I honestly do not read that much into the story. Are we still floating allegories or are we now searching the history of human migration?
Adam and Eve
- Thread starter one_raven
- Start date
I honestly do not read that much into the story. Are we still floating allegories or are we now searching the history of human migration?
Yes.
The Torah is supposed to be a history of teh Hebrew people.
Obvioulsy it is rife with allegory and metaphor...
I suppose I am looking for that line where the two converge.
*************
M*W: I never suggested that A&E were nomads, nor did I suggest they were agrarians. I'm looking at this from a mythological viewpoint. A&E didn't really exist. Their stories were created by nomads who wandered under the night skies. However, nomads and agrarians could have existed at the same time likely in differing places. The desert wasn't a fruitful place for agrarians. One does not preclude the other.
Looking at A&E from an astro-theological standpoint, the zodiac was the GoE with all the creatures Adam named (the signs of the zodiac). Technically, from this perspective, the creatures (constellations) of the zodiac, including A&E, could be viewed from the night skies as 'wandering (nomads) in the wilderness (heavens and beyond).'
How can A & E be interpreted literally? there is no sense in trying to do that.
This story is FULL of symbolism, that can be interpreted in many ways.
For me, the Garden of Eden is a place in the current reality, the place that Jesus reffered to when spoke to Pilatus "My kingdom is not of this realm".
And we can obviously get there, if we stop eating the prohibited fruit.
The serpent I believe is no more than the symbolic representation of the Ego.
And the "prohibited fruit" is just letting oneself go astray because of our Ego.
It is very similar with Oriental concept "Kundalini Energy", often reffered to as the "caduceus" image, wich is my current avatar img.
But thats just me you know.
This story is FULL of symbolism, that can be interpreted in many ways.
For me, the Garden of Eden is a place in the current reality, the place that Jesus reffered to when spoke to Pilatus "My kingdom is not of this realm".
And we can obviously get there, if we stop eating the prohibited fruit.
The serpent I believe is no more than the symbolic representation of the Ego.
And the "prohibited fruit" is just letting oneself go astray because of our Ego.
It is very similar with Oriental concept "Kundalini Energy", often reffered to as the "caduceus" image, wich is my current avatar img.
But thats just me you know.
Actually, it was an act of disobediance, since Eve did have the intelligence to tell to the snake that she was not allowed to eat from the fruit.
It was also the original sin, since it brought sin to the world, cause as you say, if they don't know it was a sin, they shouldn't be blamed for it, so until they ate from the tree of knowledge there was no sin (in mans eyes), however when they ate it they brought upon them sin and death, cause they couldn't avoid the punishment any more.
Of course this has similiarities with upbringing, as this was the path that we had chosen. You could say that the upbringing we all experiance is like a synonym for the story in the Bible, and many stories in the Bible has similiar consequences in our lives, where stories in the Bible seems to unfold before our eyes.
Yes yes, you´re right, the big question, is how do we know what is good or bad in the eyes of God?
Now people don´t believe in the Bible or any other religious text. Only science.
All I know is society has worked hard to create an ego in me, and that cannot possibly be God´s will, God´s will is an inner voice, that we cannot hear most of the times because of the ego.
mybreathyourlung
Registered Senior Member
You may have answered this question elsewhere in the post, but in any case:
If a mentally handicapped person with no understanding of right and wrong kills someone, isn't it still a sin, wrong, and punishable?
Adam and Eve knew they were disobeying God, but they had no idea that disobedience was "wrong". Even so, it was still a sin, whether they were aware of it or not. God was aware it was a sin. Isn't he the decider of what is a sin and what isn't?
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
I don't think "right and wrong," "good and bad" and "good and evil" are the same things.
If your parents tell you to put your comic books away and go to bed, but you curl up under the covers with those comics and a flashlight, you are doing something "wrong" but you are not doing anything "evil." It's not even a little bit evil in opinion, though it might well be "bad." (I'll leave aside the question of whether something can be "evil" and not be "wrong", as that's a harder question, but things can be "wrong" without the taint of being "evil." I would argue that gaining knowledge of the difference between good and evil is not itself an evil act, though.)
Taking the story literally, I think it's possible that Adam and Eve could have known right from wrong without necessarily understanding the finer distinction between good and evil.
That said, if one looks at the story of Adam and Eve as an allegory, then the real truth is that there was no literal time before men knew about evil. Instead, I think the point is that men have it as part of their basic nature to defy what they know to be the will of God, and that the freedom to defy God is ultimately a cause of hardship and suffering in the world.
Taking it as an allegory, there was no "Fall of Man" in reality and the story really relates that our failings in a spiritual sense are and have always been a part of the species (and hence they show that these failings existed even in the hypothetical "first man"). Similarly, the allegorical "Original Sin" with which we are all born is not something we "inherit" from Adam and Eve, it's a condition that is fundamentally endemic to who and what we are: we are beings with free will who can (and will) do things that we know are contrary to God's desires.
If your parents tell you to put your comic books away and go to bed, but you curl up under the covers with those comics and a flashlight, you are doing something "wrong" but you are not doing anything "evil." It's not even a little bit evil in opinion, though it might well be "bad." (I'll leave aside the question of whether something can be "evil" and not be "wrong", as that's a harder question, but things can be "wrong" without the taint of being "evil." I would argue that gaining knowledge of the difference between good and evil is not itself an evil act, though.)
Taking the story literally, I think it's possible that Adam and Eve could have known right from wrong without necessarily understanding the finer distinction between good and evil.
That said, if one looks at the story of Adam and Eve as an allegory, then the real truth is that there was no literal time before men knew about evil. Instead, I think the point is that men have it as part of their basic nature to defy what they know to be the will of God, and that the freedom to defy God is ultimately a cause of hardship and suffering in the world.
Taking it as an allegory, there was no "Fall of Man" in reality and the story really relates that our failings in a spiritual sense are and have always been a part of the species (and hence they show that these failings existed even in the hypothetical "first man"). Similarly, the allegorical "Original Sin" with which we are all born is not something we "inherit" from Adam and Eve, it's a condition that is fundamentally endemic to who and what we are: we are beings with free will who can (and will) do things that we know are contrary to God's desires.
maybe knowing good and evil, and disobeying god arent the same.
mybreathyourlung
Registered Senior Member
Oh, neither do I, there's a definite difference. And I understand your view that even though they disobeyed, that doesn't really quailify as a sin, simply, wrong. But is it? One of the Ten Commandments was 'Honor your father & mother'. If you disobey that commandment, it's a sin. It may not be evil, but still wrong, and a sin.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
I think it's also clear that not all sin is evil. I mean, doing work on the Sabbath is a sin...but one can come up with countless examples of that are not exactly "evil."
That was great. Ayn Rand made the same observations, but her treatment was much more antagonistic.
I found your interpretation quite thought provoking. If frankly makes a lot more sense than the traditional interpretation.
The only disagreement I would have is with your final statement, that when mankind is mature he will have trancended the need for God.
As an adult, have you trancended the need for your parents? No. You are simply no longer dependent on them. It is still good to have a relationship with them.
Another point is when would we be considered "fully mature"? As an adult, my abilities are the equal of and may even exceed that of my parents. So will mankind, when he is fully mature, have all the powers of God?
I once read a SciFi story in which God gets perturbed with the captain of a starship for invading heaven when his ship enters hyperspace. His ship has a team of lawyers on board and they give him many different arguments as to why they should be allowed to travel thru hyperspace (heaven).
God examines them all and points out their errors in an instant. Finally, the Captain uses the argument given to him by an angel. Simply that a child seeks to be like his father.
God thinks about this one, and the captain suddenly feels his perspective shifting and suddenly finds that he is now God.
Thanks.
I respect your opinion a good deal (even if you ARE a right-wing wacknut), so that means something to me.
The only thing I ever read by Rand is Atlas Shrugged (right-wing propaganda, of course - but well written).
What was it called?
Where can I read it?
I struggled with that part quite a bit.
I have transcended the need for my parents.
I love them.
I care about them.
I greatly appreciate having them in my life.
My relationship with them is important and special to me.
I will be hurt when they die (more my mother than my father, to be honest).
I do not, however, need them anymore.
I do not need their guidance and advice.
They don't feed, clothe or house me.
If they died tomorrow, I would not perish with them.
I do very much appreciate my relationship with my parents, but when I became a man, I transcended my need for them.
They have done their job as parents.
Interesting perspective.
I think that we do not have to be parents to be mature (though we shouldn't be parents until we are mature), but we are mature when we no longer need them.
When we no longer need God, we have matured as a people.
What happens after that?
I've no clue.
Well, for one thing, there is a passage in Atlas Shrugged that deals with this. It occurs in the speech by John Galt.
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge - he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil - he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor - he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire - he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy - all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was - that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love - he was not man.
Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man."
I think she may also have touched on it in some of her straight philosophy books such as Philosophy, Who Needs It?Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man."