Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Adam and Eve Grew Up


Posted by: sexkitten Oct 13 2004, 01:53 PM

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > Adam And Eve Grew Up


Posted by: moorezw Jan 30 2004, 09:24 PM
What is the most important concept to Christianity? Most would say the salvation of Jesus Christ. But that begs another question: salvation from what?

The easy answer is 'sin'. But not just any sin. Original Sin. The doctrine that states that all of humanity is born with an inherent sinful nature, and that even if we live pure lives following God's commandments, we are still unworthy of heaven and require grace through salvation.

Where did this doctrine originate? Paul. It may have preceeded him, but his writings are the earliest documentation we have for this idea.

Romans 5:12-19
QUOTE
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.


It's an interesting concept, but what exactly was the sin of Adam? It's obvious that Paul was thinking of the following story from the ancient Yahwist myth:

Genesis 3:1-24
QUOTE
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which Yahweh God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"
The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die. '"
The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!
"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. "
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings.
They heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Yahweh God among the trees of the garden.
Then Yahweh God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?"
He said, "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself."
And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"
The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate."
Then Yahweh God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."
Yahweh God said to the serpent,
"Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel."
To the woman He said,
"I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you."
Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it';
Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return."
Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.
Yahweh God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.
Then Yahweh said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- therefore Yahweh God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.


Paul likely attached his thinking to the promise of death as a punishment for disobeying God in the story (red text). But something interesting can be seen if you pay attention to particular phrases and passages throughout the story (blue text).

If I read the stories for clues about Adam and Eve themselves, I find that before eating the fruit, they are:
1) unconcerned with nudity (propriety)
2) physically provided for
3) unaware of the difference between good and evil

I also find that after eating the fruit, they:
1) are very concerned with being clothed (propriety)
2) have to provide for themselves
3) have children

It strikes me that the characteristics Adam and Eve had before eating the fruit are the same characteristics I would expect to see in young children. Likewise, the characteristics Adam and Eve had after eating the fruit are the same characteristics I would expect to see with adults.

Any student of mythology knows that a common mythological device is the story that explains why things are the way they are. In this case, the story of Adam and Eve is not the story of humanity's fall, it is the explanation of why children become adults.

Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 30 2004, 11:03 PM
I'm glad that Judaism completely rejects the notion of original sin. Judaism teaches how each soul given to the world starts off pure. A daily prayer goes "Oh Adonai, the soul which you gave me is pure. You created it, you fashioned it, you breathed it into me."
In kabbalah, every soul is a spark of the original Adam/Eve soul, which was two in one, as they were created together. There is one primordial sould that was seperated into physicality. Regardless of the fragmentation into sparks from the original soul they are all related. Each soul contains several sparks.
The higher levels of soul are pure, and one's soul cannot be tarnished beyond repair.

Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 30 2004, 11:50 PM
QUOTE (moorezw @ Jan 31 2004, 12:24 AM)
It's an interesting concept, but what exactly was the sin of Adam? It's obvious that Paul was thinking of the following story from the ancient Yahwist myth:

Paul likely attached his thinking to the promise of death as a punishment for disobeying God in the story (red text). But something interesting can be seen if you pay attention to particular phrases and passages throughout the story (blue text).

If I read the stories for clues about Adam and Eve themselves, I find that before eating the fruit, they are:
1) unconcerned with nudity (propriety)
2) physically provided for
3) unaware of the difference between good and evil

I also find that after eating the fruit, they:
1) are very concerned with being clothed (propriety)
2) have to provide for themselves
3) have children

It strikes me that the characteristics Adam and Eve had before eating the fruit are the same characteristics I would expect to see in young children. Likewise, the characteristics Adam and Eve had after eating the fruit are the same characteristics I would expect to see with adults.

Any student of mythology knows that a common mythological device is the story that explains why things are the way they are. In this case, the story of Adam and Eve is not the story of humanity's fall, it is the explanation of why children become adults.

Everything must be examined in the proper way, PRDS (said as Pardes, meaning orchard), Acronym for the hebrew words of Literal, Metaphor, Examining, and Hidden. This is perfect as it is the prime example of the method.
Literal:
This story interpreted literally, is the archetype of sin, even though the word "sin" is never mentioned. The original sin was disobeying Adonai, and it resulted in the fall of humankind from "God's grace". This story also includes the archetype of evil, the serpent, and of purity and innocence because Adam and Eve did not know they were naked. It has in it the archetype of guilt, which instantly breeds the first denial, and it includes the first curse made by Ha'shem, giving an initial idea of the kind of punishment that awaits disobedience.
As always, the literal reading is hardly the most correct. The following questions arise as holes in logic:

* Forbidden to eat from the tree of knowledge. Why didn't Adam eat from the tree of life, then the tree of knowledge?
* Why would Ha'shem take that chance?
* Also, why would the serpent set itself up?
* What did it have to gain?
* Why bring death upon itself?
* It could have eaten from the Tree of Life itself and become eternal, then eat from the Tree of knowledge and it would have become like Ha'shem.
* God instructed Adam not to eat it, rather than making it impossible to reach.
* The voice of Ha'shem "walks" in Gan Edan
* Wouldn't Ha'shem know the nature of the serpent?

This clearly doesn't work.

Metaphor, as proposed by Rabbi Yehuda:
What sort of work was Adam supposed to do? There were no fields to plow, and the trees grew on their own. They didn't need to be watered, a river went through Gan Edan. Therefore the instruction from Ha'shem to Adam to "tend and maintain it" cannot refer to tending the garden. Instead it refers to the Torah; The Tree of Life signifies the Torah as it is said "It is a tree of life to those that hold fast to it, and those that support it are happy" Proverbs 3.18.
Another metaphor, but as proposed by Rabbi Eliezer: "Man is a tree of the field" Deut 20.19, the garden refers to women Song of Songs 4.12: "An enclosed garden is my bride" Therefore the midst of the garden suggests the center of the women and the taking of forbidden fruit, "inappropriate sexual intercourse".

Examining:
Rabbi Meir said the fruit of the Tree of knowledge was wheat, Rabbi Judah said they were grapes. Rabbi Abba said it was a citron. Rabbi Jose said they were figs. Rabbi Azariah said "Heaven forbid we should guess it, it is not revealed so we will not blame the fruit for bringing sin to the world" (Not one commentary says the fruit is an apple).

Hidden:
Most of the Hidden meanings found by scholars are just that, hidden. In those readings found, there are two Gardens of Eden, one below, and one above. The lower level is the connection between this world and the upper level. Righteous stop in the lower level when they die until they rise to the higher level, which further leads to an even higher plane of existence.
The river that goes from the Garden of Eden represents the central of three columns on the kabbalistic Tree of Life. Eden is the Supernal Mother, and the central column represents the Divine presence on Earth. The water is the nurturing force of the Garden. The representation of water is perfect as it is continually merging with itself, which is further seen in Ein Sof.

Posted by: Doug2 Jan 31 2004, 02:54 AM
Zach, interesting parallelisms. Maybe even better than the one I have often heard of the story being an analogy of the evolution of humans from ape like hunter/gatherers to agricultural societies.


Falcon, I wish all christians could see how Judaism views original sin and other concepts. As a christian I always thought jews believed the same thing as christians, but were just being stubborn about the christ issue. Ack.

Posted by: RowdyHoo Jan 31 2004, 12:38 PM
moorezw,

CS Lewis takes on this subject in The Problem of Pain. I don't recall the chapter number but it is entitled "The Fall". Though not exactly, it does tie in somewhat with your theory.

He sort of insinuated that it was the point in evolving (yes, evolution) where we go from unaware animal to self aware individuals. At that point we have the option to choose ourselves or God.

He does a lot better job with it than I...obviously.

Posted by: moorezw Jan 31 2004, 12:49 PM
RowdyHoo-

I liked the Narnia series, and Screwtape, but I lose respect for Lewis when he writes about doctrine. He thinks too much for his own good.

Posted by: RowdyHoo Jan 31 2004, 01:04 PM
Thinking too much for your own good...is that possible?

I don't think so. Have you read it already?

Posted by: ratbag Jan 31 2004, 01:21 PM
QUOTE
If I read the stories for clues about Adam and Eve themselves, I find that before eating the fruit, they are:
1) unconcerned with nudity (propriety)
2) physically provided for
3) unaware of the difference between good and evil

I also find that after eating the fruit, they:
1) are very concerned with being clothed (propriety)
2) have to provide for themselves
3) have children


I always thought that was the obvious meaning behind that story. A story of how children grow, go through puberty and become adults. God as the father (or parents?) who loves his children, provides and protects them from the dangers of the world, keeping that knowledge from them. But he cannot protect them from the inevitability of growing up, and naturally is disappointed. He is angry at his failure to prevent the inevitable, seeing them become adults. He teaches them about the "facts of life", then lets them proceed on their own into the world, to take care of themselves.

Of course, putting this to a christian only gets a blank stare and selective hearing from then on.

QUOTE
Then Yahweh said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- therefore Yahweh God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.


I don't know about this last bit though. Though, when saying "one of US" is he referring to angels, or other gods?


Posted by: Lokmer Jan 31 2004, 01:36 PM
Yes, it is possible to think too much for one's own good.

In Lewis' case, he spent his life trying to intellectually justify his faith. Now, there is great richness in his fiction and satirical writings that comes out of his faith and his philosophy (neo-platonism), but in his apologetic writings he falls far short. For one, his understanding of doctrine is extremely naieve and very heavily neo-platonistic (his philosophy so colors his nonfiction that it's hard to get anywhere around it). As far as thinking too much, his desire for intellectual peace with his beliefs forced him on every point right up to the edge of apostacy before he backed off - in "Miracles" he admits that Jesus is a false prophet, but refuses to engage the implications of that realization, for example.

Reading Lewis can be a great comfort to the soul, but not to the mind. His unselfconscious tautology, the painful process of watching him trying to pour the square peg of Christianity into the round hole of his mind, is nearly unbearable in such works as "Mere Christianity" - in fact, in that work he's unable to distinguish his Victorian upbringing from Anglican doctrine from Historic Orthodoxy from his "Mere" Christianity, so the X he describes is as culturally loaded as any other.

His construct of "Mere" Christianity was also, I think, the only thing that allowed him to remain Christian - his dogged determination to believe in the minimals - and for him, that minimial was "There is a God."

Lewis was brilliant scholar, a fascinating man who is a joy to read, and one of the worst apologists/theologians the Church has produced in recent years. It floors me that in the era whence was writing Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Jacques Ellul, Deitrich Bonhoeffer, and many others that Lewis is the pre-eminant pop theologian.

Then again it shouldn't surprise me. Lewis offers apparent depth by approaching all as shadows and paradox - intellectual excercise without true rigor or dicipline. I'm not suggesting that it was a self-conscious shadow game - he was trying to account for his own sense that there "must be something more" and speaking out against the pyrex victory of modernity as much as anything else. And he did have some good points: Modernity killed God, but did not put anything in his place. When that happens, people lose hope, and sometimes it is better to labor under the illusion that there is a real explaination and that you have the right one than to live with the open question. Because without wonder, the open question becomes despair - and the commercialism that came with the post-industrial era robbed us of wonder. Lewis' deception was not self-conscious, it was a self-deception.

In other words - you can (and should) do a better job than quoting Lewis at us

-Lokmer

Posted by: moorezw Jan 31 2004, 02:49 PM
Rowdyhoo-

I've read and own them, but I really couldn't add much to what Lokmer has already expressed.

Bravo.

Posted by: Reach Jan 31 2004, 03:54 PM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Jan 31 2004, 01:36 PM)
It floors me that in the era whence was writing Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Jacques Ellul, Deitrich Bonhoeffer, and many others that Lewis is the pre-eminant pop theologian.

Me too.

Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 31 2004, 04:24 PM
QUOTE (Doug2 @ Jan 31 2004, 05:54 AM)
Falcon, I wish all christians could see how Judaism views original sin and other concepts. As a christian I always thought jews believed the same thing as christians, but were just being stubborn about the christ issue. Ack.

haha yes, that is often the problem.

Posted by: PriorWorrier Feb 2 2004, 02:51 AM
QUOTE (ratbag @ Jan 31 2004, 01:21 PM)
QUOTE
Then Yahweh said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- therefore Yahweh God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
I don't know about this last bit though. Though, when saying "one of US" is he referring to angels, or other gods?

Christian might say this is a reference to their three-headed god. I think Yahweh was just using the royal plural like the Queen does.

Posted by: moorezw Feb 2 2004, 05:21 AM
QUOTE
I think Yahweh was just using the royal plural like the Queen does.

The mythological tradition that this story comes from wasn't monotheist by any means. 'Us' means plural.

Posted by: Guest Feb 2 2004, 10:45 AM
This is a lttle off the topic, but does the concept of "original sin" have a place in a humanist philosophy? Do the sons have an obligation to repair the wrongs of the fathers?

More specifically, how would you answer these questions:

1. Does the current generation of Americans owe reparation payments to the descendants of slaves?

2. Are the generations of Germans born after WWII required to made reparations to the offspring of Jews killed in the Holocaust?

The US government has accepted some responsibility for its past actions and made payments to certain groups, eg. Japanese Americans inturned during WWII. But should the humanist living today feel a personal responsibility or "guilt" for these past actions?

Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Feb 2 2004, 07:03 PM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 2 2004, 01:45 PM)
This is a lttle off the topic, but does the concept of "original sin" have a place in a humanist philosophy? Do the sons have an obligation to repair the wrongs of the fathers?

More specifically, how would you answer these questions:

1. Does the current generation of Americans owe reparation payments to the descendants of slaves?

2. Are the generations of Germans born after WWII required to made reparations to the offspring of Jews killed in the Holocaust?

The US government has accepted some responsibility for its past actions and made payments to certain groups, eg. Japanese Americans inturned during WWII. But should the humanist living today feel a personal responsibility or "guilt" for these past actions?

Answer:
1. No
2. No

In 2, they were made to pay some reparations, but once the generation passes, unless they actively kept reparations from being given, you can't hold lower generations responsible. In a way, the creation of Israel was sort of reparations, and they were awarded enough money to find a new home (they certainly couldn't go back to Poland/France/Germany)

Although in 1. I believe rescuing them and taking them out of slavery is basically their reparations. If they had gotten paid it would have been in confederate $$$ anyway. If the union had lost they would still be enslaved.

No one should feel any more guilt then the fact that it happend, and use that horrification to ensure it never does again.

Posted by: Matthew Feb 2 2004, 09:22 PM
QUOTE
In Lewis' case, he spent his life trying to intellectually justify his faith. Now, there is great richness in his fiction and satirical writings that comes out of his faith and his philosophy (neo-platonism), but in his apologetic writings he falls far short. For one, his understanding of doctrine is extremely naieve and very heavily neo-platonistic (his philosophy so colors his nonfiction that it's hard to get anywhere around it). As far as thinking too much, his desire for intellectual peace with his beliefs forced him on every point right up to the edge of apostacy before he backed off - in "Miracles" he admits that Jesus is a false prophet, but refuses to engage the implications of that realization, for example.

Reading Lewis can be a great comfort to the soul, but not to the mind. His unselfconscious tautology, the painful process of watching him trying to pour the square peg of Christianity into the round hole of his mind, is nearly unbearable in such works as "Mere Christianity" - in fact, in that work he's unable to distinguish his Victorian upbringing from Anglican doctrine from Historic Orthodoxy from his "Mere" Christianity, so the X he describes is as culturally loaded as any other.


Lokmer- very well-written! I love to read of analyses like this. I never really knew this much about C.S. Lewis. Unfortunately, the most I have ever heard about him from a critical point of view, was from Edward Babanski because McDowell was trying to coach Lewis into providing an excellent defense witness for the apologetic cause in evangelical circles. Babanski provided an interesting analysis of Lewis and his theology to show that Lewis is actually somewhat of an embarrassment to the faith.

QUOTE
Then again it shouldn't surprise me. Lewis offers apparent depth by approaching all as shadows and paradox - intellectual excercise without true rigor or dicipline. I'm not suggesting that it was a self-conscious shadow game - he was trying to account for his own sense that there "must be something more" and speaking out against the pyrex victory of modernity as much as anything else. And he did have some good points: Modernity killed God, but did not put anything in his place. When that happens, people lose hope, and sometimes it is better to labor under the illusion that there is a real explaination and that you have the right one than to live with the open question. Because without wonder, the open question becomes despair - and the commercialism that came with the post-industrial era robbed us of wonder. Lewis' deception was not self-conscious, it was a self-deception.


Sometimes I think of Lewis as trying to philosophically baptize Kant. Indeed, Lewis' moral argument for God seems to attempt to take Kant's moral postulate of God and dust it off (perhaps immerse in holy water is better imagery) so it can be used in Christian apologetics. Lokmer's comments about Lewis are right on. Lewis' brand of apologetics is that of a self-deceptive shadow game. Lewis can also be woefully inconsistent at times. Lewis formulates the Trilemna and oversimplifies the option of insantiy. He doesn't consider that Jesus could've been slightly schizophrenic as Brian Holtz argues. He further doesn't seem to realize that he has begged the essential question of wether all the sayings and deeds of Jesus can be traced back to Jesus and are authentic.

On top of this, Lewis admits that Jesus was a false prophet. He also believes that Adam and Eve are mythical even though they would have been seen by acient Hebrews and Jews contemporaneously of Jesus' time as being real historical people ( the Romans believed that the two mythical brothers who founded the city of Rome were just as real as was the ground beneath their feet). I agree that young-earth creationism is the only logically consistent understanding of the Genesis text in the context that it was written.

Lokmer is correct; Lewis was a brilliant man and even has devoted philosophers like Peter Kreeft studying his works. But Lewis was a poor apologist and the careful reader will notice that there is little depth or substance to Lewis' apologetics.

Matthew



Posted by: michelle Feb 2 2004, 10:08 PM
Anybody know why Lewis never became a Catholic?

Posted by: moorezw Feb 3 2004, 06:28 AM
Michelle-

Lewis was converted by his good friend, J.R.R. Tolkien, who was a staunch Catholic. I don't know why he never accepted Catholicism, but he was Anglican, which isn't too far off.

Posted by: pitchu Feb 3 2004, 06:52 AM
Zack,

Unless there's some translation which indicates animal skins, is there a possibility that the skins with which god covered Adam and Eve were their own, corporeal ones? I've thought it brings up the piqueing question of their having been purely spiritual creatures until that time, with this entire episode marking the establishment of their human status.

Posted by: Guest Feb 3 2004, 09:49 AM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Jan 31 2004, 01:36 PM)

It floors me that in the era whence was writing Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Jacques Ellul, Deitrich Bonhoeffer, and many others that Lewis is the pre-eminant pop theologian.


To Lokmer:

In general I agree with your post except for the above statement. Lewis's Mere Christianity is riddled with assertions to the effect that the atheistic position breaks down upon close examination. Statements like "Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple." allows his readers to jump to the conclusion that atheists must be simple, simple minded, foolish, or outright fools. He provides a powerful boost to their belief system. And to top it off, his resume says that here is an intellectual who was a former atheist himself, but who has now logically arrived at the "truth" of Christianity. What better champion could one ask for?


Posted by: Reach Feb 3 2004, 10:07 AM
QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 3 2004, 09:49 AM)
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Jan 31 2004, 01:36 PM)

It floors me that in the era whence was writing Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Jacques Ellul, Deitrich Bonhoeffer, and many others that Lewis is the pre-eminant pop theologian.


To Lokmer:

In general I agree with your post except for the above statement. Lewis's Mere Christianity is riddled with assertions to the effect that the atheistic position breaks down upon close examination. Statements like "Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple." allows his readers to jump to the conclusion that atheists must be simple, simple minded, foolish, or outright fools. He provides a powerful boost to their belief system. And to top it off, his resume says that here is an intellectual who was a former atheist himself, but who has now logically arrived at the "truth" of Christianity. What better champion could one ask for?

It entirely depends on what you're looking for. Many are looking for champions. Personally, I was looking for apologists and found the others did a better job there. That is not to say that I've learned nothing from Lewis.

Posted by: michelle Feb 3 2004, 10:17 AM
Im sorry that Lewis lost himself. Im so sorry. I am familiar with his childhood. Thomas Merton too. I cant take it, to think about the lives of these 2 men. When the Christian men come into my job to hang out together, theyre faces deeply sadden me. They are always unshaven and looking very depressed. You can see their "act". I cant take it.

Posted by: Guest Feb 3 2004, 10:51 AM
To Reach:

I agree with you (and Lokmer) that Lewis is not the best apologist, only that he provides a lot of warm fuzzies for the name calling crowd.

I am interested in hearing who rates highest for you at this time, and which of his/her works were of the most value to you.

Posted by: moorezw Feb 3 2004, 01:43 PM
QUOTE (pitchu @ Feb 3 2004, 09:52 AM)
Unless there's some translation which indicates animal skins, is there a possibility that the skins with which god covered Adam and Eve were their own, corporeal ones?

Pitchu-

I doubt it, unless you could consider your skin as a 'garment'.

QUOTE
I've thought it brings up the piqueing question of their having been purely spiritual creatures until that time, with this entire episode marking the establishment of their human status.
Sounds Kabbalahistic. It's an interesting point to ponder.

Personally, I think my interpretation makes the most sense.

Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Feb 3 2004, 06:29 PM
QUOTE (moorezw @ Feb 3 2004, 04:43 PM)
QUOTE (pitchu @ Feb 3 2004, 09:52 AM)
Unless there's some translation which indicates animal skins, is there a possibility that the skins with which god covered Adam and Eve were their own, corporeal ones? I've thought it brings up the piqueing question of their having been purely spiritual creatures until that time, with this entire episode marking the establishment of their human status.

Sounds Kabbalahistic. It's an interesting point to ponder.

Not only sounds kabbalistic, but is.
Good to see a few "new" ideas getting around.

Posted by: pitchu Feb 3 2004, 09:09 PM
QUOTE (SpaceFalcon2001 @ Feb 3 2004, 06:29 PM)

Not only sounds kabbalistic, but is.
Good to see a few "new" ideas getting around.

Huh! I had no idea.

So how does this play out, Kabbalistically (if there is such an adverb)?

Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Feb 3 2004, 10:02 PM
QUOTE (pitchu @ Feb 4 2004, 12:09 AM)
Huh! I had no idea.

So how does this play out, Kabbalistically (if there is such an adverb)?

I've said it a few times, i'm surprised if you haven't seen it. To reiterate: Essentially Adam and Eve were created simultaneously, together, and represented the most spiritual of beings as they formed the primordial soul that is the ancestor of all souls. When Eve ate of the forbidden fruit from the serpent it held an entirely different meaning. The underlying meaning is that the serpent was satan, the fragmentational force, and the forbidden fruit was refereing to sexual relations, which in hebrew also is translated as being lifted up, further this means spiritually. In short: Eve was seduced (lifted up) to a higher plane of existence through satan from which she gained all knowledge of life in the physical means. She went on and shared this with adam, bringing him with her. This, in turn, tore their souls apart, splitting it into the quadrillion pieces of which are the sparks of souls. Ha'shem is surprised at their act (crying "Where are you!", the ever rhetorical question refering to their state of being) and casts them out of the non-physical realm that makes Gan Edan (Garden of Eden), giving them their bodies, and life in the way we know.

Posted by: moorezw Feb 4 2004, 06:24 AM
The only thing queerer than a literal interpretation of the Bible is a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible.

Posted by: Lokmer Feb 4 2004, 06:36 AM
Michelle -

You asked about why Lewis did not become a Catholic? From what I understand from his letters and biographers, he was uncomfortable with the cult of Mary and the veneration of the saints.

-Lokmer

Posted by: pitchu Feb 4 2004, 08:29 AM
QUOTE (moorezw @ Feb 4 2004, 06:24 AM)
The only thing queerer than a literal interpretation of the Bible is a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible.

But prettier, somehow.

I mean more attractive than original sin. Well, almost anything is more palatable than that.

And I must say that if I were forced to choose between a god for whom human sexually is a disgusting necessity and one who insists upon it (and may even like to watch), it wouldn't require a lot of rumination.

Posted by: Reach Feb 4 2004, 09:45 AM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Jan 31 2004, 01:36 PM)

It floors me that in the era whence was writing Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Jacques Ellul, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and many others that Lewis is the pre-eminant pop theologian.



QUOTE (Guest @ Feb 3 2004, 10:51 AM)
To Reach:

I agree with you (and Lokmer) that Lewis is not the best apologist, only that he provides a lot of warm fuzzies for the name calling crowd.

I am interested in hearing who rates highest for you at this time, and which of his/her works were of the most value to you.


Dear Guest,

I think if you compare the typical, garden-variety Christian books produced in the last couple decades, C.S. Lewis provides a little more than just warm fuzzies. He does offer some thought provoking insights rather than mere fluff, especially for the younger reader. While I’ve read bits and pieces of his work, I don’t read him for lack of time. Time constraints force me to choose amongst the very best with no options available for 2nd choice. Naturally, my opinion on what is best is limited to the information I have gathered.

My love for history, especially WWII, and my interest in apologetics and martyrdom drew me to Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I was particularly interested in reading the works of the 20th century as we don’t have to argue so much about whether or not their stories are valid. There is ample proof and testimony available today to prove their stories. Also, I have an interest in what a prisoner would write, especially in confinement, which brought me to discover Martin Niemöller and his writings.

In all honesty, I have to say that Bonhoeffer rates highest for me because I’ve read about a half dozen of his books and I’ve not been able to fully read the others but just some of their essays or quotes here and there. I’m yet to finish Bonhoeffer’s http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=2759104547521&pid=0684838273, which is greatly expanded over the previous edition as further translation work has been done on his letters and papers. It’s a great read. He was a man of integrity. I find him to be intensely honest.

Doing free lance editing on the side prevents me from getting to these other brilliant men anytime soon but as a group they are intriguing because they influenced each other. They were the leaders in a Renaissance of theology, the likes of which had not been seen since the Reformation. As far as I know, none of them was a stand alone icon and they all were willing to grapple with technology, science, cultural relativism, activism in times of war and the other important social issues of their times. I’m not sure if anyone has since replaced these men, at an equivalent intellectual level, so most of the books I find myself reading are about fifty years old or older these days.

Here are some decent sources I pulled up on Google just to save some time:

http://www.island-of-freedom.com/BARTH.HTM

Karl Barth is considered by some the greatest Protestant theologian of the 20th century and possibly the greatest since the Reformation. More than anyone else, Barth inspired and led the renaissance of theology that took place from about 1920 to 1950. The son of the Swiss Reformed minister and New Testament scholar Fritz Barth… Barth became known as a radical critic both of the prevailing liberal theology and of the social order. Liberal theology, Barth believed, had accommodated Christianity to modern culture. The crisis of World War I was in part a symptom of this unholy alliance. In his famous commentary Epistle to the Romans (1919; trans. 1933), Barth stressed the discontinuity between the Christian message and the world. He rejected the typical liberal points of contact between God and humanity in feeling or consciousness or rationality, as well as Catholic tendencies to trust in the church or spirituality.

http://www.theology.ie/theologians/tillich.htm

An interesting aside: http://www.crosscurrents.org/Tillich.htm A bio on Tillich by Charles P. Henderson

http://www.victorshepherd.on.ca/Heritage/jacques.htm A brief bio

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/ellul/

Happy reading, guest! If you pursue the writings of these men you’ll ultimately come to the conclusion that they did: they found that some of life’s questions were yet to be answered.

reach

P.S. Being in a rush I realized I didn't answer your question about which works are the most value to me. Regarding Bonhoeffer, I started with reading what was considered a classic, The Cost of Discipleship, as it was readily available. That led to Ethics, Life Together, Letters and Papers from Prison and a couple others. There is renewed interest in his work the last several years so more is available all the time. This is http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=2759104547521&author=Bonhoeffer,+Dietrich I use for Bonhoeffer, new or http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=2759104547521&type=rare_search&find=Dietrich+Bonhoeffer&x=14&y=4 for used.





Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Feb 4 2004, 06:48 PM
QUOTE (pitchu @ Feb 4 2004, 11:29 AM)
I mean more attractive than original sin. Well, almost anything is more palatable than that.
------------
And I must say that if I were forced to choose between a god for whom human sexually is a disgusting necessity and one who insists upon it (and may even like to watch), it wouldn't require a lot of rumination.

Heh, yup none of that original sin stuff. The only thing remotly close to it is Pidyon Ha-ben, (you may know a little about it already pitchu), meaning redemption of the first born. Basically because all the tribes screwed up and started worshiping an idol, which pissed moses off, God commanded that the first born male of every generation, would have to be redeemed (except children of kohen as they did not participate in the idol worship, and as it is, I'm a first born and my mother is a kohen). Unlike the christian baptizing or equivilent, you're not damned if you weren't redeemed, i.e. if the first born is not a boy or you are just plain not first born (or you are the offspring of kohen), no one has to go get Pidyon ha-ben.
-----------
hehe brings a new twist for those deists of you with a special fetish

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)