marked
The "Tree of Life and its meaning"
by EdenOne 169 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
cofty
man as a whole mimics too awfully close the 'law of the beast', as in, it's a dog eat dog world, survival of the fittest, etc - Monsieur
I think that's a very pessimistic assessment of humanity.
Homo sapiens have thrived because of their ability to cooperate using tools like empathy.
We are getting better too. The homicide rate in most of the developed world is less than 1 in 100 000. That's lower than it has ever been in human history.
Misogyny and homophobia are on the decline. Slavery is repulsive to most people. It is no longer socially acceptable to beat disobedient children.
I think that two factors perpetrate the meme that the world is going to hell in a hand-basket.
Firstly, too many people get their understanding of the natural world from popular entertainment. Every creature can expect to die from predation, starvation, parasites or disease.
Secondly the appalling christian notion of a "fall" from perfection.
There was no perfection - we are on the up.
Simply referencing a popular figure of myth, story or imagination or tradition does not have to imply reality. - Terry
This ^^
-
james_woods
Are you still going to the Kingdom Hall, EdenOne?
-
tornapart
Interesting article Eden. I like your reasoning.
-
cofty
Edenone - If I understand your article you are saying that Adam and Eve were intended to live on earth for a little while as a sort of test, then they would eat the "Tree of Life" and be transferred to eternal life in heaven. You are basing this on the visions in Revelation.
Have I got that right?
-
Band on the Run
Last night I finished reading Karen Armstrong's book on Genesis. I referred to it on another post a few days ago.
Jews don't believe in original sin. Paul doesn't even that much. Augustine, the Church Father, was responsible for the widespread adoption of orignal sin.
She does not view the story as literal. Genesis is a collection of many weird stories by different authors with differing viewpoints. P, the opening author, presents the God we now view. J, was a YHWHist, and his writings show an immoral God. Armstrong reflects that these stories were never viewed literally in ancient times. Ancient beliefs from neighboring cultures and, indeed, Judaism itself are offered as a contrast. I want to research these more if I have time. Understanding what the vast majority of Canaanites and early Jews believed sheds a power light on Genesis.
Armstrong does NOT view Genesis as history. Rather, it is an attempt to provide a practical guide to dealing with life. God is chaotic and often immoral. Life is hard. Being human is NOT living in Paradise. So many of the heroes of Genesis, Noah and Abraham, have no moral merit. God chooses them arbitrarily and gives no explanation. Jacob is a mess. Family is violent and repeats the chaos in the universe.
It is difficult to rid oneself of childhood beliefs. I must admit that Armstrong's essay made complete sense to me. Left to my own devices, though, I never would have seen these elements in Gensis. Just as when modern takes on Paul, illuminated by recent finds, and my mind changed, Armstrong makes Gensis palatable to me. I can see virtue in the book, beyond total rejection of nonsense.
I was raised that primitive and ancient people were stupid compared to modern man. This is so wrong. Being human is the same. It is only we say this way is the only way that we make the Bible useless to society. Other societies have their views. I have no idea when fundamentalism first started but it does not serve us well.
-
soft+gentle
edenOne
is your interpretation the same as that of jehovahs wtinesses? I've forgotten exactly waht JW's believe
-
goodsoul
..just some thoughts.
God knew everything from the beginning. Satan sinned from the beginning, not in earthly Edem. Angels became demons before that also accordingly (Ez.28:16-19, 1 John 3:8) So people creation was a plan to provoke and condemn Satan and demons who killed people, since they are immortal and not able to die even after their rebellion.(again 1 John 3:8, John 8:44, Rom.9:14-26). Finally, faithfull will get heavenly life, as it supposed to be after people would fill the earth.
Tree of good and bad- The phrase in Hebrew: tov V'ra, translatable as good and evil, may be an example of the type of figure of speech known as merism. This literary device pairs opposite terms together, in order to create a general meaning; so that the phrase "good and evil" would simply imply "everything".(wiki)
So it was tree of knowledge about 'everything', probably everything about God's purpose, that was ' sacred secret' . People sin was not the eating from tree, but disobedience. Probably God intend to give them tree's fruit at its time. But they just went ahead him and were confused because of they saw after that, since they weren't ready . That is why God is telling:"Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad". In what sence sinful man could became like God? Knowing everything about God's purpose, that didn't know even angels at that moment. And notice please, that even after sin people could continue to live if they would eat from tree of live.
But that didn't change that purpose, since-once again- God is..telling from the beginning the finale, and from long ago the things that have not been done; the One saying, ‘My own counsel will stand, and everything that is my delight I shall do’. -
cofty
EdenOne has run of posts for today.
-
Monsieur
cofty wrote -
"I think that's a very pessimistic assessment of humanity."
I would argue that it is a very REALISTIC assesment of humanity. Hence, it was and is so easy to bundle man into evolution theory.
Don't get me wrong cofty, I acknowledge the various statistics you've presented, all of which are true. The problem is, there is STILL too much violence and hatred emanating and originating from man. The threat of mass anhilition is very real and much more possible today than yesterday.
If even ONE murder has befallen on an innocent (or not) individual, is it really possible to say "This is progress"? From that individual's perspective it is catastrophic, so what makes that situation better for us? That it didn't happen to us?
I imagine the pain felt by an afflicted mother in Syria or the Congo, or hell, right here carries just as much weight as a thousand afflicted mothers.
If we don't see it this way then we are seeing only statistics in my opinion.