Deconstructing the Hebrew creation myth

[reedsch]

So, if I understand the story correctly:
(1) God created a perfect world, then,
(2) humans messed it up

...therefore you have to die, bear your children in pain, earn your bread by the sweat of your brow; this is also why cactus have thorns, snakes have venom, etc....

...and this is also why you need to be "saved". No "Fall of Man, no pressing need for a Messiah, right?

What is wrong with this picture?

[Katy]

If God created a perfect world, why was there temptation? Satan put it there - but his existance proves the world was not perfect.

[Carl G]

If God created a perfect world, why was there temptation? Satan put it there - but his existance proves the world was not perfect.

Not perfect by which standard? Our human standard? Of what, common decency? And our imaginary ideas about divinity? Satan and temptation may be aspects of a perfect larger picture. Actually, logically, how could the Totality be less than perfect? At that level what would a mistake look like?

[Katy]

If God created a perfect world, why was there temptation? Satan put it there - but his existance proves the world was not perfect.

Not perfect by which standard? Our human standard? Of what, common decency? And our imaginary ideas about divinity? Satan and temptation may be aspects of a perfect larger picture. Actually, logically, how could the Totality be less than perfect? At that level what would a mistake look like?

By their own standard. If everything was perfect, then their perfect God could be responsible for it. The fact that there is an opponent fighting against (and apparently succeeding against) God means that there is something acting against perfection - at least in Christianity.

[reedsch]

Katy, you go girl!

How could a perfect God create an imperfect world? I made the comment on an earlier thread, that in order to hold the whole story together that Hebrew-Christians have to elevate Satan to the role of virtual co-creator; if nothing less, we blame him (Lucifer) for everything bad.

This begs the question of why Lucifer would have wanted to reject God in the frirst place. To what end?

Clearly the Garden of Eden was not such a perfect place after all if there was stuff in there that could get you seriously messed up: snakes, apples with bad vibes, things of that nature.

One thing I would like to stay focused on in this thread is the role of the creation myth in a culture. IMHO it is pivotal, it explains (or attemtps to) why you are here, how you got here, and sets up the path for where you are going. In a word, why things are the way they are. The Hebrew story is no different, it is the fundamental melody in the whole song of our culture. But there is a problem with it, and it needs to be rewritten.

[Doggy]

Moses wrote the creation story. The Gospel which contains information about Jesus was written by individual disciples of Christ. Both supposably coming from the same divine influencial source, its our opinion to which holds more credibility.

[Kelly Jones]

"God" didn't create the world. It's always been around.

World meaning, everything.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

God didn't create a perfect world. He created the best of all possible worlds. For good to exist there must be evil. So our world has the perfect balance of the two to maximize good. Or so Leibniz would have us believe. Then again, who believes in the Bible creation myth in the first place? There's simply no good reason to.

[Carl G]

Katy: If God created a perfect world, why was there temptation? Satan put it there - but his existance proves the world was not perfect.

Carl: Not perfect by which standard? Our human standard? Of what, common decency? And our imaginary ideas about divinity? Satan and temptation may be aspects of a perfect larger picture. Actually, logically, how could the Totality be less than perfect? At that level what would a mistake look like?

Katy: By their own standard. If everything was perfect, then their perfect God could be responsible for it. The fact that there is an opponent fighting against (and apparently succeeding against) God means that there is something acting against perfection - at least in Christianity.

Right. According to the Hebrews. Wasn't actually trying to defend their beliefs. Forgot the thread title, so I was speaking more objectively on the subject of perfection.

[Carl G]

How could a perfect God create an imperfect world? I made the comment on an earlier thread, that in order to hold the whole story together that Hebrew-Christians have to elevate Satan to the role of virtual co-creator; if nothing less, we blame him (Lucifer) for everything bad.

This begs the question of why Lucifer would have wanted to reject God in the frirst place. To what end?

Clearly the Garden of Eden was not such a perfect place after all if there was stuff in there that could get you seriously messed up: snakes, apples with bad vibes, things of that nature.

Again, this comes down to who is judging what is perfection. You, for example are judging God's work, and you are in no position to objectively do so.

One thing I would like to stay focused on in this thread is the role of the creation myth in a culture. IMHO it is pivotal, it explains (or attemtps to) why you are here, how you got here, and sets up the path for where you are going. In a word, why things are the way they are. The Hebrew story is no different, it is the fundamental melody in the whole song of our culture. But there is a problem with it, and it needs to be rewritten.

As to whether a myth is useful, again, useful in what way, and to whom? There are lots of people who are better off with the current one than without it. Who's to say they are ready and willing to move on to another, of your choosing. Who's to say "it needs to be rewritten" for society at large. You sound like a fundie.

[Dan Rowden]

The Creation story is a nice metaphor for the creation of consciousness, if you bother to look...

Beyond that, it's well...................................crap

[reedsch]

Again, this comes down to who is judging what is perfection. You, for example are judging God's work, and you are in no position to objectively do so.

I am not the one who is claiming that the current world is imperfect. The creation story attempts to explain the reason why all the bad things happen. I am simply pointing out the broad outline of the story, setting it up for the coup de grace, as it were.

As to whether a myth is useful, again, useful in what way, and to whom? There are lots of people who are better off with the current one than without it. Who's to say they are ready and willing to move on to another, of your choosing. Who's to say "it needs to be rewritten" for society at large. You sound like a fundie.

What is a "fundie"?

I'd say the myth had its practical benefits. However, as I mentioned in an earlier thread there is a fundamental clash brewing between the Hebrew creation myth (and its Christian interpretations) and a creation myth based on modern science.

I feel no compelling need to put words in people's mouths, to set up straw men in order to knock them down. The creation story is commonly understood. Here we can entertain somealternative interpretations though, some of which I have found to be quite interesting...Dan, can you elaborate?

Carl is coming off too much has a defender of the faith...though perhaps I'm doing likewise in the role as attacker of the status quo

[Carl G]

Carl: Again, this comes down to who is judging what is perfection. You, for example are judging God's work, and you are in no position to objectively do so.

reedsch: I am not the one who is claiming that the current world is imperfect. The creation story attempts to explain the reason why all the bad things happen. I am simply pointing out the broad outline of the story, setting it up for the coup de grace, as it were.

Right. I took the following to be your position on the subject:

How could a perfect God create an imperfect world? I made the comment on an earlier thread, that in order to hold the whole story together that Hebrew-Christians have to elevate Satan to the role of virtual co-creator; if nothing less, we blame him (Lucifer) for everything bad.

This begs the question of why Lucifer would have wanted to reject God in the frirst place. To what end?

Clearly the Garden of Eden was not such a perfect place after all if there was stuff in there that could get you seriously messed up: snakes, apples with bad vibes, things of that nature.

Instead, it seems, you are mixing your argument in with the beliefs you're arguing against. It isn't clear to me what is what, therefore I may be reaching erroneous conclusions. Sorry.

What is a "fundie"?

Slang term for fundamentalist. I thought you were as fervent an anti-Christian as some people are rabid Christians. But after reading the rest of your last response, I tend to think this isn't true. However, I do still question your motive for slamming Christianity on this thread and others. What is it getting you?

[Katy]

The Creation story is a nice metaphor for the creation of consciousness, if you bother to look...

Beyond that, it's well...................................crap

Start with the first distinction - light and dark.
Recognize that there is something "higher"
Distinctions begin getting names and definitions
Make patterns be able to make predictions
Gain the consciousness of an animal - interact with the world without truly understanding it
Man shows up "in the image of" or having the ability to interact with "God"
Woman shows up, and the damned bitch can't resist an apple.


Of course then one wonders why it is Woman who is after the knowledge tree....

[Katy]

Then again, who believes in the Bible creation myth in the first place? There's simply no good reason to.

Well, actually, at least 2 of my roommates do, and several of my friends at school, as well, my sister (I think). It's easy and it prevents needing to think or learn...

I've noticed they have a different worldview beyond just that though - that they perceive themselves as under attack and the underdog and in a huge struggle. Life should suck now, heaven's waiting. Living for the future type thing.

[Dan Rowden]

The tree of knowledge represents consciousness, the source of duality, therefore of good and evil. It means an awakening.

The Creation story, in general, is fairly typical of the banality of the human mind. The parent forbids a certain action, but the child has no idea why because the action itself is the only thing that can grant the child such knowledge. The child is supposed to have blind faith in the parent's judgement but such faith goes against human nature so the child disobeys and in disobeying then understands why they have done so. The parent, being an egotistical dipshit (which the God of Genesis so obviously is) then punishes the child for a wrong they couldn't have known was wrong.

It's no wonder that the Fundies have the mentality they do, because the God of the OT is a terrifying idiot.

[Carl G]

Off topic:

Katy, I've been meaning to ask, are you the same person as the poster named Rory? Seems she stopped posting right around the time you started, and you both reside in Georgia, USA.

Just curious.

[Dan Rowden]

Yeah, Katy = Rory. Rory = screen name. Katy = real name.

[Aaron Mathis]

Ha! Katy! It all makes sense to me now. lol

What a way to try sneaking out of the pit of ignobility! you sneak!

.......and what a way to get sent back down...down you go!

hahhaha

- Aaron Mathis


PS: Katy - you know I just like to tease.
Aaron is probably more woman than you. lol

But he has the tremendous spiritual power required to eventually fuse into the QRS logo, making it QARS.

QARS!

This forum indeed has a bright future ever since the inception of aaron mathis.

[Aaron Mathis]

yeah I know what your all thinking.

Perhaps QRSM is more appropriate.

I'll let the people decide.

[reedsch]

Instead, it seems, you are mixing your argument in with the beliefs you're arguing against. It isn't clear to me what is what, therefore I may be reaching erroneous conclusions. Sorry.

I'm simply setting up the premise. This is a deconstruction, right? Apologies for not clearly idetifying the argument and counter-argument, I'll try to be more disciplined.

However, I do still question your motive for slamming Christianity on this thread and others. What is it getting you?

I'm just being provocative in my own precocious way. But like the Rabbi noted, I do have a visceral reaction to idol worship. I don't think anybody's going to save me from anything.

Of course then one wonders why it is Woman who is after the knowledge tree....

Now THAT"S provocative... Obviously the story of Eve coming from Adam's rib can be dismissed, not even on the same level of metaphor as Spider Woman blowing life into a lump of clay. Keep going Katy-Rory-soiled inheritor of Eve's dastardly legacy (oops got carried away there just kidding)

The tree of knowledge represents consciousness, the source of duality, therefore of good and evil. It means an awakening.

This is the general line of interpretation that makes the most sense. He bit the apple..."Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. " (Gen 3,7) I wonder why it was that God didn't want them to do it though? It's the negative slant to the whole story that sets me on edge. And like I said, it sets up all of the subsequent dynamics, particularly the need to be "saved". What was it about becoming CONSCIOUS that was such a damnable letdown?

We are duty-bound to play God. We humans do it al the time.

because the God of the OT is a terrifying idiot.

This segues into my next argument, which is what the real point of Jesus is, but I'll save that for another thread.

Dan, do you think the Genesis story can be salvaged from it's profoundly negative spin?

[reedsch]

Carl, I have a Bible question for you: where is the story of the Fall of Lucifer?

It seems that this is the fundamental root of the story that sets up all the subsequent dynamics, after all no Fall of Lucifer then no Fall of Man. Since I believe Lucifer's hissy-fit was pre-Adam and Eve then there were no human witnesses so the origin of the story could be legitimately questioned.

However the King James version of Genesis also says that the Serpent tempted Eve and does not state that the Serpent is Lucifer in disguise. So maybe the Fall of Lucifer and the Fall of Man are NOT related.

[Katy]

Now THAT"S provocative... Obviously the story of Eve coming from Adam's rib can be dismissed, not even on the same level of metaphor as Spider Woman blowing life into a lump of clay. Keep going Katy-Rory-soiled inheritor of Eve's dastardly legacy (oops got carried away there just kidding)

She doesn't know what it is she is looking for, only that she has been told no. There cannot be any consciousness in an action if one has no knowledge to begin with. Neither man nor woman begin capable of becoming wise.

However, when Woman eats the fruit she gains the knowledge of good and evil - or at least it is available to her. Then she shares with Adam. At this point, Adam is incapable of looking for truth or knowledge in anyway, much as an animal. Eve, however has that knowledge available.

So three possible interpretations here:
1. Eve is incapable of receiving this knowledge and thus doesn't know that she is doing evil by giving Adam the fruit second.
2. Eve is unwilling to receive this knowledge, with the same effect.
3. Eve does receive this knowledge, and knowing that it would be wrong to give Adam the fruit, she does so anyway.




Also, it sets up an interesting dynamic. Man is tempted by Woman, but what does it take to tempt the temptress? An entity whose entire existance is defined by tempting. These characters play the same role in one another's lives. But here's an interesting question: could Satan have tempted Adam directly, or was he reliant on Eve to be able to tempt Adam?

ETA: alternatively, she is tempted by fear while he is tempted by lust.

An orthodox Jew I once met told me that Adam and Eve were not the first two people alive - just the first two capable of receiving wisdom (thus Cain being able to leave and find a wife). This interpretation is especially curious given

This is the general line of interpretation that makes the most sense. He bit the apple..."Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. " (Gen 3,7)

if both were capable of receiving wisdom, and Eve bit first, why were both aware of their nakedness when he bit? Resistance?

[Matt Gregory]

I think the general attitude towards women in the Bible runs along these lines:

...the head of a woman is her husband... - 1 Corinthians 11:3

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. - 1 Corinthians 14:33-35

[reedsch]

She doesn't know what it is she is looking for, only that she has been told no. There cannot be any consciousness in an action if one has no knowledge to begin with.

Katy, clearly Eve was intrigued by the possibility being offered:

Genesis 3.3:
"God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
(1) only the gods know good and evil. Therefore evil existed before the Fall.
(2) God told a fib, at least in the literal sense because after they ate it they did NOT die, for quite a long time (some 900 years)
(3) the temptation was "YE SHALL BE AS GODS". This is the bait.

Again, there is no clear connection between Satan and the serpent, at least in the story as written. And how did the serpent know all this stuff? He basically called God a liar!

Interesting question then: was the serpent correct? Did Adam and Eve actually become as gods and know good and evil? (if knowing good and evil were the sole criteria for being a "god"; always small case to distinguish this from God). A subsequent passage suggests that this is true:
Genesis 3.22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,"

Again, check out the plural reference: GODS LIKE US!