My interpretation on Eden

lmao. I stated in the same post that because God made us imperfect, theres NO WAY he expects us to ever be perfect. If you were to ask about my personal theology I'd tell you I don't think anyone goes to hell, or that such a place even exists.

Have you ever had a really awesome idea that you felt was so great you just HAD to share it with people? I feel like Love is that idea for God, hence creation. and I sort of am a creationalist, but why not the creation take place in a scientific background? Look at the first statement of the bible "in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." Now compare that to the Big Bang. similarities?

I asked you not to pick and choose which is exactly what you did....oh its this bit of the bible is right but i dont believe this bit and oh i dont believe the god of the bible is that....pick and mix ...re-inventing god to fit your image..

So I've had this thought in my head for about a week, and have finally fleshed it out into what I think may be one of the greatest revelations of my life so far (which, granted has only been a mere 18 years).

My theory comes from the second story of the bible in which God casts Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden. When looked at from a literal perspective, Adam and Eve were separated from God because they disobeyed him. This never really made sense to me. I believe the reason is because it's been taught from a political perspective, because it sets the tone for obedience that has been set by religious leaders and instilled in most religious followers (regardless of religion) since the beginning of organized religion.

However, if you look at the images as figurative: Adam and Eve represent humanity, where they start off as innocent, naive, ignorant, even from the beginning. One could say they are the representation of human ignorance.

Now let's take the tree as not actually being a tree, but being a concept from which many other concepts grow (like branches). Then the "Knowledge of Good and Evil" becomes a concept. I assert that seeing religion as a matter of "Good and Evil" is a fallacy. The idea that there is some evil force out there separates man from his issues. It puts the struggle outside of himself, and gives him an external energy to focus on. In my opinion it is simply a matter of knowing and not knowing (or ignorance, and non-ignorance), for if we truly understood the consequences of negative actions, we would be repulsed by taking them. Likewise if we truly understood the benefits of positive action, we would be insatiably compelled to take them. If we see it from this perspective, it becomes a matter of introspection and development of ones self, and places the focus on prosperity, rather than it being a matter of defeating an enemy and placing the focus on opposition.

Now let us look at the snake as a figurative image carrying connotations of the time, rather than as Satan - the personification of evil who wants to spiritually kill, steal, and destroy (giving us an identifiable external enemy). Or rather, why not see Satan himself as a figurative image throughout the Bible who instead of being man's enemy, the part of man that is his own ignorance? At the time the Old Testament was probably written, snakes were used to symbolize deceit rather than evil. I would say there is a subtle, but powerful difference between deceit and evil, and without making that distinction, we often allow ourselves to conceive of Satan as the latter. However, does the symbol of deceit not fit better with a concept of Satan as Ignorance, rather than pure Evil?

Now, if you put all these figurative translations together, you come up with a Genesis in which man, through his ignorance, is separated from God by a grave misconception "Good" and "Evil" from which many maladies of religion spring forth (such as the focus being on obedience rather than prosperity, an image where man get's punished for challenging authority, etc.). Another important facet to that story is that Man was ignorant from the start. This means that God made man ignorant for a reason. I believe that reason is because if we were totally conscious and aware, life would be purposeless. There would be no need for progress or development, which I think is the most beautiful purpose imaginable. This also shows that God WANTED man to be imperfect, which highlights his grace, as he would not make us so imperfect and EVER expect us to be the kind of "perfect" mainstream Religion prescribes (which is backwards in itself).

So what are peoples thoughts on this? There's bound to be a massive error somewhere in my thinking, and a million loose ends that still need tying, but still. I'm proud of this one. wrd.

One could just as easily interpret the story to mean that God wanted some pets, and when they would not be docile, innocent creatures but instead began wanting to think for themselves, they became sinners in the hands of an angry God and were punished for being truly human.
One could also then say that God seems to be all-too-human, and certainly not all-knowing.

But do we not always pick and choose? Is that not the correct policy towards the bible? Also we have to look at what is important. God created the world- that is the why, and the how is of lesser importance. However on other points- like the ressurection, the ressurection is the important point.

The story is about dualism, the story is a warning against dualism and dualistic thinking. The snake is not Satan, there is no suggestion of the snake's identify in the text. The snake is simply one with a forked tongue - one who coaxes people to do wrong.

But do we not always pick and choose? Is that not the correct policy towards the bible? Also we have to look at what is important. God created the world- that is the why, and the how is of lesser importance. However on other points- like the ressurection, the ressurection is the important point.

Didymos, I think the snake represented the wisdom of the Earth as it was before man made his debute, IMO. That same wisdom, God, that was what can be defined as "instinct" in the animal was the prevailing "nature" and the only one man knew and subject to. It seems in line to think of woman as more "earthbound" in that here is where she gives birth to her young and could be more subject to that "instinct" and it's nature and the overwhelming phenomenon of the senses and life itself, yet both man and women were both subject to relenting to this nature. I don't think they had a choice in the matter. Only time and knowledge would separate the two as man "learned" what it is to be human and determined for himself what was good and evil. IMO. These are just my thoughts, but to me they make sense. Perhaps they could be better defined.

William

Are we actually talking about facts here or another story that has no relevance and has trouble explaining what it actually means..Elija had his bears eat some kids for laughing at him...is there a deep mystical meaning behind this story..Looking for logic in a book that has none is like looking for sharks in your garden pond..

You cant pick and choose what you believe if you believe christ was the son of god no you cant..but you can if you think he was a wise man who through other wise men created a story to benefit mankind..

So I've had this thought in my head for about a week, ...

I'm proud of this one.

Didymos questioned:
"Also, why would the Earth's "wisdom" dictate that man defy God"?

Our eternal nature plus the overwhelming sensation of our sentient existence was new to the universe. How could man "defy" God when neither God nor man knew what this existence would involve? We are all apart of everything and to the degree we separate ourselves from that we get into trouble which is the dilemma IMO most experience when attempting to define the literal words of genesis. Understanding the "apple" was representative of man's "defiance", what do you think the "apple" was? What could man have done, that would have "angered" God?

Didymos questioned:
"And this explanation also seems to be deficient in explaining why God would expel Adam and Eve from Eden. Unless the lesson of the text is that God is vindictive and arbitrary, but if that's the case the text doesn't have a lesson other than "life is tough, get a helmet". And if that is the lesson, the the Genesis story is the most absurdly overwritten tale to be found".

I am not saying God expelled anyone. That's what "others" are saying, concluding man to be a flawed creation in that he cannot follow rules. What rules? The universe is and we are a part of that and considering the eternal nature of our being and the road we are yet to travel, we must learn what is beneficial and what is not beneficial to the journey. If anything would cause our fall from grace, it would be death itself. Now that makes sense to me. That is what caused the separation as we began to "covet" life itself. In our desire to survive "we" created evil. IMHO; How could man, the sentient being that he is possibly know what "Eden" was, which is fact is life itself until we realize how coveting that very life decreases the very quality of that life prompting us through wisdom to learn from our mistakes. Something we have failed to realize as life continues to spiral down the drain. See list; As far as going so far a saying Genesis as being absurd, I will have to agree with that. But you have to understand "man" wrote those words in his primitive understanding of God. Man defined God, to benefit his own understanding. That's the absurdity. "Tough and get a helmet", huh? We did that, God didn't have anything to do with it. The question is how tough does it have to get before we "see the light"?

William