Last one guys, I promise! Logan, when the standard was set, Adam was fully capable of meeting it. And he did for a time. But when presented with a choice he chose to rebel. Let there be no mistake, Adam was there when the fruit was offered to Eve. "She also gave some to her husband , who was there with her, and he ate it." (Gen 3:6) He could have stopped it, but made a choice not to just as much as Eve did. The reason that Lucifer fell was because he wanted God's position. He actually thought he could get it by fighting! The reason why Adam and Eve fell is because they wanted God's position (eat it and you will be like God). The reason mankind fails is because they want God's position (your not in charge of me, I dont have to do what you tell me to). They are doing what mom and dad (Adam and Eve) taught them to do.
A side note here, my husband and I have an ongoing debate about this. Kevin is in the camp with Pelegius in that man is capable of not sinning but he chooses not to (Its much more nuanced than that, but thats it in a nutshell without having to write another blog). I on the other hand am standing firm with Augustine in that there is no way I can not sin. Our talk times can be quite interesting to say the last. Rabbit trail!!!.....
Christ came to earth. The Creator became the created. People like to say Jesus was God, without pointing to the fact that he was also fully man. (how is that.....?????..... believe me........another blog) Jesus was fully man that was fully tempted with the full array of man's sins. He came to show us that it could have been done, and he did it in a much harsher climate than Adam and Eve ever had ! My personal belief for the thousand year reign is so that we can see what the Garden of Eden should have been like. (another side note)
All this to say.... what would our world be without standards to meet? What would our world be if people didnt chose to meet them? If every one were allowed to walk around meeting their standards with no consequence...... I dont even want to think about it! Its already going on to the people in Sudan and Somalia and some other nations. No respect for people, no respect for women, no respect for children...... We might not like standards sometimes, but they have to be there. They are boundries to keep our sinful nature from running wild, destroying us and those around us, until the close of time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Although I don't mind discussing the meaning of myth, let me be clear that what Adam did or didn't do doesn't influence me. However, in the context of the story, it can be taken two ways. The first way, and I think the proper way, is to acknowledge that when this story was written, in the early developement of the Jewish deity, God wasn't some omnipresent all knowing creature. He was a fallible god that created these two beings to be like him and his fellow gods to care for his garden. The serpent, a prevalent figure in many of the myths of the ancient world, truthfully informed the woman God feared the man and woman. During a pleasant walk in the garden (because this version of God wasn't yet the omnipresent deity many worship today), God discovered Adam's and Eve's act and exiled them from the garden. It's important to emphasize that God's punishment for their disobediance wasn't exile. For Eve, she would experience pain in childbirth for the woman and the man ruling over her ('cause, y'know, this was a patriarchal tale). Adam would have to suffer the exertion of gathering and/or growing his food. And, of course, when he died he would return to the dust from which he was created.
Now, why did God exile them? It states it in Gen 3:22: 22 "And the LORD God said, 'The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.' 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken." That's why he banished them, not directly for their disobidience, but because of his fear they would eat of the tree of life and live forever. They were now "like" him and the other gods and the gods couldn't allow humans to gain more power.
Suffice to say, my take is different than yours and that's okay, myths are supposed to be interpreted and reinterpreted. The Jews interpret it one way, with no Christological underpinnings and the Christians interpret it another way. I'm yet one more. For a really fascinating interpretation, I recommend Ishamel by Daniel Quinn. Very enjoyable read that makes you think.
Now, to implant the orthodox view of God back into this story, it'd be my opinion God set Adam and Eve up for a fall.
Re: Standards
Our world will never be without standards to meet, religious or secular. However, the honesty of secural goals is simply they are recognized as creations of man. In my own fallible, perhaps feeble, opinion, religious goals are also man-made. And I don't consider many religious goals all that worthy. For one thing, I don't consider the standards of religion to be all that exceptional. If you are being good simply because you believe a deity expects it of you, then you lack character as well as integrity (please note I'm using "you" in a universal sense). And, as you already conceded, these standards have yet to produce a "good" society. And, I think you also already conceded we have the freedom as it is now not to meet any standards we so choose.
My standards do have consequences, real world consequences. I'm unsure what you mean by that last paragraph but I'm going to take a leap and think you mean without a deity we'd be some reckless apes wandering around (no insult to apes, who are, by all accounts, fairly peaceful compared to us). If that's correct, do you have a low opinion of atheists? We can both agree there have been bad and good Christians and bad and good atheists as well. However, by and large I think most atheists are average folk who don't run around killing and pillaging. That being the case, what standards are you talking about needing? Standards are needed for a civilized society. That's it. Although it's another post, I'd say the standards of religions were created, knowingly or not, to control the society they developed. That's why right and wrong can be very different according to what society you were raised.
1)There are 2 creation myths in Genesis, one written before and one after the Babylon captivity.Yes...I called them myths. It doesn't lessen the importance of the story as apart of God's on going revelation of Himself to man and to the economy of salvation.
2)If by standards and goals you're refering to "virtue", both internal as well as political/social, then you need to read(or reread)your Aristotle.
We are, by our nature political creatures. It's how we are made. Add Aquinas and the Christian concept of grace and natural law...(Also look at my post/quote from the Catechism)...we are also religious by nature.
3)With out a Deity, we would not be reckless apes wandering around we would not exist AT ALL.
4)Atheists(as apposed to the agnostic that you are...lol)are looked at by those of faith in two ways: 1. We feel sorrow that they refuse to acknowldge God...and...2. We fear the damage that they have caused and will continue to cause to our world. I'm not going to give you the body count, but here are just a few of the names of the worst human rights violators of all time. Stalin, Mao, Kim, Pol Pot,... With a healthy respect for God and the dignity of the human person you can not have a cililized culture that can lasts...
Following your numbering:
1) I'd certainly agree there are two separate creation myths. I'd also add they were probably adapted from earlier myths and altered until they were finally written down. As for their importance in revelation, I take that as a faith statement and not a fact.
2) If by political you mean organization, certainly. Societies cannot exist without organization. I would disagree we are religious by nature. Rather, we are all born atheists and are taught according to the society we live in what to believe. A person born in a Christian family will likely be a Christian, in Hindu a Hindu, in Muslim a Muslim, in Atheist an Atheist. I see no reason to "add" Aquinas et al to the mix. We don't even need Aristotle. Granted these early authors are/might be worth reading but we don't need them.
3) I disagree. We're here. IF no deity exists, then we still exist and wouldn't be here discussing whether or not a deity exists. One fault of those who believe in a creator is although they can fathom a creator who's always been, they can't fathom a universe that's always been. We simply don't need a creator. The universe has always been here in some form or another, IMO.
4) I'm an atheist. I've no belief in a deity. Christians are also atheists. They just believe in one more god than I do. :) A) Please don't feel sorry for me. I'm very happy with my life. I don't feel sorry for you. Although I do believe you're wasting your life away living it for what I regard an imaginary god, I think you're happy so I don't feel sorry for you. B) I fear the damage Christianity and other religions have caused as well. Think of all the wars caused by religions led by religious leaders. Bush is the most recent example. You might claim, "Well, such and such wasn't a good Christian." Then I can claim Stalin wasn't a good atheist. So what? By far, the body count of those with religious agendas or religious upbringings is far greater than any atheist regimes you can cite. Shall I make a list as well? Native American slaughter, disregard for the environment, Christian slavery (never condemned, to my knowledge, in the Bible); the "conversion" of Europe by the sword; the Crusades; Israel vs Palestine; Hindus vs Muslims; Protestants vs Catholics in Ireland; overpopulation in third world countries wherein the Church has taught them go forth and multiply but nothing else, even forbidding precautions; anti-Semitism; "witch" burnings; the Church strangling free thought during the Dark Ages; killing abortion doctors; Waco. Shall I go on? Really, my friend, the "healthy respect for God" has led to much more decimation throughout the world than atheism. One should also note that Atheism is rather a position on one thing, the existence of a deity, not a philosophy. Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao were politically and philosophically communists. I can find stuff where things were done in the name of religion. Can you find things that were done in the name of Atheism?
So, to sum up, I find your fears unfounded. Some leaders who happen to be atheists might commit atrocities just as some leaders who are religious might commit atrocities, either in the name of religion or not. Both have but you may as well fear a religious leader as a non-religious leader.
Post a Comment