brilliance of the serpent: he didn’t merely convince Adam that the apples were safe, he convinced him that God had ulterior motives. Once that comes into play, the other pieces almost assemble themselves.

In fact, God’s apparent reaction fits the serpent’s story nicely. “What, you ate the knowledge fruit? I’d better keep you from eating the immortality fruit too!” Why? Why was God so threatened that Adam & Eve become even MORE like him?

See?

Of course, we also have the question parallel to the knowledge tree: why in the world would you put something in the garden that you were afraid for your kids to eat?

The serpent did not convince Adam to eat the apple, Eve convinced Adam to do it (she being deceived by the serpent).

God wasn’t threatened that Adam and Eve become like him, he wants us all to get wisdom. It was because they were naked in the garden that God did not want them to eat from the tree, because God knew they would spiritually die.

The entire garden is God’s resting place and the tree, part of the garden itself.

 

[in_servitude]

The serpent did not convince Adam to eat the apple, Eve convinced Adam to do it (she being deceived by the serpent).

I see no support for this in the text. Eve gave (handed) Adam the fruit of the tree, but it doesn’t say that Adam needed any convincing.

God wasn’t threatened that Adam and Eve become like him, he wants us all to get wisdom. It was because they were naked in the garden that God did not want them to eat from the tree, because God knew they would spiritually die.

Where do you get the idea that the issue was their nakedness?

 

[dmwessel]

I see no support for this in the text. Eve gave (handed) Adam the fruit of the tree, but it doesn’t say that Adam needed any convincing.

"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; (Gen. 3:17)

hearkened:

I.to hear, listen to, obey
A.(Qal)
i.to hear (perceive by ear)
ii.to hear of or concerning
iii.to hear (have power to hear)
iv.to hear with attention or interest, listen to
v.to understand (language)
vi.to hear (of judicial cases)
vii.to listen, give heed
a.to consent, agree
b.to grant request

Where do you get the idea that the issue was their nakedness?

“and they knew they were naked” (Gen. 3:7)

They had been naked all along but didn’t know it. After eating the fruit then suddenly ‘their eyes were opened’ and they became afraid (3:10) and they had to leave the garden.

Naked always means a state of unrighteousness in the Bible. When man initially entered the garden it was just an animal, not knowing good or evil (naked/without righteousness). However, being unaware of his nakedness, they could be perfectly content in the garden.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Where do you get the idea that the issue was their nakedness?

I believe dmwessel is just talking about the line: “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever…”

He may not be incorrect.
To eat from the Tree of life while naked (ie while in sin) would damage them irrecoverably and eternally - making Christ’s Redemption of them impossible.

I believe the Fathers say as much.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

"
Naked always means a state of unrighteousness in the Bible. When man initially entered the garden it was just an animal, not knowing good or evil (naked/without righteousness). However, being unaware of his nakedness, they could be perfectly content in the garden.

I believe it is a little more subtle than this.
(Remember David danced naked in front of the Ark without blame even though many derided him for it).

Also, as neither animal nor man wore garments in Eden 'naked" is not a concept that existed until God clothed them after they left Eden.

Therefore how can they realise they “have no clothes”.
Perhaps the root Hebrwew word for “naked” is worth investigating further.
But without even doing that logic suggests that the real issue, as Aquinas states, is that they became aware of disordered “movements of the flesh”.

That is, they realised that they were no longer complete masters of their bodies, they had lost what the Church calls “the gift of original justice.”
Their sin damaged their very human constitution by decoupling the closeness of body and soul and also gave rise to concupiscence. This is the “wound” of their personal sin - which also got passed down to us.

So they wanted to hide this shameful disorder from each other and from God and from their own consciousness by hiding in the bushes.

When man initially entered the garden it was just an animal, not knowing good or evil (naked/without righteousness).

I believe this is a little off course.
In the Garden Adam was not only more than an animal but he was the most perfect human in the order of nature. And he was also established in both Original Justice and in Sanctifying Grace.

Only Mary and Jesus have ever come back to that level of closeness to God since.

 

[in_servitude]

"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; (Gen. 3:17)

hearkened:

I.to hear, listen to, obey
A.(Qal)
i.to hear (perceive by ear)
ii.to hear of or concerning
iii.to hear (have power to hear)
iv.to hear with attention or interest, listen to
v.to understand (language)
vi.to hear (of judicial cases)
vii.to listen, give heed
a.to consent, agree
b.to grant request

You are saying that Eve convinced Adam to eat of the fruit of the tree. These definitions for harkened doesn’t seem to infer that Adam listened to her reasoning.

“and they knew they were naked” (Gen. 3:7)

They had been naked all along but didn’t know it. After eating the fruit then suddenly ‘their eyes were opened’ and they became afraid (3:10) and they had to leave the garden.

Naked always means a state of unrighteousness in the Bible. When man initially entered the garden it was just an animal, not knowing good or evil (naked/without righteousness). However, being unaware of his nakedness, they could be perfectly content in the garden.

Yeah, but we know that they were without sin prior to eating the fruit. So, are you saying that they were unrighteous, but didn’t know that they were unrighteous?

To say that man was “just an animal” infers that Adam didn’t have an eternal soul before he ate the fruit of the tree (this is what I understand the primary difference to be). Is it the case that Adam didn’t have a soul?

 

[edwest2]

So, a parent sets up wondrous pile of presents under the Christmas tree, including one big one wrapped in the sparkliest gold paper you’ve ever seen. Inside that box is a rat carrying a disease that causes painful genetic mutation. Before leaving to go to the store on Christmas morning, the parent reminds the children, “Whatever you do, remember not to open the gold, shiny one.”

What kind of weird parenting is that?

As an important point of consideration, let us reflect on the fact that any need to test the child’s obedience or to respect their free will or whatever could have been accomplished with a present that merely covered them with skunk smell, or gave them burning itching hives, or whatever. Still a messed-up theory of parenting, but far short of kicking them out of the house and cursing them and their children and their grandchildren ad infinitum to shorter lives with more pain and more work and an innate tendency to make further stupid decisions.

In this case, our first parents were dealing directly with God. They knew who He was. They were given only this commandment. But they chose to break it, and God, being God, through this Original Sin, caused them to be cast out and we are all born with it. There is no comparison between Human parents and God.

All human beings have a tendency toward sin.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Neoplatonist]

No .
I have just shown you a way of doing just what you say, unfortunately you may not have the horsepower or required Christian values needed to see it yet.

Instead of emotionally re-acting in this less than intelligent “all or nothing” type manner why not ruminate over our responses for a few days. That would truly be “listening.”

It seems that if you are unable to grasp something someone suggests to you here then you immediately assume the other person’s insights/reasons must be stupid.
But a truly intelligent person would first assume they didn’t understand the other’s contribution.
Pride is often the weakness of intellgient people, esp young men, but an understandable one as most of us oldies were young once and have been to that lonely place.

The following comments probably won’t help you because you seem locked into less than intelligent ways of dealing with things you do not understand/disagree with (as was Adam wrt the Tree).

Subservience is not a virtue.
Yes, humility is a virtue but you do not yet understand what it is. This is precisely because you look to have a distorted understanding/experience of the relationship between trust/faith and reason … and hence of obedience.
Admittedly it doesn’t come easily or quickly.

Again, due to a less than harmonious understanding of the relationship of faith/reason in personal life you have misunderstood the nature of Angels and you do not realise that what you opine here contradicts Catholic Angelology.

At the very instant of their creation, angels understood all that they could possibly understand given the present conditions they were in (they were not in Heaven, ie not receipients of the Beatific Vision). Their sin also was to do with not obeying in matters they could not pierce to by their own natural powers - great as they were. In other words, their sin was to do with matters that ultimately needed to be taken on faith not reason.

You certainly are not a flawed character in the sense you mean it here . We are all flawed characters in one way or another, that is to be expected. We are also limited characters by our very human nature. That is why we are saved by faith and friendship with God and others…not by our own perfection.

I do understand where you are coming from and I am very sympathetic to your intellectual position (though it is less than adequate) as I have been there myself.
The world teaches young men that maturity comes through disobedience, breaking away from the herd and making one’s own decisions. Well, its wrong but it is redeemable if one’s heart is in the right place to start with (afterall humanity was redeemed despite disobedience).

However the original plan was to grow to maturity through freely given obedience/trust (not subservience) in legitimate authority.

The problem of course is that, outside the gates of Eden, no-one does a good job of “standing-in” for God on earth (“call no man your Father”) so no human authority ever come’s across as 100% legit or “reasonable.”

However, the Christian insight (given by Jesus himself) is … unless a legitimate human authority commands you to sin you are to obey lovingly, even if it seems stupid and you disagree. By all means talk about it again after you or others get hurt and you are proven correct (sometimes one may be). Keep the relationship going, be a servant…
Of course noone wants to do that - yet that is exactly what Jesus taught:
“Turn the other cheek”,
“give your tunic as well”
“Father if it be your will take this (stupid) cup away from me”
“He became obedient (to his Father’s Will) even unto death…”

Or in purely human terms the core teaching of Buddha, the way of Anatta (“no self”).

You are certainly a faster draw with an *ad hominem *than I have seen in a long time, I’ll grant you that. The more interesting twist, though, is how quickly you assume that my comments in the intellectual debate are a reflection of some emotional reaction. Isn’t selling the other person short what you were accusing me of doing? That is to say, why are you not as willing to allow that you might not have understood my point, instead of assuming it is a reflection of some teen-age-y rebellion impulse?

I can appreciate if you hold that answers can be found on these topics only through prayer and humility. If I am hearing you correctly, then, yes, I agree, it would be futile for you to persist in trying to convince me. I’m on here to work through conceptual issues, not to re-orient my heart. I am faith seeking understanding. To steer back to the center of the intellectual argument, though, and away from some surreal electronic therapy couch: I am familiar with the centrality to the tradition of obedience to God as a central tenet of faith life and happiness. I am also familiar with how often that is said to be ‘good.’ What I am trying to bring out in logical discourse is how we can reconcile that claim ‘that is good’ with any of the other things we ever actually experience to be good or with our understanding of principles of human flourishing in any areas besides religion. Can you clarify your thought on this one aspect? In the other areas of relationship I can think of, and in other ways that come to mind for our use of the term ‘good’, a relationship built on extreme obedience and dependency do not seem to match up.

Can you offer a way they do? The closest I can think of is the parent to the small child, but the human case is different because we would not freely create our child to be forever 5. I’m not saying God didn’t, or that we ever approach his infinity, or how I would do it, or any of that. I am saying: can you give an example that gives a better analogy than that?

Honestly enjoy this, btw. Sorry if you’re not.

 

[Neoplatonist]

In this case, our first parents were dealing directly with God. They knew who He was. They were given only this commandment. But they chose to break it, and God, being God, through this Original Sin, caused them to be cast out and we are all born with it. There is no comparison between Human parents and God.

All human beings have a tendency toward sin.

Peace,
Ed

Curious to hear if you have thoughts on the same narrowed question I asked BH:

What I am trying to bring out in logical discourse is how we can reconcile that claim ‘that is good’ with any of the other things we ever actually experience to be good or with our understanding of principles of human flourishing in any areas besides religion. Can you clarify your thought on this one aspect? In the other areas of relationship I can think of, and in other ways that come to mind for our use of the term ‘good’, a relationship built on extreme obedience and dependency do not seem to match up.

Can you offer a way they do? The closest I can think of is the parent to the small child, but the human case is different because we would not freely create our child to be forever 5. I’m not saying God didn’t, or that we ever approach his infinity, or how I would do it, or that it isn’t good just because I don’t see how it could be good, or any of that. I am saying: can you give an example that gives a better analogy than that?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You are certainly a faster draw with an *ad hominem *than I have seen in a long time, I’ll grant you that. The more interesting twist, though, is how quickly you assume that my comments in the intellectual debate are a reflection of some emotional reaction.

NP yes, I purposely made my response “ad hominem” (ie personal) rather than go with your somewhat rigid “ad intellectum” approach.

Many people who habitually over intellectualise and objectify discourse (as you do here) , do so because they are sensitive emotionally, and trust is sometimes problematic. It is a protective mechanism, but it distorts understanding. When that invisible line is crossed (yes, as I did) that is invariably interpretted as an unacceptable personal attack, not as a form of assistance, even when done relatively politely.

In other words your (and mine) intellectual contradictions often cannot be resolved intellectually because they are really not intellectual issues at all. They are just distant echoes of “heart” issues. Deal to the heart issues and the intellectual difficulties miraculously resolve themselves from within. Jesus teaches this wisdom in the Bible but I had to go through Buddhism to rediscover this ancient Christian truth. You won’t hear it from most pulpits though.

When I was a younger man I wish someone had done me the same assistance as I have attempted you. No doubt, like you, I wouldn’t have thanked them for trying to politely “wake me up” from a less than helpful attitude to life that I was so completely unaware of I didn’t even realise it was so obvious to others.

If all this is nonsense to you or you still believe my comments are ad hominem attacks then of course by all means ignore me and follow your own lights. I am just human and may be completely wrong in my intuitions.
Good luck (I mean that sincerely).

 

[Neoplatonist]

Stop projecting. I don’t need you to analyze me or fix me or “wake me up.” I’m just asking if you can explain your own perspective in a way that reconciles the apparent contrasts with our normal conceptions of ‘good’ and ‘father.’ You seem to feel you have reconciled these things, so I thought you might be able to offer some reflection or insight via metaphor or analogy. It sounds like you don’t think that’s possible in your case, but hold a version of “the way that can be named is not the way.”

Perhaps we’ll meet up again on other topics along the year.

Neoplatonist

 

[Skye_Ariel]

"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; (Gen. 3:17)

hearkened:

I.to hear, listen to, obey
A.(Qal)
i.to hear (perceive by ear)
ii.to hear of or concerning
iii.to hear (have power to hear)
iv.to hear with attention or interest, listen to
v.to understand (language)
vi.to hear (of judicial cases)
vii.to listen, give heed
a.to consent, agree
b.to grant request

“and they knew they were naked” (Gen. 3:7)

They had been naked all along but didn’t know it. After eating the fruit then suddenly ‘their eyes were opened’ and they became afraid (3:10) and they had to leave the garden.

Naked always means a state of unrighteousness in the Bible. When man initially entered the garden it was just an animal, not knowing good or evil (naked/without righteousness). However, being unaware of his nakedness, they could be perfectly content in the garden.

Listening to does not mean convincing. His mind was already made up when she gave him the apple and he ate it. No convincing was done.

Adam & Eve were NOT animals before eating of the apple. Where do you get that from?? They knew they were naked because they felt ashamed and exposed once their eyes were opened to evil. Then they tried to hide from God as if they could. They had nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to hide **before **they ate the apple. Their hearts were pure then. Once they ate it, the shame of it made them feel exposed and they wanted to hide.

 

[petra22]

Stop projecting. I don’t need you to analyze me or fix me or “wake me up.” I’m just asking if you can explain your own perspective in a way that reconciles the apparent contrasts with our normal conceptions of ‘good’ and ‘father.’ You seem to feel you have reconciled these things, so I thought you might be able to offer some reflection or insight via metaphor or analogy. It sounds like you don’t think that’s possible in your case, but hold a version of “the way that can be named is not the way.”

Perhaps we’ll meet up again on other topics along the year.

Neoplatonist

To me it sounds like you are trying to give God human characteristics. His ways are not our ways. His ways are so far above our ways… Thought of God SHOULD leave us awe struck and trembling…