From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: what is the meaning of Genesis3, for real dough! (LONG!)
Organization: noitazinagromhcs
	<BtzDEo.26n@nntp-sc.Intel.COM> <adams.715526097@spssig>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:59:08 GMT

(Steve Adams) writes:

>>But what about this idea of woman
>>being created from man and thus symbolic of man leaving his father and
>>mother and clinging to his wife so they are of one flesh? Who is Adams 
>>father? Does the same apply?

>Looking at the story, and assuming the parable idea, God is portrayed as
>Adam's father.  An insight I just had seems to say that it is never
>possible to reach your full potential while living your life in your
>father's house under his rules...you don't get the opportunity to think...
>hmm...I think I'm starting to see what you're getting at.

Ah, the pain of childbirth eh? Separation from mother. But then husband and
wife cling to one another, as they are of the same flesh. Creation is a
moving forward, you can not go back, except perhaps in death ... All of this
can be judged as good or bad using our knowledge gained from the fruit, but
why? What purpose does it serve? Is not the story of creation just the
story of creation, not good or bad, just is? Do we misapply our knowledge?
What about instead of human being as sinner, human being as created as human
being, separated from God because we are of the flesh of human being as
created, and thus we live the meaning of human being and we see God through
the eyes of human being which can only happen in some form of separation as
this is the meaning of creation of different flesh. But we know that life
of human being includes death of human being, thus another phase. How can we
judge this as bad? As penalty? Can we misjudge?

>>>It doesn't appear that the Torah supports the concept of corruption of
>>>blood for sin (ie generationally transmitted sin). This appears to be a
>>>later construct, and Jeremiah relates God's plan to not hold the sin of the
>>>fathers against the children.

>>Um, not in Genesis but later in Mosaic-Law/Pentateuch, right? 

>Even later...I corrected my comment...it should have been Jeremiah.

Is that right? Now let's check we have terms correct here. Torah is the first
five books, right? Some people hold that this is the only "law", which is what
torah means, as handed down to Moses, thus Mosaic Law. All other books are
the application of "The Law" to the human existance. Unless I'm confused,
that's the traditional Jewish perspective. So if this "generationally
transmitted sin" also known as karma in Sanscript, is not in Torah, this
adds to the notion of improper legal development for what it's worth. You may
want to consult an attorny on that one. ::B^}

>Well, if life is a quest for knowledge and education, the farther from the
>Garden (no knowledge) that we get, the better.  The trick is to properly
>apply the knowledge (ie become 'wise').

Exactly, note that the fruit is knowledge of good and bad, it's a package
deal, we get both, it is us who must judge. Dynamite can be used to construct
or destruct. It is we who must judge and apply. It is we who must do the
right human thing. It is we who must be human. BTW: notice how many different
ways that "knowledge of good and bad" can be interpreted? Does it mean able
to judge good/bad, knowledge both good/bad ...

>Yeah, it actually does.  If the story is literal, then we have to take the
>words as they are there.  That means that all of our speculation here is
>wrong..;-)  (Not that it isn't anyway!)

So, a literal interpretation may not be eating of the fruit? Does Genesis
represent another fruit with the option of eating or not eating?

>Any properly constructed fiction must be less strange than truth!  In order
>to be considered 'good', fiction must be believable.  Truth has no such
>requirement!

Truth does have limits, doesn't it? ::B^}

>This would seem to fit what I said...if the serpent==curiosity and the
>'fruit'==knowledge, the 'serpent' is doing exactly what is claimed -
>helping man gain knowledge of good and evil...learning to make judgemnet
>calls.

And yet we call the serpent our enemy? Do we misjudge? If the serpent is
our ally, what or who has divided us? This goes off on many tangents.

>>What does no choice do to Original Sin?

>No choice == No original sin.  Putting everything right back in God's lap.
>And if so, then it would seem to be impossible to conclude anything but
>universal salvation, just as John Hick did.

Which is also compatible with the Goddess mother, "they are all my children".

[Discussion of Lucifer's fall deleted]
>>How do we know that he has not reformed or is trying to aid man in following
>>a different course? Do as I say, not as I did.

>Well, I don't know what to say here.  Agreeing with you would be clear
>heresy! ;-)  Not that that's stopped me before.  But I don't think this is
>the case.  Leaving the NT out of it, the book of Job seems to leave Satan
>in the role of 'prosecuting attorney'.

In legal terms, devil's advocate. Isn't this a role of honor? To allow us to
SEE more clearly? Now keep in mind, the role of devil's advocacy is not to
show the way of light, it is to show a competing view point, thus forcing
you to question your viewpoint and hopefully correcting your path as you SEE.
How do you see light? As different from dark, right? How can you see light
and not see or know dark? Light/Dark is a concept for learning. Can one learn
if one only sees light?

>Not exactly the current concept of
>the Devil, but not what you've said, either.  It's interesting how we went
>from Satan in the book of Job (meeting with God on a regular basis) to the
>Satan of today - nowhere near God...hmm.

There's a lot to this Persian light/dark thing. I assume it comes also from
eating the fruit of knowledge of good and bad. Is Satan also eating?

>>>I wonder where the talking snakes went?  Were they killed in the Flood? ;-)

>>Maybe they are still here? ::B^}

>Do you know any? ;-)

Maybe talkers in the metaphorical sense.  ::B^} A question remains as to
whether the serpent talked to Eve at all, perhaps she just perceived of
serpent talk. Would this make Eve "smarter" than Adam? After all, she did
converse and question the notion of eating the fruit, Adam just ate.

>>Hmm, but the sinning thing? I keep triping on that. You know why.

>Well that's the thing.  Sin is that which separates us from God, right? 

I would say it is knowledge of good and bad. Good separates just as sin. The
call of sin/no-sin is not relevant to separation or creation, under my
logic. ::B^} Satan is often considered the bad side of God, but is this
correct? Satan may be the devil's advocate, but who represents the opposing
side? Remember that a God should be transcendent. This knowledge of good
and bad is a tool for us to judge, to guide us in our mission of doing the
right thing. God doesn't require this tool. God is not of sin, but God is
not also of good. God is God, transcendent of the crutches we use to see.

>So then if knowledge brings us closer to God, and the symbolism of the story
>is about knowledge, then there was no sin.  QED.

Sometimes the lights are shining on me, other times I can barely see, what 
a long strange trip it's been, eh?

I think it gets a little crazy here, but for what it's worth, here is my
logic. Knowledge of good and evil gets us closer to the meaning of human
being and getting closer to the meaning of human being, ie doing the right
human thing, is getting closer to the meaning of the creation and thus getting
closer to the creator. So, seperation, or creation, or distancing is the
first step to see, much as leaving your parents in the process of growing
up through the teenage years, but then it is that distancing that eventually
gives you the perspective to SEE. Thus creating the path of return. Human
being is transient, one is born and one dies, that is the meaning of the
creation. And so, in one's life, one separates and thus asserts the validity
of creation, but one eventually returns, as the identity of creation is not
permanent. That's the Persian light/dark concept again. To see, one must
leave, and it is the journey of leaving that prepares for the inevitable
return. Or Hindu field of opposites, first learn of the differences between
opposites, like life/death, and then once learning of difference, one can
then see likeness and the two pairs merge into the ONE. You can not find ONE
in life only or death only, good only or bad only, ONE is in the union of
that which you perceive as opposite. Learn the opposites well, and the
process of devil's advocacy will teach you of the union. Creation-separation-
seeing-union-return. Taken step by step, too fast and you fail, just back up
and try again. An answer to the meaning of life?

Now, is this still Christianity? Depends how Christianity is defined. One
could say that the fall, the creation, the drop from the uterus, is sin and
that life is the process of balancing this initial sin, thus eventually
returning to the loss of identity of the whole and correcting for this initial
sin of creation. So creation is sin and the process of knowledge and of
doing the right thing paves the path to the eventual destruction and
restoration of the whole. Creation to Sustaining to Destruction? Whole
becomes parts and returns to whole? If it works for you it works. I see no
reason why Christianity is incompatible with these concepts. Christianity
may say it is the only way to return, but I can say that is true because there
is only one way, just many different perceptions. We humans can play word games
all day, right? These words are just creations of the human being. But as for
me, I still say that there is no sin in Genesis, only the birth of human
being, human being doing the right thing. Human being fulfilling the meaning
of human being. There is such a thing as sin, that is human being not doing
the right thing. Not so easy to judge, but that gives us something to do,
something to learn from, someway to be a human being.

>:-)  I agree...this was interesting, to say the least

Yeah, one only sees what one sees from the perspective of one, but upon seeing
how others see, others on different paths but same final destination, one
can thus see the whole, the way of one-for-the-one as path to the whole.
Organization: Doctoral student, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA