jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) (04/09/91)
In a commentary regarding a posting by sobarr@ucsd.edu (Carlos Saul Menem) Sun Apr 7 22:59:45 1991 Subject: Adam and Eve have become as Gods? our moderator offers the following: |.................................. My view of this is that the |serpent was telling a half-truth. He promised not only that they |would learn something, but that the consequences God threatened would |not happen, and by implication I think that no harm would come to |them. First, the consequences did happen -- they died. And second, |the knowledge they gained didn't help them. It caused innocent sexual |relations to turn into shameful ones. clh. I am led to wonder what kind of mystical reading of the scriptures gave rise to his last sentence. Not until the doctrine invented in the Dark Ages (long after the death of the Apostles) and later promulgated principally by T. Aquinas (who seems never to have fully repented his philandering), is this thought proffered with any kind of seriousness. I don't see any evidence in the scriptures that Adam and Eve EVER had anything like SHAMEFUL sexual relations. Oh yes, we all know that they covered their nakedness when they heard the Lord's voice...is that a shameful act? Wouldn't any one cover himself if a visitor were to knock on the door?! If this is the evidence for shame, then the real shame is on the quality of bible scholarship nakedly expressed above. Our moderator often adds a professorial pontifical postscript to the postings in this newsgroup. Wouldn't it be more seemly for him to give his own musings is his OWN posting and limit the addenda to administrative tasks? I think so. Jim Green [The guidelines for the group explain the grounds on which I make comments. I try to avoid being controversial in moderatorial comments. I confess I'm surprised by this one. As you'll see from another posting, Jim is not the only one who regarded my comment as controversial. I thought the change from being unashamed of nakedness (Gen 2:25) to covering themselves with fig leaves and hiding from God because they were naked (Gen 3:7ff) was pretty obviously a reference to sexual relations. I wouldn't want to say that this was the only implication of the sin, nor do I claim that the sin itself was sexual. (Presumably the most serious charge would have been simply disobedience.) But the change from innocent relations between man and woman to shameful ones was one of the most visible effects of the sin, and thus it seemed reasonable to cite as proof of the fact that taking the serpent's advice wasn't beneficial. According to 3:7 they started covering themselves as soon as they ate the fruit and realized that they were nake. So I don't understand your explanation of covering themselves as a courtesy to a visitor. It seems to me that hiding from God and being afraid of him because they were naked (3:10) suggests that they were ashamed of their nakedness. I'm not sure when you consider the dark ages to have begun, but my comments are consistent with Augustine's in chap 14 of the City of God. --clh]
jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) (04/14/91)
It gets worse.....our moderator can't restrain himself from commenting as follows: |The guidelines for the group explain the grounds on which I make |comments. I try to avoid being controversial......... In as much as the moderator DEFINES the 'guidelines', he, per force adheres to them. But that doesn't make it SEEMLY to add his post scripted personal beliefs to our postings as if he were the one to pass preferential judgement on them. He should REDEFINE the 'guidelines' and his opinions should appear as his own post. He goes on to |"... confess I'm surprised by this one. As you'll see from |another posting, [see Re: Adam and Eve have become as Gods?] |Jim is not the only one who regarded my comment as controversial. Surprised??? Good grief, we have gone over the issue of sex-as-the-Garden-of-Eden sin several times. Controversial??? This issue isn't as much controversial as it is unscholarly. There just isn't meaningful biblical evidence to support it. He continues... |I thought the change from being unashamed of nakedness |(Gen 2:25) to covering themselves with fig leaves and hiding from God |because they were naked (Gen 3:7ff) was pretty obviously a reference |to sexual relations. Obvious??? It was a *Dark Ages* INVENTION. Ok Ok Ok It wasn't the protege of Thomas Aquinas as I claimed previously, it blossomed in the perverted mind of Augustine c 400 ad. (And, yes, I really mean perverted; he struggled his entire life with the sexual, perverted promiscuity of his youth. It was he who promoted the biblically unsubstantiated idea that not only did Mary remain celibate but also that SHE was conceived 'immaculately'....all because of his distorted view of sex.) Still more... |.................................. It seems to me that hiding |from God and being afraid of him because they were naked (3:10) |suggests that they were ashamed of their nakedness. Nakedness??? They were ashamed because they had DISOBEYED...because they had EATEN of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil...because there APPEARANCE had so testified...because the Tree's FOOD had strangely changed there biological metabolism and now they LOOKED different. He continues: |.......................................... I'm not sure when |you consider the dark ages to have begun, but my comments are |consistent with Augustine's in chap 14 of the City of God. I consider that the Dark Ages began with Augustine and continued through Tom Aquinas until Galeleo Galilei, who had the courage to challenge all the accumulated Aristotelian drivel with the idea that humans should return to rational thought. Now our moderator's comment to Robert O'Barr (whose article should be read by all): |I didn't mean to say that the first sin was sexual, but rather |that derangement of relations between the sexes was a consequence |of it. --clh] Derangement??? What 'derangement between the sexes'? What is he talking about??? Any derangement here is belief that the so called sin of the Garden of Eden had anything to do with sex. THERE IS NOT ONE WORD ABOUT SEX IN THE ENTIRE EPISODE except that God COMMANDED Adam and Eve to MULTIPLY and replentish the Earth, which I am sure was accomplished with some good wholesome sex. And there is no evidence that they should feel any shame or that they were not to enjoy it while they were at it. I renew my challenge to support a contrary view with biblical references...opinions of post 4th century authors won't do; they had no more reliable sources regarding this issue than we do. Ok, Chuck, I'm sure that you will have something to say: =================================================================== [I doubt that anything more I would say is going to have any effect. --clh]
jhpb@garage.att.com (Joseph H Buehler) (04/14/91)
In article <Apr.9.03.52.41.1991.5665@athos.rutgers.edu> jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) writes:
I am led to wonder what kind of mystical reading of the scriptures
gave rise to his last sentence. Not until the doctrine invented
in the Dark Ages (long after the death of the Apostles) and later
promulgated principally by T. Aquinas (who seems never to have
fully repented his philandering), is this thought proffered with
any kind of seriousness.
Could we have some evidence that St. Thomas Aquinas was a philanderer at
any point in his life, please? In Catholic moral theology, I believe
the above statement is classified as calumny. I suppose you were just
in a bad mood.
[His previous response suggests that the author was thinking of
Augustine, who openly admited this. --clh]jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) (04/17/91)
[You get two for one here. This includes a comment by B.Rea@cantva.canterbury.ac.nz which was sent to Jim via email (and is posted by permission). --clh] > >He [Chuck Hedricks] continues... > >|I thought the change from being unashamed of nakedness >|(Gen 2:25) to covering themselves with fig leaves and hiding from God >|because they were naked (Gen 3:7ff) was pretty obviously a reference >|to sexual relations. > >Obvious??? It was a *Dark Ages* INVENTION. Ok Ok Ok It wasn't >the protege of Thomas Aquinas as I claimed previously, it blossomed >in the perverted mind of Augustine c 400 ad. Just a point of fact in pre-Christian Judaism some Rabbis had to deal with the same issue. They then taught that Adam and Eve had normal marital sexual relations in the graden before they ate of the fruit. This was to counter teaching by other Rabbis that the sin was sexual in nature and to say that sexual activity between husband and wife had no sinful connotations in any shape or form. The sexual interpretation is older than Christianity is. It has some very big problems with it though. Bill Rea ========================================================================== I am facinated by his comment. After all the issue is not clearly understood today nor in the post apostolic church. Why should it be understood by the BCE rabbis any better. He promises a reference soon. In the meantime can anyone expound a bit? Jim Green
burt@sequent.uucp (Burton Keeble) (04/21/91)
[This is (somewhat) related to the current discussion about the sin of Adam and Eve. --clh] Not that it really matters, but has anybody read Mark Twain's "Adam and Eve" (the actual title may be different)? It paints a very humanistic and humerous, and affectionate picture of life in the garden. I now return you to the original debate. -burt
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (04/21/91)
In article <Apr.9.03.52.41.1991.5665@athos.rutgers.edu> jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) writes:
+|.................................. My view of this is that the
+|serpent was telling a half-truth. He promised not only that they
+|would learn something, but that the consequences God threatened would
+|not happen, and by implication I think that no harm would come to
+|them. First, the consequences did happen -- they died. And second,
I think the serpent told the exact truth. The death the serpent talk
about, physical death, did not happen. The knowledge of good and
evil came and if God had not prevented them from eating of the 'tree
of life' they would have become as God. That's the reason for
expulsion from the garden.
+|the knowledge they gained didn't help them. It caused innocent sexual
+|relations to turn into shameful ones. clh.
A half baked augustinian.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edutblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/23/91)
In article <Apr.21.00.28.44.1991.18691@athos.rutgers.edu> burt@sequent.uucp (Burton Keeble) writes: >Not that it really matters, but has anybody read Mark Twain's "Adam and Eve" >(the actual title may be different)? It paints a very humanistic and humerous, >and affectionate picture of life in the garden. Actually, (as I recall), in my copy of the Short Stories of Mark Twain there are two stories. The Diary of Adam and the The Diary of Eve. The two stories tell things from the two viewpoints. (Both are quite amusing.) For a youth group some years ago we borrowed a copy of a "Clay-Mation" film "The Diary of Adam and Eve". Well, (as they say), "it's a hoot!", and still it is quite touching. (Favorite scenes include, Adam repeatedly going over the falls, [for fun], and Eve putting signs up everywhere in the garden.) (Compare these tales with Twain's complaints about all the signage at Niagra Falls in his story about visiting that fare sight.) Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
burt@sequent.uucp (Burton Keeble) (04/25/91)
[This is a comment on the discussion of Adam and Eve's sin. My view is that the serpent told a half-truth, with harmful intent. John Clark says: >I think the serpent told the exact truth. The death the serpent talk >about, physical death, did not happen. The knowledge of good and >evil came and if God had not prevented them from eating of the 'tree >of life' they would have become as God. That's the reason for >expulsion from the garden. --clh] Two thoughts come to my mind here: 1) The shame hasn't anything to do with sex. It has to do with knowledge. They suddenly knew the difference between naked and not naked. They covered themselves in a naive effort to cover their knowledge. Rather like a child (i.e., if I cannot see the fact, then the fact doesn't exist) who doesn't realize that his efforts at subterfuge are as obvious as his offense. 2) God knew they were going to eat the forbidden fruit; that is why it was in the garden. He sent the serpent to help us along, for it was time for man to become man. "And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them." He then expells mankind from the garden "lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever". And in so doing, He sets us on our great errand of becomming a race that will succeed in spite of all of its faults. And just look at all the fun we have had so far on our human adventure! Couldn't this be a gift from God? -burt@sequent.sequent.com
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (04/29/91)
In article <Apr.24.23.53.50.1991.11306@athos.rutgers.edu> burt@sequent.uucp (Burton Keeble) writes:
+
+2) God knew they were going to eat the forbidden fruit; that is why it
+was in the garden. He sent the serpent to help us along, for it was time
+for man to become man.
+
+And in so doing, He sets us on our great errand of becomming a race that will
+succeed in spite of all of its faults. And just look at all the fun we have
+had so far on our human adventure! Couldn't this be a gift from God?
This sound similar to one of the 'gnostic' lines wherein the whole
garden set up was to allow man to become more fully developed, i.e.
to become 'god-like'. This line was declared anathema in ancient
times since it would lead to the conclusion that God was the creator
of evil, which was unacceptable to the 'received' Christian fathers.
Some people point to the re-occuring themes as 'demonic' inspired.
But for one who stands outside of the Christian beliefs, I feel that
it is because of certain structural inadiquacies that these themes
re-occur.
In particular, the question of 'is God ultimately responsible for
evil?' has been answer at various times by 1) Yes 2) No 3) the
concept of 'evil' is only a state of distance from the Diety, which
can be closed by the choice of the individual. I'm sure others could
state even more variations on theme. If 1) is true then why should
one want to worship such a deity, if 2) is true then whence evil; if
3) then can anyone be truely condemned forever, but eventually make
it back to 'the godhead'.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edulae@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Larry Enos x5572) (05/02/91)
In article <Apr.21.02.14.59.1991.19720@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: > In article <Apr.9.03.52.41.1991.5665@athos.rutgers.edu> jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) writes: > +|.................................. My view of this is that the > +|serpent was telling a half-truth. He promised not only that they > +|would learn something, but that the consequences God threatened would > +|not happen, and by implication I think that no harm would come to > +|them. First, the consequences did happen -- they died. And second, > > I think the serpent told the exact truth. The death the serpent talk > about, physical death, did not happen. The knowledge of good and > evil came and if God had not prevented them from eating of the 'tree > of life' they would have become as God. That's the reason for > expulsion from the garden. > > John Clark > jclark@ucsd.edu Jesus said: Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father, the devil and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own nature; for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do no believe Me. (John 8:43-45) How can someone who "does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him" and "is a liar and the father of lies" ever tell the `exact truth'. You must realize that, whatever the circumstances and however reasonable his arguments may seem, Satan is *always* a liar. And if we listen to what he says, we cannot hear the truth of God. Larry Enos
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/07/91)
In article <May.2.04.37.13.1991.2442@athos.rutgers.edu> lae@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Larry Enos x5572) writes:
+Jesus said:
+
+ Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you
+ cannot hear my word. You are of your father, the devil and
+ you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer
+ from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because
+ there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he
+ speaks of his own nature; for he is a liar and the father
Ever hear of the subjunctive?
+ of lies. But because I speak the truth, you do no believe Me.
+ (John 8:43-45)
+
+How can someone who "does not stand in the truth, because there is no
+truth in him" and "is a liar and the father of lies" ever tell the
+`exact truth'.
It depends on what you call the 'truth' if the 'devil' is separated
from the Diety, then the 'devil' is not part of the truth, since the
Diety is defined as 'the truth'. The 'devil' is not prohibited from
speaking 'the truth' or about the 'the truth' only being 'one with
the truth'. As for your example it does nothing to indicate that the
serpent told anything but the truth. Of course you believe that only
the Diety can be the 'total' truth an so anything else is less
'true'.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.eduburt@sequent.uucp (Burton Keeble) (05/18/91)
In article <May.2.04.37.13.1991.2442@athos.rutgers.edu> lae@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Larry Enos x5572) writes: > >You must realize that, whatever the circumstances and however >reasonable his arguments may seem, Satan is *always* a liar. And if >we listen to what he says, we cannot hear the truth of God. > >Larry Enos I must ask, how do we know that it is Satan speaking? I'm an emerging theist; just beginning to believe and trust in God. I'm not a saved christian, but I sure do like Jesus 8-). burt@sequent.sequent.com
lae@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Larry Enos x5572) (05/23/91)
In article <May.18.00.38.06.1991.2868@athos.rutgers.edu> burt@sequent.uucp (Burton Keeble) writes: > In article <May.2.04.37.13.1991.2442@athos.rutgers.edu> lae@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Larry Enos x5572) writes: > > > >You must realize that, whatever the circumstances and however > >reasonable his arguments may seem, Satan is *always* a liar. And if > >we listen to what he says, we cannot hear the truth of God. > > > >Larry Enos > > I must ask, how do we know that it is Satan speaking? > Before you can recognize a lie (i.e., what is not real), you must first know the truth (i.e., what is real). But how can you do this? Jesus said: "I am the Way, the Reality (truth), and the Life." (John 14:6) Therefore, the truth is a person, Jesus Christ. And to know this Person is to know what is real and what is not. > > I'm an emerging theist; just beginning to believe and trust in God. > I'm not a saved christian, but I sure do like Jesus 8-). > burt@sequent.sequent.com Good. Then you're not far from the Truth. Now you need to take the next step, which is to know Jesus personally, in a real and intimate way. How can you do this? It's simple: by calling on His name? If you want to contact someone, you call them by name, don't you. Well, Jesus is a person. To contact Him, call "O Lord Jesus!" Do this sincerely, out loud, many times if necessary (to overcome any feelings of awkwardness and doubt), and you will certainly meet Him. Moreover (and this is the most wonderful part) He will come to live inside of you as the life-giving Spirit. Continue to contact the Lord in this way each day and you will gradually come to know Him more and more intimately, and He will speak to you as your counsellor and friend. Then you will certainly know the Truth, and He will make you free. (John 8:32) Knowing Jesus in this way is what is meant by being a saved Christian. Please let me know about your experiences in calling on Him. I'm eager to hear from you again. God bless you. Sincerely, Larry Enos