Bibiblical God charicter Yhwh, good/evil distinction, and the fall.

[Matrioshka_Brain]

Sorry if this has been discussed before. Anyways:

It is my understanding that in the bible's creation myth, man is constructed psycologically in the predominant god charicter's image. It is also my understanding that, prior to the fall, man had no capacity for good-evil distinction ie. lacked alturism/empathy, and possibly cognitive capacity to construct even an egoist standard of conduct.

Now, given the charicter Jaweh's apparent Emotional Immaturity, egomania & vanity, and general overall lack of concern for others like itself (ie. humans {flood, hell, Job, Philistiens, ect.}, implied cognitive dissonance and jealousy regarding other gods), and finally that it never has anything to fear, its charicter seems consistent with someone created without a good-evil distinction, as the human charicter Adam was (who, incidentially, was made using Yhwh as a model). Thus, if Adam was modled after the god and lacked morals, it follows the god does not have a sense of good and evil.

Post fall, man had a sense of good-evil distinction, and always was tagged with a "sin", which its unwitting participants did not commit. If the only thing that stuck with man post-fall was a sense of good and evil (and intelligence), then it is arguable that the "origional sin" is morality; alturism, empathic awareness of others, intellectual capacity to form a code of conduct that encourages happieness. What makes us good.

_____________________________________-
The Xian may argue by bringing into discussion the passage about it "drawing the line between light and dark"; one may counter that, by implication, they (Yhwh's concept of good and evil) are mere settings, to which it thinks itself exemt (ie. creates evil and identifies itself as good). In addition, it's code/settings are typically Orwellian in nature (overly restrictive to the point of pointlessness, give lots of power over others {ex: Leveticus}), and egoist (demanding of worship).

Thus, the Xian has no excuse to call the god charicter Jaweh good, bibiblically.

Thoughts, comments? Am I right?

[Amaleq13]

As an atheist, I am the obvious choice to offer the Christian perspective.:D

I think you will be criticized for equating "in the image of" with "exactly like" God.

What I think is a more difficult question for Christians to answer is why one shouldn't consider the entire fable a set-up to ensure that A&E would eat the forbidden fruit.

After all, God is assuming that A&E know that obeying God is "right" even though they have yet to eat from the tree that is alleged to provide an understanding of what "right" is. They are condemned for doing something when the "something" is the only way they could know what they were doing was wrong. They wuz screwed. The talking snake was right!


The ways of the Lord are dark but never pleasant.:D

[Ellis14]

Originally posted by Amaleq13
As an atheist, I am the obvious choice to offer the Christian perspective.:D

I think you will be criticized for equating "in the image of" with "exactly like" God.

What I think is a more difficult question for Christians to answer is why one shouldn't consider the entire fable a set-up to ensure that A&E would eat the forbidden fruit.

After all, God is assuming that A&E know that obeying God is "right" even though they have yet to eat from the tree that is alleged to provide an understanding of what "right" is. They are condemned for doing something when the "something" is the only way they could know what they were doing was wrong. They wuz screwed. The talking snake was right!

The ways of the Lord are dark but never pleasant.:D

Wow. That is an excellent point that I've never considered before!:

How could Adam and Eve make a decision whether to disobey God or not based on whether it was right or wrong to do so, if they didn't have the knowledge of right or wrong, or good and bad?? :confused:

Lol. I'm using that one on the next theist I meet! ;)

[Amos]

Originally posted by Ellis10
Lol. I'm using that one on the next theist I meet! ;)

Slow down Ellis because the bible does not say that Adam and Eve ate from the fruit. The woman did and she gave some to her husband and he ate it. The knowledge created here is what caused their eyes to be opened and as a result of this they felt shame (cf "no shame in Gen.2:25). This shame implied an ego and that ego is later called Adam and his wife was the serpent he later called Eve.

[Ellis14]

Originally posted by Amos
Slow down Ellis because the bible does not say that Adam and Eve ate from the fruit. The woman did and she gave some to her husband and he ate it. The knowledge created here is what caused their eyes to be opened and as a result of this they felt shame (cf "no shame in Gen.2:25). This shame implied an ego and that ego is later called Adam and his wife was the serpent he later called Eve.

Haha! What?? Are you taking the p*ss or have I misunderstood?

[Amos]

Well read it again, slowly and use your finger if you have to .

[Ellis14]

Originally posted by Amos
Well read it again, slowly and use your finger if you have to .

sorry. used my finger and even used a nice big ruler to make sure i didn't mix the lines up...

:confused:

[Amos]

Originally posted by Ellis10
sorry. used my finger and even used a nice big ruler to make sure i didn't mix the lines up...



So let me help you. The word Adam should not appear until Gen.3:9 "The Lord God then called the man and asked him: "where are you." The reply was: . . . I was naked and the Lord asked "who told you you were naked?"

The "who told you" introduces the ego identity without which there can be no shame (try out hypnosis here). Adam was therefore created in Gen.3 as the ego identity of man and he took the slithery serpent to teach him her ways and that is why they were paired up with each other to go out into the world where only the fittest can survive.

[Amaleq13]

Ellis10,

I'm using that one on the next theist I meet!

You may do so at absolutely no charge. I foolishly opened the door by giving Doctor X "Paulinate" without charging him so now all my "wisdom and witticisms" are free to any who appreciate them.:)

I think the argument is legitimate and effective against anyone claiming the story to be literally true but you will clearly have difficulty if your opponent shares Amos' views.

Speaking of which...
Originally posted by Amos
Slow down Ellis because the bible does not say that Adam and Eve ate from the fruit. The woman did and she gave some to her husband and he ate it.

Could you explain how your second sentence is not a contradiction of your first?

Then, could you explain how Genesis 3:6 does not directly contradict your first claim?

"And the woman seeth that the tree [is] good for food, and that it [is] pleasant to the eyes, and the tree is desirable to make [one] wise, and she taketh of its fruit and eateth, and giveth also to her husband with her, and he doth eat;" (YLT)

[Ellis14]

Originally posted by Amos
So let me help you. The word Adam should not appear until Gen.3:9 "The Lord God then called the man and asked him: "where are you." The reply was: . . . I was naked and the Lord asked "who told you you were naked?"

The "who told you" introduces the ego identity without which there can be no shame (try out hypnosis here). Adam was therefore created in Gen.3 as the ego identity of man and he took the slithery serpent to teach him her ways and that is why they were paired up with each other to go out into the world where only the fittest can survive.

No offence, but this is a completely unfounded and absurd interpretation of Genesis. The "man" or " Adam" was no more an avatar of human ego than the serpent and the women were the same!

[Amos]

Originally posted by Amaleq13
Ellis10,

Could you explain how your second sentence is not a contradiction of your first? quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Amos
Slow down Ellis because the bible does not say that Adam and Eve ate from the fruit. The woman did and she gave some to her husband and he ate it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Short version: man-and-woman (TOL) still as androgyne consumed from the conscious mind (TOK) and this is what created the ego identity that is referred to with Adam (from a-dam as in the violation or consumation of a forbidden fruit here called 'obstacle' or 'dam' and hence the term Adamic or original sin ).

Man was the "created" image of God and was "formed" in Gen.2. Woman was taken from man to be the womb-of-man after which man is procreated (flesh of my flesh an bone of my bones) but remained without an identity of her own because she was never created to be formed. So now we have two identities in one body who are called "man" and "woman" with woman being the blueprint of man. The serpent represents the void of woman (without an identity of her own) and she (it's a she!) postulated that their eyes would be opened when data can be isolated and absorbed. She' right about this and we love to do that around here.

Then, could you explain how Genesis 3:6 does not directly contradict your first claim?



I think so. The woman is the "parthenocarpic" (is that a word?) resident of our subjective mind (the TOL) and saw that the conscious mind (TOK) was good to gain power, wealth and beauty because its fruit has this objective appeal to it, doesn't it?

We should be glad she ate it and I think it is a lovely story.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Ellis10
No offence, but this is a completely unfounded and absurd interpretation of Genesis. The "man" or " Adam" was no more an avatar of human ego than the serpent and the women were the same!

That's OK Ellis, you're a 'good sport' but if you don't want to see it I'll just quit banging my head against the wall because you don't see it. :)

One more time, "man" is man and "Adam" is the ego or persona of man. It is wrong to say "man or Adam."

[Doctor X]

It is indeed ironic when one who is apparently eating some of the more illicit mushrooms whilst pontificating on a text attempts to chastize others for reading comprehension.

To return to the opening post, indeed, the authors are not interested in a deity--nor did they expect one--to be an "example" for people to follow. For them, a god doing evil, behaving badly, and all of that, is not a contradiction.

One of the myths that underlies the Biblical creation myths is a Summerian story where Enki--a god of water and wisdom--actually eats the plants created in the "Eden" of the story--located in the same place as the Biblical Eden, incidentally. Why does he do this? He is greedy, he is selfish. The "mother-earth" goddess who creates these plants--long name I cannot remember off the top of my head--curses him to death and leaves.

So, Enki become sick in eight organs. It is only from the pleas of the other gods, that the "mother-earth" goddess comes back to heal him. As Enki names each system that is failing, she creates a goddess to heal him. Here is something interesting: when he claims his rib hurts--ti--she creates a Nin-ti or a "woman of the rib" which is also read as a "woman who gives life." This is a significant pun.

This is the same meaning of "Eve"--according to Kramer, meaning a woman who gives life. Hebrew, then, retains part of the pun, but "rib" is not related. However, notice that in one creation story she is fashioned from a rib.

Fun stuff.

--J.D.

Reference:

Kramer S. History Begins at Sumer
--J.D.

[Amlodhi]

Originally posted by Amos

. . . from a-dam as in the violation or consumation of a forbidden fruit here called 'obstacle' or 'dam' and hence the term Adamic or original sin.

Sorry to have to say so Amos, but this is completely ludicrous, and hence, I can't let it stand for credulous lurkers to absorb. For starters, the Torah was written in Hebrew, not English, and the term "adam" has no connection to any connotation of the English term "obstacle" or "dam".

Neither does the term "fruit", which in the Hebrew is פְרִי and literally translated means "bough", (fig.) fruit.

IMHO, you should read the above post by Doctor X and begin investigating some of the actual truth of these matters instead of wasting your time on these unconstrained flights of fancy.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

[Doctor X]

Amlodhi:

Thanks for the endorsement. I suppose I should give a proper link to the reference:

History Begins at Sumer (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812212762/thesecularweb/).

This is a more update version, methinks. I have the older paperback which has a cover render'd by Edward Gorey . . . so there!

--J.D.

[Amlodhi]

Hello Doctor X,

Originally posted by Doctor X

I suppose I should give a proper link to the reference:

History Begins at Sumer.

And a good reference it is.

For those who might be interested, the following references, which I did not see on the recommended reading list, can also be useful:

"Mythology among the Hebrews and its Historical Development", Ignaz Goldziher, Ph.D., Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., New York, 1967.

"Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis", Robert Graves and Raphael Patai, Greenwich House, New York, 1983.

"Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament", (a comparative study with chapters from Sir James G. Frazer's "Folklore in the Old Testament"), 2 vol., Theodor H. Gaster, Gloucester, Mass., 1981.

And as I may have mentioned once before, a book that I consider a "must read":

"Hamlet's Mill", (An essay investigating the origins of human knowledge and its transmission through myth), Giorgio De Santillana & Hertha Von Dechend, David R. Godine Pub. 1969.

[Aside to Amos: You, especially, should read "Hamlet's Mill", it will speak to you.]

Namaste'

Amlodhi

[Amos]

Oh, please don't be sorry on account of me Amlodhi. I love dancing throught these passages and would never want to become so attached to the prescribed meaning of words that I would lose my freedom to 'play' with them (some would call this freethinking). The fact is that if I was to listen to Doctor X I would soon be 'just' another Doctor X and I think that there is too many dictionary doctors already.

We chose words to say something and the Hebrew word for Adam could very well be descriptive of man's 'earthly' nature in some obscured way and if it is not let me suggest that it should be because Adam is the name given to the second 'not-so-divine' identity of man -- since man was created in the divine image of God.

The fruit can very well be a bough if it is a metaphor. Who cares, really, except that an apple has more appeal to it nowadays or else maybe they did not have apples in those days. It can also be argued that a bough is more like its 'first fruit' since one might wonder how the pristine apple tree came to bear such nice apples even with their eyes still closed.

So my argument still stands but thank you for your comments.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Amlodhi

[Aside to Amos: You, especially, should read "Hamlet's Mill", it will speak to you.]

Namaste'

Amlodhi

Thanks, Amlodhi and I will but are you not afraid that I will criticize it?

[Doctor X]

Excellent suggestions Amlodhi. I am sure you recognize that the virtue of a dictionary is that it helps one use words properly. Solves a great deal of confusion. Of course, one cannot help those who refuse to learn.

--J.D.

[premjan]

Amos, you are lost in the maze of meanings. For any given set of words there are a large number of possible meanings. The true one depends on history and close analysis.

[Amos]

Not really and perhaps you forget that I am the one who builts the maze.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Excellent suggestions Amlodhi. I am sure you recognize that the virtue of a dictionary is that it helps one use words properly.
--J.D.

Who was it again that wrote something like: "words, words, the whole worlds is tormented by words and nobody can live without words, but insofar as we are free from words do we really understand words."

[Doctor X]

Someone who did not know how to use a dictionary.

--J.D.

[premjan]

but who knows if it is true. perhaps you are suggesting that meanings are fewer than words?

[Amos]

He was a famous poet but I just forgot his name. I even got a book of poety by him but I can't find that right now either.

Anyway, that doesn't really matter but that is how I see it.

[Amos]

Originally posted by premjan
but who knows if it is true. perhaps you are suggesting that meanings are fewer than words?

Not really. There are two worlds, one is a dictionary world and the other is what dictionaries try to teach us something about.

[premjan]

you are right. there are a million ways to name things and a million things, but there are far fewer meaningful mappings between the two. the answer to "why should I care" is highly constrained.

sorry if that didn't make any sense. glad if it did.

[Amos]

But I do care or I would not be here. If I was a troll I'd be dodging questions, which I do not. I readily admid that I am not a scholar, or a theologian, or a linguist but that I am perhaps hopelessly Romantic in a gypsy kind of way -- if that helps you any.

[Amlodhi]

Originally posted by Amos

Who was it again that wrote something like: "words, words, the whole worlds is tormented by words and nobody can live without words, but insofar as we are free from words do we really understand words."

And there is truth in the statement. The irony is that you are indicting yourself rather than others. It is you that uses "words" and nothing but "words" as the basis of your meanderings.

The true purpose of words is to convey coherent and (as much as is possible) accurate information. Thus, it is only by understanding the history, culture and political arena in which these words are spoken that we can actually "understand words". As your own quote advises you, mere word games lead nowhere.

Amos:

Thanks, Amlodhi and I will but are you not afraid that I will criticize (the book; Hamlet's Mill)?

Not afraid in the least. I recommended it to you in good faith. I think you will enjoy it and I also think it will surprise you. If that should prove not to be the case, I will buy your copy from you as mine has been read to virtual rags.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

[Amos]

Really! I used to just devour my books but not quite that bad.

Thanks again.