by jam 28 Replies latest watchtower medical
I find it interesting that this story reflects echos of the most ancient culture alive on earth's (Australian Aboriginals) use of a spinning bullwara, as the ancient Egyptians apparently did, to warn women away from saced male cememony/corroboree.
I also note some modernists are reviewing these texts with a mind toward this event referencing mankind / Adam and Eve no longer having access to a Stargate.
more grist for the mill.
unclebruce, thinking out loud.
and if garden of eden wasnt destroyed untile after flood why didnt gad just have noah and his famly go in garden for protecion and keep cherubs posted destroy everything outside garden and then let noah and famly come out afterward instead of building humungas ark? why didnt he just remove tree? he got rid of enoch? so he can take out humans but not a tree?
There never was an Eden. If you read my previous post you will see that the paradise xians like to call Eden was actually the kings garden was a jewel or paradise in what is a harsh, ugly, dusty environment. The story was never literal, it was as i explained about endoctinating the masses to obey those in authority.
Again continuing on about the cherubim, these are simply the kings guards who protect his property from the masses who are undeserving of his wonderful garden. Again the tree of good and bad, is a metaphore equating knowledge with life. Trees were often included in religious practices in the ancient world, because they were literally magical. They manage to sprout from a tiny seed and with little help seem to give wood, food and other useful utilities to man and animals. Knowledge such as horiticulture and medicine was the domain of the elites in the ancient world. The king didnt want to share this knowledge but he still wants everyone to know he knows everything. The story again shows this, God or the King shows the world he has knowledge but he wont share. After all if everyone knew this knowledge the king would lose his legitmacy especially after the secret was out. As long as he has this knowledge he has control because the masses appreciate this knowledge is vital to their own surivial thus they have an interest in protecting and servinv the king.
Forget all the bullshit paradise with lions that eat ice cream nonsense that the WTS teaches and think of practical reasons for why the scribal elite would tell such a story to the masses. Explore the themes and think what benefits do the elite in ancient israel gain from this story. All the stories inthe bible have a selfish motivation, namely the legitamacy of the king and priests. Almost never do we hear of a story to go help orphans, why would they does anyone ever see Queen Elizabeth II make such a statement. Of course not she doesnt care, plain and simple, so why go out of her wayfor such unpleasentries.
Thanks Cedars, Good read.
I've also spent time contemplating this story, and there's a few elements I'd like to add for consideration.
You often hear Xians say, "God created A&E with Free Will (FW); He didn't want to create robots who HAD to love Him and obey Him".
Nice, but wrong.
A basic definition of FW: "the ability to make decisions free from coercion."
(think of the typical statement found in a will, "I, John Smith, being of sound mind and body, free from undue coercion and duress...." That's FW.)
So the moment God issued the first-recorded proclamation of Divine Will (DW) in the Bible ("thou shalt not eat of the fruit"), God instantly removed that particular decision from man's FW domain (which would include the choice to eat from any OTHER trees in the Garden, depending on their mood), and placed it under His DW, under HIS DW domain.
In other words, the very issuance of the prohibition meant the subsequent choice to eat of the fruit CANNOT properly be characterized as an exercise of man's FW. Whether God said it explicitly or not, it was NOT optional to obey.
Of course, God does NOT give man the PERMISSION to act against His DW (even under the pretense of man's exercising FW): it's the very definition of sin, and God doesn't give man permission to sin!
@@@@@
Being made "in God's image" refers to possessing similar mental capabilities, senses, capabilities for communication, etc.
However, the ability to determine right from wrong and good from evil refers to man's moral sense, morality, the ability to write our own laws, literally choosing our own path for civilization vs relying on God as the moral lawgiver and moral authority to tell us what to do. That's a common theme throughout the Bible, as it's the very basis of the original sin. Hence, the fruit from the "tree of knowledge of good and bad" imparted a sense of inherent morality, an inner compass, which is something that A&E weren't originally created with: otherwise, there would not be any TEMPTATION to eat!
Need further evidence? They only recognized the wrongness of disobeying God AFTER eating of the "instant-morality" fruit, hence their trying to hide, realizing they were naked (feeling shame over nudity, a common behavior in Genesis, eg Noah's shame after his nakedness), feeling guilt, and trying to blame each other when before God.
The Bible depicts A&E as existing in a child-like state before eating, more evidence suggesting their state of moral diminished-capacity (as if they were created as sociopaths, i.e. humans who are unable to recognize the immorality of their actions, as if operating free of guilt or remorse, or a conscience. An interesting angle to consider is they may in fact HAD been created "in the image of God", with God perhaps having such sociopathic tendencies, as well? How else do you describe YHWH of the OT, who admits to jealousy, orders genocide, etc?).
So once armed with the capacity for determining their own moral course, they in fact HAD become LIKE Gods, feeling enabled to determine morality on their own (although moral toddlers, quivering and incapacitated in the Garden with fear, suddenly aware of the possible dangers around them).
The paradox of A&E is, how could they be held responsible for disobeying God, when they may not have understood the ramifications of their actions at the time they ate? In law, we use a diminished-capacity defense for defendants (e.g. young children) who are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions at the time they committed a crime. Surely punishing A&E AND their descendants with capital punishment is a bit harsh, if they were operating on diminished capacity?
Point being, God created mankind with perhaps the DESIRE to exercise his FW, but hamstrung them without giving them the capability to exercise it in a responsible fashion (created as amoral beings); but more importantly, he didn't give man His PERMISSION to exercise his FW in the only decision which mattered; to eat the fruit that gave them morality.
(I've often thought that perhaps God should've let A&E eat a little bit of the fruit BEFORE having them decide whether it was good to disobey Him: I know, that would be no fun.... Hence the paradox of the forbidden fruit story. Some have argued that A&E should be thanked for giving man his moral sense, paying a heavy price in bearing the price of mortality.)
@@@@
Of course, this raises other questions, as well:
If God knew that this forbidden fruit had such disastrous consequences for humanity, why did He leave it unguarded in the MIDDLE of the Garden? Principles of reasonable custodianship would require placing the fruit under lock and key, or behind an electric fence (just like you cannot leave sweet-tasting antifreeze out, where animals and toddlers can drink it).
Both God and Serpent told half-truths, AKA "weasel words" (not surprising, being that the story was written by Jews, people who are not exactly strangers to lawyering and legal profession, LOL! The stereotype of a proud Jewish Mother bragging about her son, the lawyer, is not without basis!).
Satan was truthful, in that the fruit DID have the promised effect on their cognitive senses, although he challenged the literal vs figurative interpretation of the word "day".
Since God delivered the death sentence, He made sure that "you will die" bit happened (although he didn't mention that said death wasn't from toxicity of the fruit, but from His blocking access to the Tree of Life).
It's an interesting story, for sure, but I know a creation myth when I see one: the story includes an explanation of why humans die, why child-birth pain exists (interesting that God said the pain would be multiplied, when there's no evidence that Eve even had a frame of reference?) a rationale for male chauvinism/roots of male dominance, and an explanation of why humans (esp women) fear snakes.
@KingSolomon
No where in early Genesis does it say A&E were perfect or immortal. God is also never presented as omnipresent or all powerful, these are inventions "added" by over zealous xians. The point of the text that eatting of the tree will cause them to die, is simply a threat from the king, touch my property such as my palace and its garden and i will kill you.
The story of the Garden of Eden is allegorical. So is everything else in the bible. Actually, it's just reused pagan stories that have been around much longer than the bible.
Trying to explain anything beyond the original fairytale is just fan fiction.
