From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: some gods are _not_ creaters of all things, apparently
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:48:17 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:

>In article <adams.714663184@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>But, at the same time as they were expelled, God promised Eve that her
>>'seed' would bring on a savior to redeem mankind.

>Yeah, WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT? 
GEN 3:14-15!  Geesh.  How many times do I have to repeat this.  These
verses are informed by other Scripture, as I've said.  You are denying the
exegesis that I use by blatant assertion and insult.

>Is this just some more creationist science
>boosh*t unsupported by scripture or is this just devine revelation received 
>by you personally? Or did you hear this on one of those Fundy/Evilgelical
>fund raising TV shows? Or is this from the book that proves the Earth is
>flat?
I hate to break the news to you that I'm not a fundamentalist, and the
average reader of talk.religion.misc will likely back me up on that.  Your
insulting style is getting very tiring.  I've repeatedly told you where the
exegesis comes from.  I didn't pull it out of thin air.  It's AT LEAST 1900
years old.  Got that?

>In article <adams.714837075@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>From a paper I wrote for a theology class:

>>I. In the Beginning: The Edenic Covenant
>>   What is Genesis trying to tell us in the story of creation found in
>>verses 1:1-2:3?  The events described demonstrate God's direct action in
>>creation of the universe, and man with it.  Clearly, the intent of the
>>redactor is to establish the Sovereignty of God and His control over all
>>creation.  It also explains and justifies God's right to do as He pleases
>>with His creation.  This conclusion is inescapable irrespective of whether
>>or not we take a literal view of creation.

>Ah, why is it important to conclude that the Lord can do as he pleases
>with us? Is this to prove that He really is a warrior brut? Obviously,
>if He created us, He could just as easily uncreate us. Why is it
>important to stress this ability to ph*ck us over? Wouldn't a loving God
>take a kindler, more gentler approach?

The Scripture tells us that God is sovereign.  Read the book of Job,
especially ch 38ff.  You seem to be ignoring a whole lot of the message in
order to 'prove' that it's all BS.  You are doing the equivalent of proof-
texting by giving sets of verses and implying that they speak the entire
record.  You have to read all of the Bible's references on topics to form a
final conclusion.

>>   Similarly, the story of Adam and Eve found in Genesis 2:4ff shows us
>>that even given only one rule, man is not able to keep it.  Declaring the
>>literalness of the story would do nothing to improve the message found
>>there.

>I don't come to that conclusion at all. Obviously it was a setup. Who
>wouldn't eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, even if it meant
>knowledge of the reality of life and death? Now, it seems to me there
>are two possibilities. One, the guy really is a ruthless tyrant war
>lord, or two, it was His intent for human beings to gain knowledge at
>their own initiative, thus illustrating that with knowledge also comes
>responsibility. Knowledge tells you that if you eat the fruit, it is
>your responsibility, not some one else's. You can't get just good
>knowledge, knowledge comes with good and bad. If you were just created
>with knowledge, you could blame the bad on the creator. But you were not
>created with knowledge, you gained it of your own initiative. It was the
>first test, and you passed. You proved that you are willing to take on
>some of your own responsibilities. That is proof that you are maturing
>and ready to leave the nest. The creator had high expectations of you,
>after all, in whose image were you created? Surely you don't expect Him
>to do everything for you, do you? Did your own father and mother? You
>didn't expect to stay in your mother's womb forever, did you? She drove
>you out when she judged you to be ready, just as the Lord drove Adam and
>Eve out of Eden when He judged them to be ready.

Sounds like a good free-will defense to me!  I disagree that is was a
setup, though.  There was the logical possiblity that Adam & Eve, given the
conditions in the garden (ie full presence & glory of God, all needs cared
for, etc), would not sin.  It was possible that they wouldn't separate
themselves from God.  They did.  You can say that it is 'human nature'.
I don't see how that is different than saying 'Free Will'.  

I've said before and I'll say it again.  If the story isn't literally true,
what we have is symbolism couched in allegory and metaphor.  If that is the
case, then exegeis and interpretation, IN LIGHT OF OTHER SCRIPTURE is
necessary to explain what is going on.

>>God establishes Adam in the Garden, a symbol for the state of
>>perfection.

>Perfection? I don't know about that. Didn't you once find your mother's
>womb to be perfection? Times change you know. There is only one
>constant, and that is change. I would not call a lack of the knowledge
>of life and death perfection. Would you? Are you ashamed of the
>knowledge you have attained at your own initiative? Why? Are you ashamed
>to know that you must kill in order to eat, that you must kill other
>lives in order that you can live? Why? Why are you ashamed of
>knowledge? You are proud of your knowledge of good, right? Then why are
>you ashamed of the knowledge of evil that comes with it?

We approach these texts from different directions.  Your approach, given
what you've said, is to 'prove' that Christianity is flawed.  My approach
is to learn what I can about God, our situation, and how I can best serve
him.  I haven't once said that my ability to discern good from evil is bad.
In fact, if you've read the rest of my stuff, you'll know that I use this
as part of the explaination for the 'problem of evil.'  In other words, my
claim of free-will, and our ability to chose and know the good, is part of
my basic understanding of the origins of evil.

I don't think you understand the basic philosophy here.  Remember, I start
with the default assumption that God exists and that the Bible is valid.
And that clearly influences my opinions, thoughts, actions, etc.

>>The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes mans' free
>>will, and the Tree of Life symbolizes the promise of eternal life, finally
>>fulfilled in Jesus Christ.  

>The Tree of Life symbolizes something to aspire to, something to think
>about now that you have knowledge. It is a bit more complicated than
>hearing of the story of Jesus Christ, but no big deal. I've figured it
>out. If I can, you can also. Use your knowledge and think about it. It
>was on your initiative that you partook of the fruit of the tree of
>knowledge. It must also be on your initiative that you solve the meaning
>of the tree of life. If you know the reason for death, then you will
>know the way of eternal life.

The understanding I have is informed by the rest of Scripture.  You can't
simply lift the Genesis story out and make a determination based simply on
it.  If you reject Scripture in general, then you must reject all of it.
Picking and chosing doesn't work.

This is just as bad as your continual harping on the verses in Luke about
hate.  You seem to think that all Christians have an absolute, inerrant,
literal understanding of Scripture.  We don't.  Trying to pin me down on
absolute literalism won't work.  I don't subscribe to that theory.  I've
said it before and I'll say it again: the message is what's important.
Since the Bible presents the message in various literary methods, we need
to determine the message and not get caught up in the actual literal words.

This is perfectly in line with Jesus' teaching about the letter and the
spirit of the law.  It's more important to follow the spirit of the law
than the letter.

>>Once violated, this state of perfection will
>>not again exist until the end times (Rev 21).

>Well, this is a different issue, maybe we'll discuss it sometime.

That's fine...I can support it with scriptural cites...

>>God gives Adam total freedom (Gen. 2:15-17), with but one limitation.

>And Adam correctly understood that any limitation was of His/his own doing.
>Think about it. In whose image where we created?

You are ignoring a basic fundamental concept here.  Adam was created in
God's "image and likeness"...that doesn't make him an exact copy of God.
Is a photograph you?  Is your reflection in a mirror you?  No.

>>It is in light of the violation
>>of this limitation and following Adam and Eve's rebellion against God that
>>God establishes a covenant with Eve.

>I don't see this covenant that you talk about. As far as I can tell, the
>first covenant or deal is between Noah and the Lord.

That's fine.  You are free to disagree on this issue.  But claiming that I
made it up out of whole cloth all by myself is foolish.  The New Testament
writers brought forth this theology.

>>   We find this covenant in the conversation between God and the serpent
>>where God tells the serpent that
>>        "(15)...I will put enmity between you and the woman, and
>>        between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head,
>>        and you will strike his heel." (Gen 2, NIV)

>This seems to me to be just a simple explanation of our strange
>relationship with snakes. It is also a not so subtle jab at pagan
>religions which see a great deal of power in the snake. It is the snake
>that sheds it's skin and is born again. This does not fit the typical
>Biblical Covenant. It seems to me that you are looking for something
>that just is not there. The fact that others before you may have done
>the same thing does not make it any more valid.

Well, now you seem to be saying that I *DIDN'T* make it up.  Decide which
it is.

Basically, I am reading the text in light of my understanding of Scripture.
This concept of snake == devil is mentioned numerous times.  The attributes
of Satan (==accuser) are given throughout scripture.

>>This antagonism is used to symbolize the struggle between good and evil,
>>played out in human history.  The promise is fulfilled in Christ's
>>suffering and victory over death and Satan, in which we all will eventually
>>share.  Paul makes a clear allusion to the promise in his comment that
>>"...the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet"  (Rom 16:20,NIV).
>>See also Gal 3:19-20.

>That seems like a gigantic leap of blind faith unsupported by any
>scripture. Don't go blaming the snake or Eve or Satan for your troubles.
>It is you who ate the fruit. Take a little self-responsibility for once.
>See if you can aspire to the image you were created in. Or as the
>patriarchal one himself would probably say, be a man, not a snake!

You have ignored what I've been saying in all my comments on theodicy.
Although I do state that God is responsible for creating evil, we humans
are to blame for actualizing it.  I am full responsible for all my sin.
But, fortunately, given the theology of the NT, I do not have to pay the
eternal price for it.  That debt has been paid once and for all. 

I'm guilty.  I'm to blame.  It's my fault.  But God is still sovereign...

 -Steve
--
 The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                        -------------------
     adams@spss.com                           Phone: (312) 329-3522
     Steve Adams                              Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc