The Serpent in the Garden of Eden

[juantoo3]

Some good answers, all. I haven't a lot of time.

I think some interpretation hinges upon whether the serpent is viewed as a corporeal entity or not, and whether or not he was acting as some agent of evil.

First, the cave paintings at Lascaux and many other places suggest there were humans here long before Adam and Eve...either that or Adam and Eve are much older than is usually suggested.

Second, if I understand correctly, the Jewish interpretation of the "Accuser," the one Christians call the devil, was not an agent of evil but a sort of "district attorney" for G-d. So I am not certain of any connection with "ha-Satan" and the serpent.

Having said that, I am inclined to believe the serpent was a corporeal entity, and that he seduced Eve. Later, when she was in childbirth, she "continued" in labor bearing twin sons...by different fathers. Adam of course sired Abel, and the serpent whose surname is lost to us sired Cain. Consider that Cain's name is omitted from Adam's geneology, and Cain took a wife from another land (there were other peoples and tribes alive at the time).

I do think that Adam and Eve were a "transplant" of sorts, or were in some way a special creation of humans. I think the whole "fruit of the tree of knowledge" episode denotes a period when their minds were opened into a deeper consciousness than "animals," including other humans, were capable of at that time. I think this episode also notes mythologically the advent of agriculture, because Adam became a farmer. I have found material that suggests a diet of grain chemically alters the mind.

So I think there is a lot of symbolism and mythology, but at the core I also think there likely was some "couple" that either by accident or design stumbled through a door of consciousness, and this is an early (tribal) way of describing the event. It is also the beginning of the Biblical narrative in that as the story develops, the whole Bible is about the family(s) of Adam and Eve.

 

[Amergin]

My view is that the serpent represents our 'personal, self serving desires, or rather self will. When Eve was tempted, it is my view that she was simply tempted by her own selfishness, or rather the part existing in mankind that is self seeking.

And why is that not a good thing?

Eve deceived herself into believing that she would become as God ... All wise/all knowing/all powerful, etc. The only evil that came as a result of her disobedience was the evil that each of us possess and allow to consume us daily (Self-ish will).

I see it differently. Eve then Adam were "tempted" to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The temptation was not a serpent. The temptation was her evolutionary drive to learn and to know. Most desire to know was not to make lives different. We simply have brains that are hardwired to be curious, to question, to learn, and to know. I view the story as a metaphor for those in power to keep power by keeping people ignorant and naive.

Knowledge and inquiry among the people is the greatest fear of monarchs, despots, and warlords. They made up this story to discourage the peasants or shepherds to work and turn off the thinking machine. The Story is really to history of humanity evolving from 700 cc brains of Homo habilis to 1300 cc brains of Homo sapiens. It was curiosity, desire for knowledge and a brain capable of solving problems that made us what we are today. In addition, as the old Warlords and Shamans feared, people find that they can solve their own problems with inquiry, observation, problem analysis in a rational brain with much more success than Divine magic.

Our selfish nature is the root of all evil (Imo) and is in direct opposition to Gods will for us (Lust vs. Love). The flesh, which represents 'self will' (lust) is in opposition to the Spirit (Love) which represents 'Gods will'.

A certain amount of selfishness is what makes our lives and work successful. Our evolutionary altruism is what makes us love our fellow human beings. We know the "flesh" is not evil, only the misuse of the flesh is wrong. Lust is the sexual desire strongly found in survival brain circuits. Love is not opposed to lust but a supplement that made human families more stable than non-human animals. Lust is not evil but human. Love is not spirit but human. 'God's will" is a technique of those in power to keep ruled people obedient, orderly, and exploitable. It is not God's will. It is the will of Kings, Princes, Presidential dictators, Popes, Ayatollahs, Mullahs, and Imams. Those people use God to frighten people into demeaning submission.

We are but dust and ashes, no?

No. We are more likely organisms that originated in the ocean, possibly near tectonic steam vents where the oldest living organisms seem to flourish. We are only dust and ashes if we elect to be cremated.

We were created from the dust of the earth according to scripture.

Perhaps we were "created" from mud, hot steam, sulphur, water, nitrogen in the ocean some 3.7 billion years ago.

The serpent was cursed to consume the dust of the earth for the rest of his days.

Well, serpents do not eat dust now or in the Cretaceous. They are pure carnivores. If the Scriptural serpent was condemned to crawl on his belly (i.e. no legs), and he walked up to Eve, did he have legs. If so, he was not a serpent. Mythology can be funny.

Are we not consumed by our selfish desires daily? Are we (Who are made from the dust of the ground) not consumed by our personal, self serving desires?

I have been consumed by my selfish desires. It was my desire to treat the sick, save lives, and bring comfort to those in physical pain. That directed me to Medical School, Neurology Residency, and Neuroscience fellowship. Other than over 3 years in Africa, I spent my career so far treating and preventing strokes, brain haemorrhages, tumours, epilepsy, polyneuropathies, muscular dystrophies, and neurocognitive disorders. The only interruption was my three years in Rwanda, because I felt sad seeing the horrible scenes on Telly of people dying by the hundreds of thousands from disease, injury, and famine during the Tutsi-Hutu Wars of the early 1990's. It was miserable, hot, risks of being shot by rebel or Gov soldiers, a Green Mamba in my tent, and encounters with hyenas and lions. I did this because the TV pictures made me cry. I had to help (selfishness). After returning, I resumed my neuroscience work (again selfishness.)

The serpent is simply the part of our nature that is self serving. It is that part of us that is disobedient to Gods will. It is that part of us that is in opposition to God.

We agree. It is our evolution to rational, intelligent human beings produced by natural selection. The increase in rational, analytical, critical, and sceptical thinking is the reason we no longer need to live in fear of imaginary violent gods and their warlords on Earth. I oppose the idea of God because I do not believe that God is real. I oppose it because it is a psychological block to human advancement, freedom, and a better society. We are better off fixing our problems with health and the environment than putting it off while pining for a magical kingdom in the Sky.

We learn from our past (If we are wise), whereby we soon choose what is right, and good, and pleasing to God (On our own vocation).

Learning from our past and the past of our kinfolk help us succeed in life. Our moral conscience is the product of 2 million years of human evolution. Traits harmful to self or our family or our tribe were selected out for fewer offspring. Those with altruism, healthy behaviour, treating our fellow people well made for more peaceful and affluent villages. Evolution is what led over time to humans with not only a bigger, smarter brain, but also a brain that dislikes or fears harmful acts and is joyous over acts that help our tribe. Morality is not from God. It is intuitive from our moral trial and error mental evolution.

Our entire lives are a struggle between our will (Lust) and Gods will (Love), which is why Christ said we must die to self (Lust), and be reborn of the Spirit (Love).

Having read the Bible in school, I have a very hard time thinking of God is love. There is no love in the Bible. There are stories of God killing everyone on Earth with a flood of 2.5 billion cubic Km (depth of 8 km of Mt. Everest.) He supposedly killed men, women, children, babies, newborns, pregnant women (in what, the millions) and a million million non-human animals. That sounds like a Cosmic Lunatic. He destroyed everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah because some adults sinned...babies, unborn babies, children, and good people. Such a God earns the title "God fearing." He hardened Pharaoh's heart several times, so Pharaoh refused to free the Jews. Then God showed off his killing power in a series of deadly plagues. God sounds psychopathic. Of course, I do not believe in a crazy god or a good god.

The serpent is the metaphor for our progressing evolution marked by inquiry, investigation, learning, and analysing evidence. God represents the War Lords who wish to keep the people docile and dumb so they can be exploited.

Amergin

 

[Thomas]

I think some interpretation hinges upon whether the serpent is viewed as a corporeal entity or not, and whether or not he was acting as some agent of evil.

Well he certainly doesn't appear to be acting as an agent of God.

First, the cave paintings at Lascaux and many other places suggest there were humans here long before Adam and Eve...either that or Adam and Eve are much older than is usually suggested.

I suggest the latter. The cave paintings suggest the existence of humanity. The story of the Garden suggests its genesis.

Second, if I understand correctly, the Jewish interpretation of the "Accuser," the one Christians call the devil, was not an agent of evil but a sort of "district attorney" for G-d. So I am not certain of any connection with "ha-Satan" and the serpent.

Well, two things. One is that Jesus introduced a different idea of Satan that recast or revealed the truth of the Jewish idea. Depends on your religious persuasion. For the Jews he was the Accuser, for Jesus he is a murderer.

Having said that, I am inclined to believe the serpent was a corporeal entity, and that he seduced Eve.

A man then?

Later, when she was in childbirth, she "continued" in labor bearing twin sons...by different fathers.

That would require a feat of precise timing and a biological 'miracle', surely?

Adam of course sired Abel, and the serpent whose surname is lost to us sired Cain.

That's a pretty poor opinion of Eve? Some might even say mysogenist? I don't think even the most anti-Eve Christians (and there's saints and theologians amongst 'em!) accuse her of that!

Consider that Cain's name is omitted from Adam's geneology, and Cain took a wife from another land (there were other peoples and tribes alive at the time).

We've been 'cutting out' the black sheep from our genealogies since time immemorial ... no reason to suppose they didn't do it before that.

I do think that Adam and Eve were a "transplant" of sorts, or were in some way a special creation of humans.

You mean created 'perfect' in accordance with their nature?

I think the whole "fruit of the tree of knowledge" episode denotes a period when their minds were opened into a deeper consciousness than "animals," including other humans, were capable of at that time.

More a 'darker' consciousness, I would have thought. And not in a good sense, quite the opposite. Prior to that, without the knowledge of good and evil (duality), one could argue they live in the state of 'divine ignorance', the darkness of the good sort. As spoken of by the greatest mystics.

There is that which is known, and that which knows, but what is known will never equal that which knows it (except in God, in which known and knower is one). Thus the sum of all knowledge of what man is, will never equal what man is, if you see what I mean. The knower will always be more than that which is known (except God, again), if we allow that man can know God.

God is unknowable because He cannot be circumscribed: He is infinite ... man must finally accept that he is unknowable, to himself, because he can participate in that infinite knowing which transcends his being ... which is something of a paradox.

I think this episode also notes mythologically the advent of agriculture, because Adam became a farmer. I have found material that suggests a diet of grain chemically alters the mind.

Yeah, but it seems a bit of a shabby shame to attribute man's capacity to reason his existence to a hallucinogen.

So I think there is a lot of symbolism and mythology, but at the core I also think there likely was some "couple" that either by accident or design stumbled through a door of consciousness, and this is an early (tribal) way of describing the event. It is also the beginning of the Biblical narrative in that as the story develops, the whole Bible is about the family(s) of Adam and Eve.

Whatever consciousness they stumbled into, we all, the whole human race, stumble about in it. Hard to posit that one couple brought a whole race (or races) down, with what we know of genetics today? More likely (genetically) they were th first 'couple'.

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

Well he certainly doesn't appear to be acting as an agent of God.

True.

The cave paintings suggest the existence of humanity. The story of the Garden suggests its genesis.

Of course those were only token examples, there are other archeological artifactual finds that go back to about one hundred thousand years...and include not only Homo Sapiens, but H. Neandertalensis, H. Heidelbergensis and now H. Floresiensis; 4 distinct species of Homonids. Clearly, based on Neandertal DNA, these cave dwelling peoples who lived simultaneously with "Cro Magnon" modern humans, have not contributed (I will say significantly as a caveat) to the modern genepool. They used fire and made tools, decorated their dead and cared for their wounded and sick.

So how do we account for these "non-human" humans? I suggest the 6th day of creation in Genesis provides a clue...*and it was VERY good.*

Fire has reportedly been in use for about 200 thousand years, stone tools well over a hundred thousand. Seems to me a HUGE stretch to apply Bishop Usher's 6 thousand years, if Adam and Eve are truly the "original" humans.

Well, two things. One is that Jesus introduced a different idea of Satan that recast or revealed the truth of the Jewish idea. Depends on your religious persuasion. For the Jews he was the Accuser, for Jesus he is a murderer.

Possibly. It wouldn't be the first thing altered from its Jewish source.

A man then?

Why should you find that incredible?

That would require a feat of precise timing and a biological 'miracle', surely?

It happens a lot more often than you might think.

That's a pretty poor opinion of Eve? Some might even say mysogenist? I don't think even the most anti-Eve Christians (and there's saints and theologians amongst 'em!) accuse her of that!

Misogyny (pronounced /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is hatred (or contempt) of women or girls.

You really think this of me? You truly should know better by now. Shame. Since when is the pursuit of truth to be confused with hatred? That is a red herring used, all too frequently, by those who wish to hide the truth and dissuade the finding of it.

We've been 'cutting out' the black sheep from our genealogies since time immemorial ... no reason to suppose they didn't do it before that.

That would suggest either an alteration of "documents," or selective cutting as there are all kinds of scoundrels that *are* recorded in the lineages.

You mean created 'perfect' in accordance with their nature?

Certainly, but I fully understand we mean different things by these words.

More a 'darker' consciousness, I would have thought. And not in a good sense, quite the opposite. Prior to that, without the knowledge of good and evil (duality), one could argue they live in the state of 'divine ignorance', the darkness of the good sort. As spoken of by the greatest mystics.

Agreed.

There is that which is known, and that which knows, but what is known will never equal that which knows it (except in God, in which known and knower is one). Thus the sum of all knowledge of what man is, will never equal what man is, if you see what I mean. The knower will always be more than that which is known (except God, again), if we allow that man can know God.

God is unknowable because He cannot be circumscribed: He is infinite ... man must finally accept that he is unknowable, to himself, because he can participate in that infinite knowing which transcends his being ... which is something of a paradox.

In a metaphysical sense I agree.

Yeah, but it seems a bit of a shabby shame to attribute man's capacity to reason his existence to a hallucinogen.

Why? Is it not more than a tad convenient that knowledge *explodes* immediately after the advent of agriculture, and that agrarian societies go on to rule the world? The wheel, mathematics, metallurgy, astronomy, warfare, city building and so much more all as a direct result of agriculture...and those hallucinogenic properties of grain...hmmmm.

Whatever consciousness they stumbled into, we all, the whole human race, stumble about in it. Hard to posit that one couple brought a whole race (or races) down, with what we know of genetics today? More likely (genetically) they were th first 'couple'.

As agrarian methods spread, the metamorphasis could well have and I believe did extend to tribes and peoples elsewhere.

And then we have the little flood problem that should have further condensed the genepool about 1800 or so years after Adam, no? I doubt the human DNA pool would be as diverse as it is if the flood wiped out all but 8 individuals some 4200 or so years ago...

 

[Amergin]

Original Sin - Garden of Eden Metaphor

I think that Biblical Genesis is the story of mankind’s ascent not fall. It begins with the Garden of Eden metaphor. It originated in the remembered stories of Hunter-gathering. In the garden (hunter-gatherers) man and woman could just pluck fruit from the trees. There was no need for work. It was truly a paradise in the memories passed down. A Stone Age farmer was tilling the soil in Iraq under the hot sun. He was sweating. There were painful blisters on his hands from the plough handles. It must have seemed that we lost something. There were the stories passed down for ages about the Hunter-Gatherer days. In retrospect those memories of hunter gathering must have seemed like paradise. No need to till the soil, just live off of the land's abundance.

It seemed to be a magic garden. Why did we lose that? We are now tilling the hot dusty soil to survive. We must have committed a sin offending the gods. The gods were angered enough up to kick us out of that ancient garden. We forgot the harsh realities of hunter gathering life such as savage predators, starvation, and limited populations. The "Good Old Days" are always better in the memory than in reality. Golden ages are never quite so golden when inspected closely.

Man and woman must have been kicked out of that magic garden for some offence to the gods or God. What would offend the gods the most? Would it be attempting to be as smart as the gods or to become gods by inquiring? The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is the challenge to God severe enough for mythical ancestors to be kicked out of the magic garden. Man and woman then had to fend for themselves. Or so it seemed that way. This was the Original Sin. Today in Fundamentalistic Cults inquiry, dissent, and scepticism still constitute the worst sin.

The Cain and Abel story is the second fall of man. It incorporates the memories of the second stage of human culture, pastoralism and the third stage, settled agriculture. Abel represents the relative golden age of pastoralism. Cain is the farmer. Pastoralism was also remembered by the Jews and Amorites as a happy go lucky lifestyle. Just follow the herds and guard them from wolves. But no serious work apart from moving with the herds to pastures. It wasn't as good as the ancient Garden of Eden but it wasn't bad. It was wonderful compared to the dreadful drudgery of farming under the hot Sun.

The Mesopotamian-Amorite farmer considered his terribly hard life of pushing a wooden plough (behind oxen if he was lucky.) An ancestor obviously screwing up sometime ago lost the garden for us. Cain the tiller of soil murdered Abel the shepherd, destroying the golden pastoral life. God's punishment is for man to live by the sweat of his brow, ploughing the hard rocky ground of Iraq.

So, I view Original Sin as the metaphor for the tribal memories of the transition from hunter-gatherers to pastoralists. And then further decline from pastoralists to dirt farmers. It was actually cultural advancement, supporting larger populations and permitting civilisation to evolve. But to the poor bloke behind the plough it must have seemed like man had lost two golden ages by sin (Original Sin and the murder of Abel by Cain.)

I think that by the time it was all written down in the books of Genesis, the writers must have actually believed it. Later believers tended to believe it also and elaborate the theological components. Eden is the metaphor for hunter gathering, and original sin is the myth for why we lost it. It is very interesting because it tells us much about the ancient people who devised the stories some 6-8 thousand years ago.

Original Sin was not the Fall of Mankind. Original Inquiry was the Rise of Civilised Mankind.

The serpent was a metaphor for human curiosity, inquiry, and increasing desire to learn. The Serpent was the urge of humans to know and not just believe. Inquiry, study, learning, and knowledge are the major enemies of unjust dictators cosmic or earthbound. Their reaction is to fight acquisition of knowledge (Dark Ages).

Knowledge can set you free. Your freedom is suppressed by the chains of ignorance and the shackles of dogma.

Amergin

 

[Amergin]

Re: The Serpent led to human freedom

The Joy of Freedom


When I became convinced
that the Universe is natural,
that all the ghosts and gods are myths,
there entered into my brain, into my soul,
into every drop of my blood, the sense,
the feeling, the joy of Freedom.

The walls of my prison crumbled and fell.
The dungeon was flooded with light
and all the bolts, bars
and manacles became dust.
I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave.
There was for me no master in all of the wide world,
not even in the infinite space. I was free.

Free to think, to express my thoughts,
Free to live to my own ideal,
Free to live for myself and those I loved,
Free to use my faculties, all my senses,
Free to spread imagination's wings,
Free to investigate, to guess and dream, and hope;
Free to judge and determine for myself,
Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds,
all the "inspired" books
that savages have produced,
and all the barbarous legends of the past.

Free from popes and priests,
Free from all the "called" and the "set apart,"
Free from the sanctified mistakes and holy lies,
Free from the fear of eternal pain,
Free from the winged monsters of the night,
Free from devils, ghosts and gods.

For the first time I was free.
There were no prohibited places
in all the realms of my thought:
no air, no space,
where fancy could not spread her painted wings.
No chains for my limbs,
No lashes for my back,
No fires for my flesh,
No master's frown or threat,
No following another's steps;
No need to bow, or cringe, or crawl,
or utter lying words.

I was free.
I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously,
faced all worlds;
And my heart was filled with gratitude,
with thankfulness, and went out in love
To all the heroes
and the thinkers who gave their lives
for the Liberty of hand and brain,
for the freedom of labor and thought;
Free from popes and priests,
Free from all the "called" and the "set apart,"
Free from the sanctified mistakes and holy lies,
Free from the fear of eternal pain,
Free from the winged monsters of the night,
Free from devils, ghosts and gods.

For the first time I was free.
There were no prohibited places
in all the realms of my thought:
no air, no space,
where fancy could not spread her painted wings.
No chains for my limbs,
No lashes for my back,
No fires for my flesh,
No master's frown or threat,
No following another's steps;
No need to bow, or cringe, or crawl,
or utter lying words.

I was free.
I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously,
faced all worlds;
And my heart was filled with gratitude,
with thankfulness, and went out in love
To all the heroes
and the thinkers who gave their lives
for the Liberty of hand and brain,
for the freedom of labor and thought;
To those who fell on the fierce fields of war,
To those who died in the dungeons with chains,
To those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs,
To those whose bones were crushed,
whose flesh was scarred and torn,
To those by fire consumed;
To all the wise, the good, the brave of every land,
whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom
to the sons and daughters of men and women.

And I vowed to grasp the torch that they held,
and hold it high,
that light might conquer darkness still.

--Robert G. Ingersoll (1833-1899)


Posted by Amergin

 

[Thomas]

I think the general issue is the misreading of Scripture. The assumption it can be read like any litary genre, and be subject to the same investigation.

It's a metaphysic, an investigation of the human condition, and asks the fundamental question, why is there suffering in the world?

Not who shagged who ...

Philosophy is another such investigation. Buddhism offers another. Every spiritual tradition offers their own.

The problem comes when you try and explain it within an evolutionary or historical context, like trying to find the geographical location of the garden, or what species of serpent, how tall was the tree, what type of fruit ...

The genius of the Hebrew tradition is that it presents this data in a narrative form. Everyone is focussing on the form, and not the essence.

Thomas

 

[citizenzen]

The genius of the Hebrew tradition is that it presents this data in a narrative form. Everyone is focussing on the form, and not the essence.

If only more Christians understood that.

 

[juantoo3]

Good answers.

Not who shagged who ...

And yet shagging is such a natural, normal and blessed part of the human condition created by G-d...

 

[Dogbrain]

Adam of course sired Abel, and the serpent whose surname is lost to us sired Cain.

The "serpent seed" doctrine is very popular among white supremacist groups, who claim that "Aryans" are of "Adamic" descent (through Seth) while Jews are "Cainite".

 

[juantoo3]

The "serpent seed" doctrine is very popular among white supremacist groups, who claim that "Aryans" are of "Adamic" descent (through Seth)

Could be. Dunno. Don't care.

while Jews are "Cainite".

That is definitely *not* what I have come to understand. Any truth can be abused.

There are those that suggest the Aryans came down off the Steppes into India as well. Indians bristle at the thought too. Dunno, don't care. Aryans are irrelevant to my studies.

 

[Amergin]

Gatekeeper,

Allow me to give my interpretation of Genesis, according to my belief system. As soon as humanity became able to have sex, the whole lot of humanity descended into one huge orgy.

"As soon as humanity became able to have sex." That is ridiculous. Hominids were having sex for thousands of years before they became human. Anthropoid Apes have had sex going back 14 million years. Sex likely goes back to the Cambrian period over 600 million years ago.

Even debauchery with animals became common. The human race fell into deep debauchery, and put all of us behind schedule. We are still behind schedule as a result.

That has no basis even in the craziest part of the Bible. You know the evolution of humanity was not a sudden magical event producing two individuals. Humans descended from a population. That population ranged over the planet, with local conditions producing 8 different species of humans, and a number of non-human upright hominids now extinct.

There was no debauchery with animals, humans hunted and ate animals. In fact they were doing that back as far as H. habilis three million years ago. And the male habilis were having sex with female habilis. Male Pikaia were having sex with female Pikaia 600 million years ago.

Many primitive cultures of Homo sapiens had the serpent as a phalic symbol. The Monument builders erected (wink) phalic shaped stones in western Europe in 12,000 BCE.

As far back as 35,000 years BCE Europeans carved female fertility figures appearing pregnant.

The serpent has generally been a phallic symbol to many different groups of humans. Of course there was nothing evil about it. It was nature and therefore beautiful. It was the highly Negative Religions of Judaism-Christianity-Islam that turned nature into something evil. I consider that sickly delusional.

Amergin

 

[Amergin]

I also view the serpent and the story of eating the fruit of knowledge were stern warnings to enable chiefs and priests to suppress inquiry and knowledge.

God's command for Adam and Eve to NOT eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was a crude sting action. It seemed to be a trap to both punish disobedience and stifle learning.

The Serpent is the hero, working for humanity. He represents the social evolution and acquisition of knowledge so that humanity can advance to civilisation and invention.

God is saying, "Stupidity is sacred. Reason and inquiry are evil. Knowledge leads to disorder and depravity."

The Serpent is saying, "Do not fear knowledge. Seek, inquire, and learn for knowledge will take you to a golden ages."

The Serpent is guiding humans to move on from hunting-gathering to pastoralism to agriculture, to social groupings, to villages and cities where organisation improves the welfare of all citizens.

God was designed by War Lords who sought absolute control of the tribe through fear, ignorance, superstition, and the wrath of a killer God. Suppress people with knowledge because they ask embarrassing questions. They question orders. They dissent and cause disorder.

The Serpent and Satan are the heroes of the story. They do no harm but they urge mankind to make improvements and learn.

God is the evil tyrant (as Cathars believed) whose best interest is keeping his human slaves stupid and ignorant.

How many people does Satan kill according to the Bible?

How many people does God kill according to the Bible?

If you have read the Bible you know the answer.

Amergin

 

[Thomas]

Hi Amergin —

I also view the serpent and the story of eating the fruit of knowledge were stern warnings to enable chiefs and priests to suppress inquiry and knowledge.

Into what? Consider the text:
"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death." Genesis 2:17.

So the Deity is saying something along the lines of — now you live in harmony with Me, and with all of nature. If you eat this fruit, which is the fruit of duality, you will experience separation from the truth, the real, the good and the beautiful. Learn the lesson, not everything is good for you, even in paradise.

But man listened to that voice telling him he could be the equal of his creator ...

So your argument is a common one, but misses the point of the text altogether. If you think about it, it's the argument of "I want it, so I can have it!"

+++

God's command for Adam and Eve to NOT eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was a crude sting action. It seemed to be a trap to both punish disobedience and stifle learning.

So by this logic, when I educated my children that these fruits are poisonous, you think I was setting a trap, in the hope my kids would go off and poison themselves?

The Serpent is the hero, working for humanity. He represents the social evolution and acquisition of knowledge so that humanity can advance to civilisation and invention.

Really? I rather think he's a liar ... nothing he said was true, was it?

Nor is the Bible concerned with 'civilisation' beyond living in harmony with God, which eating of the fruit trashed, as man had been warned it would ... but invention? The Bible has nothing to do with invention, nor is invention any marker of the spiritual life (more an impediment, it would seem).

God is saying, "Stupidity is sacred. Reason and inquiry are evil. Knowledge leads to disorder and depravity."

There is nothing about being stupid. If you think an irrational action is sensible, then please take care crossing the road ... the number of erroneous assumptions you make are legion ... who said anything about keeping man stupid? I suggest he knew everything he needed to know ... and God brought all the creature to man for him to name, so that hardly suggests a lack of reason and inquiry on man's part.

Your gross assumption is that man was stupid, ignorant and irrational before he ate the fruit, which is nonsense, without any foundation other than in your own imagination.

If that were the case, there'd be no point in God warning him at all, would there?

The Serpent is saying, "Do not fear knowledge. Seek, inquire, and learn for knowledge will take you to a golden ages."

No, the serpent is saying "God (that is the real, the true, the good, the beautiful, etc.) is false. I am true. Eat this and you will live forever."

The Serpent is guiding humans to move on from hunting-gathering to pastoralism to agriculture, to social groupings, to villages and cities where organisation improves the welfare of all citizens.

Really? The Bible is a farming manual?

How many people does Satan kill according to the Bible?

Well, according to the Bible he is the murderer and the father of lies ... so all murders are attributable to him.

Thomas

 

[Gatekeeper]

Hi Amergin —


Into what? Consider the text:
"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death." Genesis 2:17.

So the Deity is saying something along the lines of — now you live in harmony with Me, and with all of nature. If you eat this fruit, which is the fruit of duality, you will experience separation from the truth, the real, the good and the beautiful. Learn the lesson, not everything is good for you, even in paradise.

But man listened to that voice telling him he could be the equal of his creator ...

So your argument is a common one, but misses the point of the text altogether. If you think about it, it's the argument of "I want it, so I can have it!"

+++


So by this logic, when I educated my children that these fruits are poisonous, you think I was setting a trap, in the hope my kids would go off and poison themselves?


Really? I rather think he's a liar ... nothing he said was true, was it?

Nor is the Bible concerned with 'civilisation' beyond living in harmony with God, which eating of the fruit trashed, as man had been warned it would ... but invention? The Bible has nothing to do with invention, nor is invention any marker of the spiritual life (more an impediment, it would seem).


There is nothing about being stupid. If you think an irrational action is sensible, then please take care crossing the road ... the number of erroneous assumptions you make are legion ... who said anything about keeping man stupid? I suggest he knew everything he needed to know ... and God brought all the creature to man for him to name, so that hardly suggests a lack of reason and inquiry on man's part.

Your gross assumption is that man was stupid, ignorant and irrational before he ate the fruit, which is nonsense, without any foundation other than in your own imagination.

If that were the case, there'd be no point in God warning him at all, would there?


No, the serpent is saying "God (that is the real, the true, the good, the beautiful, etc.) is false. I am true. Eat this and you will live forever."


Really? The Bible is a farming manual?


Well, according to the Bible he is the murderer and the father of lies ... so all murders are attributable to him.

Thomas

I am somewhat in agreement with you, Thomas. Here are my views concerning Adam and Eve, the nature of man, and the meaning of the fall.

Adam and Eve were simply struggling between two opposing forces (Good being what they had always known, and evil which they had not yet experienced).

They were ignorant of the consequences of evil at this point, but I'm one who believes that they (At least Adam) simply knew it was wrong to act in opposition to Gods Spirit (Love). I for one believe (Adam) had an awareness built into his conscience that it was wrong to act in opposition to (Love).

I don't believe in an actual entity called satan, but I do believe that there are forces which represent satan. As far as I can tell, the entire battle takes place in the heart of man. Good (God) vs. evil (Devil), which pretty much amounts to a battle between the Spirit of Love and the lusts of our flesh.

The creative force in existence is surely love (The Spirit of God). Evil (The spirit of the devil) being the destructive force in existence. One force is of God (Love), and the other force is of the devil (Lust).

Both forces now and [then] play on mankind's desires. Adam and Eve simply chose the spirit of destruction (Evil) above the Spirit of creation (Good) in the beginning, which is why evil has manifest on earth.

It is written that we were made in Gods image, or rather in the image of (Them). Which, if you really think about the implications, means that we were created with both opposing forces (Good and evil) as a part of who we are.

We contain both the Spirit of God "Love", and spirit of the devil "Lust" within ourselves. Scripture tells us that we were made in "their" image after all. Only it doesn't specify what that means exactly.

The reason God declared all His creation to be 'very good' in the beginning is because mankind had not yet given into the lusts of their flesh, through which evil manifest on earth.

The two trees represent two contrasting ways in which we could live our lives. One way leads to life through the Spirit of "Love", the other way leads to death through the "Lusts" of the flesh.

We are both created of the flesh and of the Spirit, containing both the creative force of life (Love), and the destructive force of life (Lust) within ourselves, or rather we were created both good and evil. Until we give up the lust of our flesh, and come to live through the Spirit of our Creator (God/Love), we will remain in sin.

Once Adam and Eve acted on their lust, they discovered that [they] were in fact evil, hence Adam and Eve attempting to hide their nakedness, which in the story represents the wickedness of the "Flesh", or rather "Lust". They were ashamed of who they were, and what they were capable of doing. Their eyes had been opened.

GK

 

[Gatekeeper]

Btw, The lust I speak of isn't about sexual desire, but rather about our propensity to act in opposition to love. It is an intense longing for what is forbidden (The tree of knowledge, i.e evil). It simply represents our desire to do evil things.

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Compare with this text:

[URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7:9&version=KJV"]Romans 7:9

For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

[/URL]

Paul is saying that knowledge of the law made him guilty of breaking it. If he knew no law he could not have broken it.

Surely this is a myth about growing up and taking responsibility. After childhood there comes a time in everyone's life when they say "I will no longer obey my parents simply because they tell me to. I will find out for myself what is best for me". In order to take that step it is necessary to disobey, because as long as you continue to obey you have not established your independence. This is why we see God forbidding the fruit of the tree. If it were allowed, Adam would never be able to become free.

This is about knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. You can learn this from a book but it is meaningless until you get your own hands dirty.

The Fall has been called "The fall upwards" (can anyone help me with this?). The animals did not have a Fall. They have no law. They do not have the burden of responsibility for their actions. Without the Fall we would have been like the animals, but we were destined for a greater understanding.

"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death." Genesis 2:17.

So the Deity is saying something along the lines of — now you live in harmony with Me, and with all of nature. If you eat this fruit, which is the fruit of duality, you will experience separation from the truth, the real, the good and the beautiful. Learn the lesson, not everything is good for you, even in paradise.

But man listened to that voice telling him he could be the equal of his creator ...

So your argument is a common one, but misses the point of the text altogether. If you think about it, it's the argument of "I want it, so I can have it!"

No. Man did become equal in respect of knowledege of good and evil. The serpent told the truth.

So by this logic, when I educated my children that these fruits are poisonous, you think I was setting a trap, in the hope my kids would go off and poison themselves?

Some time they will eat something bad for them. All kids do. After I told my son all about chilli peppers he ate one. That was bad enough. A week later he did it again! He now knows for himself all about chillis.

Really? I rather think he's a liar ... nothing he said was true, was it?

Yes all true. Adam and Eve became like gods, just not in the way they thought. Knowledge brings responsibility. Once innocence is lost you can't go back to innocence - you know too much. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[Gatekeeper]

Surely this is a myth about growing up and taking responsibility. After childhood there comes a time in everyone's life when they say "I will no longer obey my parents simply because they tell me to. I will find out for myself what is best for me".

Sounds reasonable, cliff. Even so, there are far greater implications of the story than just this.

In order to take that step it is necessary to disobey, because as long as you continue to obey you have not established your independence. This is why we see God forbidding the fruit of the tree. If it were allowed, Adam would never be able to become free.

They never became free, though. Sure, they were able to live on their own terms, but where did it get us? We are slaves to the powers that be. The powers being good and evil. whether we choose good or evil, we are still slaves to one or the other.

We choose according to what we desire most. The story suggests that Adam and Eve chose to serve self (Which is both good and Evil) over God (Who is love) but at what cost to humanity, and the world we live in? The lust to do evil consumed humanity, and we are reaping the consequences of this reality even today.

The story depicts an inner struggle between two forces (Good and evil). It just so happens that evil has been winning the struggle since the fall, but in all Gods wisdom, He knows that even evil will lead us to God in the end.

This is about knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. You can learn this from a book but it is meaningless until you get your own hands dirty.

Agreed! Experience is necessary ....

The Fall has been called "The fall upwards" (can anyone help me with this?). The animals did not have a Fall. They have no law. They do not have the burden of responsibility for their actions. Without the Fall we would have been like the animals, but we were destined for a greater understanding.

I agree again! Both good and evil will lead us (Humanity) to the same end. that is to say that we will one day realize paradise on earth, but it will only be after we fully submit ourselves to God (Love).

No. Man did become equal in respect of knowledege of good and evil. The serpent told the truth.

We are merely vessels through which the forces of good and evil are released in our world. Are we gods? I think we are "like" gods in that [we] are responsible for not only ourselves but also others.

In other words, we know good from evil and it is up to us to allow good (God) to work through us, or to allow evil (Devil) rule on earth through us. We are mere pawns (Servants) to these higher forces.

Yes all true. Adam and Eve became like gods, just not in the way they thought. Knowledge brings responsibility. Once innocence is lost you can't go back to innocence - you know too much. Ignorance is bliss.

I disagree, without the knowledge of evil, we would never come to understand which force is worth serving. We were born to serve (It's who we are), but we were also born to govern, or rather become worthy caretakers over Gods creation.

Ignorance is just that "Ignorance". We at least now have a greater understanding of what our responsibilities are, and who we are, and what we are made of. Which is something pretty amazing if you think about it.

GK

 

[Quahom1]

I have been reading along, and the thread seems to grow more complicated.

What if the Serpent is simply, the introduction of "doubt" into the mind of man (for the first time).

Once doubt has entered, man needs no more encouragement (or discouragement), to consider taking things into his own hand. Doubt, is being out of balance with God.

God said (para) "Trust me, and all will be perfect." Once "doubt" entered man's mind (pertaining to God), man said "I'm not so certain of that."

In short, man's faith in God began to waiver, which knocks him out of balance with God.

From then on, it has been a struggle for man to get back into balance with God, and discard his "doubt".

food for thought.

Q

 

[17th Angel]

I have been reading along, and the thread seems to grow more complicated.

What if the Serpent is simply.........

.................A snake.