Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on October 20, 2018, 10:27:42 AM
-
For the garden of Eden that is.
A perfectly good and serviceable tool which experienced corruption which now pervades it.
I'm not talking about bugs or glitches but viruses, trojans etc.
I challenge posters to come up with a better analogy.
-
Another analogy might be extracted from its title 'net' or world wide web which can trap the unwary and be used by the variety of spiders which grow fat on their entrapment.
-
Another analogy might be extracted from its title 'net' or world wide web which can trap the unwary and be used by the variety of spiders which grow fat on their entrapment.
Very good.
That though would suggest that the creators of the web had such entrapment in mind when creating it rather than enthusiastic wanting the world to be a better place and the internet a chance for a new future etc, etc, etc.
In other words the fat spiders created it rather than a tufty tailed wide eyed Berners Lee.
-
For the garden of Eden that is.
A perfectly good and serviceable tool which experienced corruption which now pervades it.
I'm not talking about bugs or glitches but viruses, trojans etc.
I challenge posters to come up with a better analogy.
The Internet exists, the Garden of Eden didn't, imo.
-
The Internet exists, the Garden of Eden didn't, imo.
Your 'o' is hardly controversial.
The story of Eden and the known history of the internet are examples of how faith in the highest abilities and aspirations of humanity are self disappointing.
humans had the highest ideals for the internet only to be frustrated and confounded by, er, the lowest ideals of humanity.
-
No they really aren't.
-
No they really aren't.
Are you able to offer anymore than that?
-
Your 'o' is hardly controversial.
The story of Eden and the known history of the internet are examples of how faith in the highest abilities and aspirations of humanity are self disappointing.
humans had the highest ideals for the internet only to be frustrated and confounded by, er, the lowest ideals of humanity.
Did we really have the highest ideal for the internet, I don't think that is true. BTW as this has nothing to do with religion why isn't it on the science and technology board? Oh whoops you will accuse me of bullying you! ;D ;D ;D
-
Did we really have the highest ideal for the internet, I don't think that is true. BTW as this has nothing to do with religion why isn't it on the science and technology board?
No I can see your point and one can certainly imagine dark thoughts lurking in the minds of at least some of those responsible for the invention. However wasn't the internet originally a channel for free exchange of scientific information? Certainly no dark motive there and yet what starts as a good thing is certainly subverted to the bad.
And now people are talking of imposing rules on it.
It isn't on the science and technology board because I am comparing the internet with the story of the garden of eden and am talking about moral good and bad.
In other words what place does the garden of eden and good behaviour and bad behaviour on the science and technology board?
Were the writers of the story of eden aware that a new world...the internet, was created good and went bad there would be a chorus of ''we told them so'' from them.
-
Are you able to offer anymore than that?
To what? There's no substance to your OP.
-
For the garden of Eden that is.
A story in which humans were confined to a verdant prison by an evil overlord and doomed to mow his lawn for eternity. It ends happily though, as he accidentally released them from their slavery after being enraged by the consequences of the curiosity that he created them with.
I don't see the Internet as an analogy for that.
-
A story in which humans were confined to a verdant prison by an evil overlord and doomed to mow his lawn for eternity.
You should get that published Jeremy since I don't know of any other story like it.
-
You should get that published Jeremy since I don't know of any other story like it.
It's the story of the Fall when looked at with an objective eye.
-
It's the story of the Fall when looked at with an objective eye.
Verdant prison? The inmates found themselves very rapidly out the door.
Evil overlord? I've seen antitheists say he was evil because he evicted mankind. If you are saying that eviction was good then how can he be an evil overlord?
Presumably everything would be OK if humanity had been out of the garden of Eden but still able to enjoy all the benefits of the garden of eden.
In what way, then, is your eye objective ?
-
The garden here is a metaphor for ignorance. Basically Adam and Eve acquire knowledge and grow up. That's their only sin. TO become aware, of what they are and their relationship to God. It's a liberation, and one we all have to go through when we leave childhood behind.
-
The garden here is a metaphor for ignorance. Basically Adam and Eve acquire knowledge and grow up. That's their only sin. TO become aware, of what they are and their relationship to God. It's a liberation, and one we all have to go through when we leave childhood behind.
That is certainly a far later interpretation of the story which I believe has found it's way into Jewish traditions who believe that God's greatest attribute given to man is chutzpah. (Rather than the more consistently biblical meaning of alienation man against God, Man against women, man against man, man against himself and Man against nature.)
But I don't think even that's quite what you had in mind. .
-
Howard Jacobson ties Brexit in with Eden and shows his understanding of the Garden of Eden story.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/21/even-as-we-rail-at-our-leaders-we-fail-to-address-our-own-manifest-flaws
-
Verdant prison? The inmates found themselves very rapidly out the door.
Yes, I believe I already mentioned that.
Evil overlord? I've seen antitheists say he was evil because he evicted mankind. If you are saying that eviction was good then how can he be an evil overlord?
Well being an evil overlord doesn't imply intelligence. The god in the story really isn't the sharpest tool in the box.
Presumably everything would be OK if humanity had been out of the garden of Eden but still able to enjoy all the benefits of the garden of eden.
What are those benefits? The garden of Eden was no European Union.
In what way, then, is your eye objective ?
I can read the story from many different perspectives. You are limited to your Christian propaganda.
-
That is certainly a far later interpretation of the story
Actually there is some evidence that the original story from which Jewish tradition borrowed has exactly that interpretation.
-
Yes, I believe I already mentioned that.
Well being an evil overlord doesn't imply intelligence. The god in the story really isn't the sharpest tool in the box.
What are those benefits? The garden of Eden was no European Union.
I can read the story from many different perspectives. You are limited to your Christian propaganda.
The benefits are simply unbroken communion with God, no alienation with self or others or between sexes, or between mankind and nature.
You seem to want the benefits presumably of no alienation but wish to be alienated with God.
We know the result of leaving Eden....since we seem to have lost or losing the benefits.
-
Actually there is some evidence that the original story from which Jewish tradition borrowed has exactly that interpretation.
Let's have it then.
I have to disagree since one can only arrive at that interpretation with massive bowdlerisation of the rest of genesis.
-
The benefits are simply unbroken communion with God,
But as we have already established, communion with God in that context meant mowing his lawn and tending his roses for eternity. Doesn't seem like as great deal to me.
no alienation with self or others or between sexes, or between mankind and nature.
I don't feel alienated from any of those things.
You seem to want the benefits presumably of no alienation but wish to be alienated with God.
We know the result of leaving Eden....since we seem to have lost or losing the benefits.
I am alienated from God. The only real effect I have found is not feeling guilty about lying in on Sunday morning instead of going to church. Plus I don't have to come on forums like this and explain away awkward facts like how my god doesn't appear to exist and why his policy on crime is totally irrational. You should try it, it's quite liberating.
-
But as we have already established, communion with God in that context meant mowing his lawn and tending his roses for eternity. Doesn't seem like as great deal to me.
I don't feel alienated from any of those things.I am alienated from God. The only real effect I have found is not feeling guilty about lying in on Sunday morning instead of going to church. Plus I don't have to come on forums like this and explain away awkward facts like how my god doesn't appear to exist and why his policy on crime is totally irrational. You should try it, it's quite liberating.
The simple objection to you here Jeremy is what does God need with a lawn or roses?
In other words the garden and the upkeep of it is for us.
Which leaves us with your only real objection....the walking with God.
As for your claim of harmony with your fellow man, well we can only judge that by the tone of your posts and I don't think any of us can claim harmony with nature.
-
The simple objection to you here Jeremy is what does God need with a lawn or roses?
You tell me. It's not me that says God kept man to be his gardener, it's your precious Bible.
"The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it." NRSV
-
You tell me. It's not me that says God kept man to be his gardener, it's your precious Bible.
"The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it." NRSV
You are the one suggesting God needs a Garden not me so you ought to be justifying thatI would have thought.
All your biblical quote tells us is that we were placed in a relationship with God and nature which we have to cultivate or maintain.
I'm sure you agree we have to maintain nature...and haven't made a good fist of it.
Why are you not prepared to do the same with God.
If man is not to look after his environment, what alternative is there? Are you suggesting the pillaging or neglect of the environment is a good thing?
-
Howard Jacobson ties Brexit in with Eden and shows his understanding of the Garden of Eden story.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/21/even-as-we-rail-at-our-leaders-we-fail-to-address-our-own-manifest-flaws
Interesting perspective in this article.
Religious belief does not appear to be much help in removing these flaws in ourselves - in the Garden of Eden, the religious belief of Adam and Eve seems to have not helped prevent their flaws surfacing. I think being aware that your own perceptions may be your reality, but not necessarily the reality of others, and tolerance of other people's perceptions might help achieve a less fractious discussion of issues.
I also think people are more open about issues now and the information is quickly disseminated through the internet so it appears as if flaws that always existed before the advent of the internet, suddenly appear more widespread and problematic.
I agree social media has made it easier to bring together a mob to drown out alternative voices and perspectives, and many people do not always seem to act responsibly and thoughtfully when using the internet.
-
Interesting perspective in this article.
Religious belief does not appear to be much help in removing these flaws in ourselves - in the Garden of Eden, the religious belief of Adam and Eve seems to have not helped prevent their flaws surfacing. I think being aware that your own perceptions may be your reality, but not necessarily the reality of others, and tolerance of other people's perceptions might help achieve a less fractious discussion of issues.
I also think people are more open about issues now and the information is quickly disseminated through the internet so it appears as if flaws that always existed before the advent of the internet, suddenly appear more widespread and problematic.
I agree social media has made it easier to bring together a mob to drown out alternative voices and perspectives, and many people do not always seem to act responsibly and thoughtfully when using the internet.
I'm wondering whether there was ever a time in which the internet was exclusively used for unimpeachable purposes.
Returning to the Eden metaphor I suppose I am flagging up the limits of the metaphor, Eden having been paradisal although there is the sense of a rapid falling out whereas we all came to the internet flawed.
That doesn't mean though that the internet was not nobly conceived or notionally an opportunity for pure goodness......or does it?
-
You are the one suggesting God needs a Garden not me
Your Bible - your holy book - says God stuck Adam in the garden to look after it. Not me.
so you ought to be justifying thatI would have thought.
God moves in mysterious ways.
All your biblical quote tells us is that we were placed in a relationship with God and nature which we have to cultivate or maintain.
No it doesn't. It specifically says God put Man in the Garden of Eden to maintain it. He wasn't even allowed an apple as a reward.
I'm sure you agree we have to maintain nature...and haven't made a good fist of it.
Why are you not prepared to do the same with God.
We certainly do have to maintain God. He is a figment of our imagination after all.
If man is not to look after his environment, what alternative is there? Are you suggesting the pillaging or neglect of the environment is a good thing?
[/quote]
The alternative is to go extinct. It's inevitable anyway, in about a billion years, the Earth will be incinerated by the Sun as it expands.
-
Your Bible - your holy book - says God stuck Adam in the garden to look after it. Not me.
God moves in mysterious ways.
No it doesn't. It specifically says God put Man in the Garden of Eden to maintain it. He wasn't even allowed an apple as a reward.
We certainly do have to maintain God. He is a figment of our imagination after all.
If man is not to look after his environment, what alternative is there? Are you suggesting the pillaging or neglect of the environment is a good thing?
The alternative is to go extinct. It's inevitable anyway, in about a billion years, the Earth will be incinerated by the Sun as it expands.
Does the bible use the phrase stuck Adam in the Garden?
Why is that a sinister thing anyway?
I think even you might agree that the Bible never refers to God Evil Overlord. You don't think you've confused the bible with Marvel comics?
God is a figment of the imagination? Positive assertion that. You know what you have to do.
Does that mean Invisible pink unicorns are a pigment of the imagination?
-
Does the bible use the phrase stuck Adam in the Garden?
This is hysterical. Only a post or two ago, you were saying
"All your biblical quote tells us is that we were placed in a relationship with God and nature which we have to cultivate or maintain."
which it doesn't. That's your interpretation. But now, you are insisting that we take everything absolutely literally.
I think even you might agree that the Bible never refers to God Evil Overlord.
Did the god of Genesis genocide the whole of humanity bar eight people in a flood or did he not? A simple yes or no will suffice to answer.
God is a figment of the imagination? Positive assertion that. You know what you have to do.
"God exists" is a positive assertion but I'm not confident that you know what to do.
It is, however, pretty well disproven that the god described in Genesis did not exist. The World was not created in the way that Genesis described. There was no global flood. Humans didn't live to be nine hundred years old. The whole thing is a clear work of fiction, including the gods in it.
-
This is hysterical. Only a post or two ago, you were saying
"All your biblical quote tells us is that we were placed in a relationship with God and nature which we have to cultivate or maintain."
which it doesn't. That's your interpretation. But now, you are insisting that we take everything absolutely literally.
Did the god of Genesis genocide the whole of humanity bar eight people in a flood or did he not? A simple yes or no will suffice to answer.
"God exists" is a positive assertion but I'm not confident that you know what to do.
It is, however, pretty well disproven that the god described in Genesis did not exist. The World was not created in the way that Genesis described. There was no global flood. Humans didn't live to be nine hundred years old. The whole thing is a clear work of fiction, including the gods in it.
I have to interpret what you mean by stuck in the garden in the light of your interpretation.
I consider your interpretation to be a completely new story rather than an interpretation in which God is an ''evil overlord.''
It is a fairly good bet that the writers did not intend that meaning.
My interpretation is therefore closer to the intention of the writers.
You have not addressed two things. When asked to justify your statement that God is a figment of the imagination you blatantly tried to shift the burden of proof away from yourself and ducked the issue.
In the same way you claimed there was evidence that Rhiannon's version of the story of the Garden of Eden and even though you have been invited to provide it you haven't comeup with the goods.
Finally is it right to excuse mans poor stewardship of the environment by the glib statement that we'll be extinct in the future anyway?
-
It is, however, pretty well disproven that the god described in Genesis did not exist. The World was not created in the way that Genesis described. There was no global flood. Humans didn't live to be nine hundred years old. The whole thing is a clear work of fiction.
Who said that any of the above was literally true?
I didn't.....you seem to be having an imaginary argument with an imaginary person therefore.
I'm not yet convinced you are any kind of authority on fiction, it's role, how it can be metaphorical, how it can convey truths etc.
-
I'm not yet convinced you are any kind of authority on fiction, it's role, how it can be metaphorical, how it can convey truths etc.
And your qualifications on this are what?
-
And your qualifications on this are what?
Non automatic dismissal of fiction as somehow worthless...
However rudimentary you may deem that to be....it is an advance on Jeremy's position.
-
Non automatic dismissal of fiction as somehow worthless...
However rudimentary you may deem that to be....it is an advance on Jeremy's position.
I don't think he dismisses it as worthless - in fact he seems to have a pretty good grasp of it.
He just doesn't agree with your interpretation.
-
I don't think he dismisses it as worthless - in fact he seems to have a pretty good grasp of it.
He just doesn't agree with your interpretation.
He uses the term fiction in order to disparage and ignores that I am not a literalist on the points he has brought up,
that doesn't suggest either grasp or worth. In fact the complete tone is rather philistine.
-
Let's have it then.
I have to disagree since one can only arrive at that interpretation with massive bowdlerisation of the rest of genesis.
The reverse is true. The story has nothing to do with the rest of Genesis.
-
I have to interpret what you mean by stuck in the garden in the light of your interpretation.
That shouldn't be too hard for you.
I consider your interpretation to be a completely new story rather than an interpretation in which God is an ''evil overlord.''
I consider the story of the Fall as written in Genesis to be a new story based on an older story from Babylon in which the god character is the bad guy and the serpent character is the good guy. It makes more sense that way.
You have not addressed two things. When asked to justify your statement that God is a figment of the imagination you blatantly tried to shift the burden of proof away from yourself and ducked the issue.
I totally justified my statement with respect to the god of Genesis.
In the same way you claimed there was evidence that Rhiannon's version of the story of the Garden of Eden and even though you have been invited to provide it you haven't comeup with the goods.
You never come up with the goods. I don't feel the need to justify anything to you because you do not do me the courtesy of responding in kind.
Finally is it right to excuse mans poor stewardship of the environment by the glib statement that we'll be extinct in the future anyway?
In reality, man has never had any external obligation of "stewardship" of the environment other than his own self preservation. It's only in recent centuries that it occurred to anybody that there was any kind of higher obligation than our own self interest.
The story of the creation in Genesis is obvious fiction and, in fact, gives the message that the environment is there for man to exploit as he wishes. The message might be slightly different when we get to the Fall, but we should not be surprised at that. The whole thing is a confused incoherent mess.
-
I consider the story of the Fall as written in Genesis to be a new story based on an older story from Babylon in which the god character is the bad guy and the serpent character is the good guy. It makes more sense that way.
The Adam and Eve story does indeed appear to have parallels with the Gilgamesh stories. But the Canaanite myths show even closer parallels. Their matriarchal society's myths with Ashterah as Yahweh's wife appear to have been deliberately reversed by the Hebrews in the creation of their story.
Interestingly, the Ophite Gnostics later reversed the goody-baddy relationship of god and serpent all over again.
-
[quote author=jeremyp link=topic=16252.msg752573#msg752573
In reality, man has never had any external obligation of "stewardship" of the environment other than his own self preservation. It's only in recent centuries that it occurred to anybody that there was any kind of higher obligation than our own self interest.
[/quote]
So you finally admit that we are not here to mow Gods lawn .
-
So you finally admit that we are not here to mow Gods lawn .
I said "in reality". We are not talking about reality but the first three chapters of a fiction book.
-
I said "in reality". We are not talking about reality but the first three chapters of a fiction book.
It's interesting to note the paucity of references to the story in the Bible. In the O.T.after the Eden episode, Adam's descendants get a mention in Genesis 5, then there's a genealogical reference in 1Chronicles, and then - zilch.
In fact the New Testament doesn't fare much better. A genealogical reference in Luke and another in the epistle of Jude. Then two references in Paul's letters (Corinthians and Romans) where he obviously seems to think the myth has some importance. One reference in the non-Pauline 1Timothy. Then - again zilch.
-
I don't know if the doctrine of total depravity can be piggy backed onto Genesis.
The doctrine is not that humanity is totally depraved in the sense we might understand but that all activities are in someway 'tainted' with corruption or the tendency to corruption.
Surely this is eminently true of the internet which has in its way demonstrated the doctrine in action.
-
It's interesting to note the paucity of references to the story in the Bible. In the O.T.after the Eden episode, Adam's descendants get a mention in Genesis 5, then there's a genealogical reference in 1Chronicles, and then - zilch.
In fact the New Testament doesn't fare much better. A genealogical reference in Luke and another in the epistle of Jude. Then two references in Paul's letters (Corinthians and Romans) where he obviously seems to think the myth has some importance. One reference in the non-Pauline 1Timothy. Then - again zilch.
It seems to me that genesis is a potted metaphor for human history.
By what warrant do you seem to be equating wordage with importance?
-
It seems to me that genesis is a potted metaphor for human history.
All of it? It combines so many different styles and points of emphasis, that to regard it as a singular metaphor is ludicrous. If you mean that you choose to regard Chapter 2 as such a metaphor, then that is your prerogative. As has been pointed out, the story has different implications in its earlier origins, and the Gnostics made a completely different metaphor out of it from the one you seem to prefer (which is presumably the Pauline one)
By what warrant do you seem to be equating wordage with importance?
In the Old Testament, it's a reasonable assumption to make. The matter is complicated, but does involve some of the ideas which have evolved concerning the Documentary Hypothesis. The earlier material of Genesis (the Jahwist (Chapter 2) and Elohist accounts were probably combined after the fall of the northern Kingdom of Israel after the Assyrian invasion. Then, in the court of Hezekiah, a scribe obsessed with what he considered to be divine laws, reacted to this earlier material and wrote his own account of the subjects dealt with. This scribe is known as the Priestly Author, and he wrote the account of Creation related in Genesis 1 (no anthropomorphic God, different sequence of events, and importantly - man and woman created in God's image, not woman 'taken from Adam's rib'). It seems this scribe would have liked to reject all the earlier J and E material and replace it with his own account.
Later, in post-exilic times a further redactor decided to reinstate the earlier material with some bewildering and contradictory results (the story of Noah is cobbled together from the two contradictory accounts, as is the 'Matter of Peor' in Numbers). This redactor may well have been Ezra, a speculation which even St Jerome thought highly plausible.
At any rate, though the laws and covenants related at length by the Priestly Author get referred to often by later prophets, the Adam and Eve story doesn't seem to have entered their minds at all. That must signify something.
Okay, as I said, Paul obviously thought Genesis 2 explained the nature of the world and humanity's place in to him, and made the story a major part of his theology. Bully for him. It doesn't resonate with me.
Jesus, in his one reference to creation "He made them male and female" sounds to me as though he was referring to the Priestly narrative of Genesis 1. He was of course taking a hard line on divorce when citing this - not one which liberal Christians may find very sympathetic. And not only Christians.
-
All of it?
I suppose it does suggest where we are going in it's catastrophic elements and it's verdict on human nature. But of course it can only go up to when it was written down.