A Study of Morality

[newnature]

At that fateful moment, Adam and Eve are standing together at the tree, and although only the woman and the serpent speak, Adam was present, and it seems he accepted the fruit that his wife handed him. He was fully complicitous, and indeed, Yahweh holds him responsible. Yahweh reproaches Adam. Adam says: Well, Eve handed to me. She gave it to me. Eve explains, the serpent tricked me. Yahweh vents his fury on all three, and he does so in ascending order: first the serpent for his trickery and then the woman, and finally the man. The doctrine of original sin, which is the idea that humans after Adam are born into a state of sin, by definition. The actions of Adam and Eve bring death to the human race, they don’t bring a state of utter and unredeemed sinfulness. In fact, humans have moral choice in each and every age. Adam and Eve after eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and bad, they also lose their harmonious relationship with nature. There had been a peaceful relationship between creatures and humans to that point. Humans are banished now from the Garden. It used to yield its fruits to them without any labor, but now humans have to toil for food and the earth yields its fruits only stintingly. The humans will learn that the concomitant of their freedom is responsibility. Their first act of defiance is punished harshly. So they learn, that the moral choices and actions of humans have consequences that have to be borne by the perpetrator. Evil is a product of human behavior, not a principal inherent in the cosmos; man’s disobedience is the cause of the human predicament. So knowledge or wisdom or perhaps moral freedom, seems to come at a very high price.

The disobedience happens in a rather backhanded way. It’s interesting, Yahweh tells Adam before the creation of Eve that he’s not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, lest you die. Eve doesn’t hear this command directly, she hasn’t been created. Then we meet the cunning serpent, and although many will identify the serpent as Satan, an enticer, a tempter, some sort of evil creature, the serpent doesn’t seem to be so. The serpent in Eden is simply a talking animal.

Adam and Eve after eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and bad are like Yahweh; they have become wise in that they have learned they have moral choice. They have free will, they can defy Yahweh and Yahweh’s plans for them in a way that animals and natural phenomena cannot. But now that means there is a serious danger here, Yahweh says, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and life forever!” So the acceptance of mortality as an inescapable part of the human condition, the quest for immortality, Yahweh could not afford to allow them access to the tree of life, and Yahweh maintains the upper hand in this, the fact that they eventually must die. Yahweh has to punt the ball, he has to modify his plans by barring access to the tree of life, humans are going to be a force to be reckoned with. Because of the length of these reasoning’s, read more at,

http://thatlifeyahwehhas.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2011-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2012-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=12

Thanks for any insight.

[Eldritch]

:icon_eyes:

[Beorn]

Yahweh is a politician. Eat till you are fat, I say.

[Tolleson]

:wtf

[Hess]

Great first post :thumb001:

[Magister Eckhart]

You are reading far too much in this story. For the believer, the myth of Adam and Eve is nothing more than a bedtime story meant to state three simple truths about the human condition:

1. Man is wise to the nature of the world because of God
2. Man is sinful (i.e. there is distance between Man and God)
3. Man's separation from God is Man's own doing

Now then: Evil is not of Man's creation. Evil did not come into existence because of Man - mankind was not imbued by God with that kind of power. Evil is not a positive entity, either (see Augustine, City of God), but an absence. Therefore, wherever God is not, wherever Good is not, that is where one "finds" evil, since it is nothing more than the absence of good (and therefore God). Man knows evil because of his willful choice to know it, but we did not create evil.

Man has always had free will, this is not the result of the tree either. The point of the myth is lost if free will is the result of eating of the tree.

Overall, you take a very Jewish (or very Protestant, it's hard to tell sometimes), and therefore imperfect (and arguably, simply wrong) interpretation of the myth. I recommend re-reading Augustine and looking at Thomas Aquinas as well.

[newnature]

Yellow River by I.P. Freely

[Magister Eckhart]

Yellow River by I.P. Freely

Troll?

[Odoacer]

Overall, you take a very Jewish (or very Protestant, it's hard to tell sometimes), and therefore imperfect (and arguably, simply wrong) interpretation of the myth.

Protestant? Roffle. No.

[Magister Eckhart]

Protestant? Roffle. No.

So speaks a Presbyterian. Calvinists especially often have a view of Old Testament scripture almost indistinguishable from Jewish readings because they dispense with much of the more learned scholastic writing on the subject. Though it is not unique to the Calvinists - it was Luther himself who first suggested burning all of Thomas Aquinas' writings.

Ultimately, though, contemporary Protestants share much with the Jews theologically, whether they want to admit it or not - and the above allegorical reading of the Genesis myth is by no wise Catholic; indeed, such a reading must be Protestant if it is not actually Jewish, since I can think of no Orthodox commentator or theologian who would make the same reading either.

[newnature]

So speaks a Presbyterian. Calvinists especially often have a view of Old Testament scripture almost indistinguishable from Jewish readings because they dispense with much of the more learned scholastic writing on the subject. Though it is not unique to the Calvinists - it was Luther himself who first suggested burning all of Thomas Aquinas' writings.

Ultimately, though, contemporary Protestants share much with the Jews theologically, whether they want to admit it or not - and the above allegorical reading of the Genesis myth is by no wise Catholic; indeed, such a reading must be Protestant if it is not actually Jewish, since I can think of no Orthodox commentator or theologian who would make the same reading either.

Just a nothing Gentile, don't do the man made creeds? Just trying to learn more about that life Yeshua got when Yahweh raised Yeshua from among the dead-John 5:26 is a cool word study of that life Yeshua 'was to have'. That life Yeshua now has is the same kind of life that tree of life produced, that life is cool stuff. What is cool is how Yeshua got that life in some kind of flesh and bone body, not a spirit body-Luke chapter 24.

[Odoacer]

So speaks a Presbyterian. Calvinists especially often have a view of Old Testament scripture almost indistinguishable from Jewish readings because they dispense with much of the more learned scholastic writing on the subject. Though it is not unique to the Calvinists - it was Luther himself who first suggested burning all of Thomas Aquinas' writings.

This has nothing to do with the bizarre reading of Genesis before us, which is not a Protestant reading.


Ultimately, though, contemporary Protestants share much with the Jews theologically, whether they want to admit it or not - and the above allegorical reading of the Genesis myth is by no wise Catholic; indeed, such a reading must be Protestant if it is not actually Jewish, since I can think of no Orthodox commentator or theologian who would make the same reading either.

You are not really reasoning that, since the view is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, it must therefore be Protestant or Jewish - are you? If so, that is quite facile. The Protestant reading has never involved any idea of the eating of the tree resulting in wisdom or moral freedom; indeed, quite the contrary, the basic Protestant reading has it that the result of this action was inborn foolishness & moral bondage for all humanity. Moreover, the Protestant reading has it that the serpent is a guise of Satan, not merely "a talking animal," & there would certainly be no idea that God was caught off-guard & had to modify his plan because of new, totally unforeseen data!

The Protestant view has far more in common with the Catholic view than either have with this.

[Magister Eckhart]

This has nothing to do with the bizarre reading of Genesis before us, which is not a Protestant reading.



You are not really reasoning that, since the view is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, it must therefore be Protestant or Jewish - are you? If so, that is quite facile. The Protestant reading has never involved any idea of the eating of the tree resulting in wisdom or moral freedom; indeed, quite the contrary, the basic Protestant reading has it that the result of this action was inborn foolishness & moral bondage for all humanity. Moreover, the Protestant reading has it that the serpent is a guise of Satan, not merely "a talking animal," & there would certainly be no idea that God was caught off-guard & had to modify his plan because of new, totally unforeseen data!

The Protestant view has far more in common with the Catholic view than either have with this.

I am actually reasoning that if this isn't a Jewish reading, it has to be influenced by Protestantism at the very least - specifically Calvinistic Protestant or Anabaptist.

I agree that most mainstream Protestant interpretations have more in common with the Catholic view, but I must also insist that the only place such an interpretation as this could come from (and perhaps I'm reading it wrong- after all, the English is pretty poor even for a product of American public schools) is American Protestantism, which is heavily Calvinistic.

Further, I might submit that the thing with Protestantism is that really anything can be a Protestant reading if it's self-interpretation. All you need to do is look at all the feminist theologians running around putting words in Christ's mouth and claiming things in scripture that aren't actually there -- all Protestants, mostly Calvinist. If it's off-the-reservation but still Christian, it's more than likely Protestant.

[newnature]

I am the only one who has the guts to take logos out of the storyline of the four gospels, those groups you are talking about depend on that logos teaching? I also am the only one with enough guts to take John 3:16 out of the storyline of the four gospels, those groups you are taking about depend on John 3:16 too. There is a lot a hanky panky going on in the gospel of John, so I took it out? That life Yeshua got when Yahweh raised him from among the dead is cool stuff, thanks for all your insights.

[Odoacer]

I am actually reasoning that if this isn't a Jewish reading, it has to be influenced by Protestantism at the very least - specifically Calvinistic Protestant or Anabaptist.

This is just poor reasoning. It doesn't "have" to be influenced by Protestantism at all. In fact, I see nothing specifically Protestant about it.


I agree that most mainstream Protestant interpretations have more in common with the Catholic view, but I must also insist that the only place such an interpretation as this could come from (and perhaps I'm reading it wrong- after all, the English is pretty poor even for a product of American public schools) is American Protestantism, which is heavily Calvinistic.

First, American Protestantism is not "heavily Calvinistic" & hasn't been for well over a century. There are vestiges of diluted Calvinism here & there, but on the whole Calvinism is hardly a major player except in the most conservative circles. Second, not everything is "Protestant" just because it isn't Catholic or Orthodox. Believe it or not, "Protestant" has some historical meaning, even if it doesn't have an official heirarchy.


Further, I might submit that the thing with Protestantism is that really anything can be a Protestant reading if it's self-interpretation. All you need to do is look at all the feminist theologians running around putting words in Christ's mouth and claiming things in scripture that aren't actually there -- all Protestants, mostly Calvinist. If it's off-the-reservation but still Christian, it's more than likely Protestant.

"Mostly Calvinist" - where on earth do you come up with this stuff? Today's academic so-called "Protestant theologians" are mostly post-modernists who happen to identify with demoninations that long ago gave up the (Holy) Ghost. Most "conservative" evangelicals are some brand or other of Arminians or semi-Pelagians. Actual Calvinists are few & far between.

[Odoacer]

I am the only one who has the guts to take logos out of the storyline of the four gospels, those groups you are talking about depend on that logos teaching? I also am the only one with enough guts to take John 3:16 out of the storyline of the four gospels, those groups you are taking about depend on John 3:16 too. There is a lot a hanky panky going on in the gospel of John, so I took it out? That life Yeshua got when Yahweh raised him from among the dead is cool stuff, thanks for all your insights.

Oh, CLEARLY this is identifiably Protestant. :rolleyes2:

[Magister Eckhart]

This is just poor reasoning. It doesn't "have" to be influenced by Protestantism at all. In fact, I see nothing specifically Protestant about it.

On the contrary, the influence on this sort of thinking must be Protestant if it does not come from Judaism or an orthodox form of Christianity, because Protestant Christianity is the only option left by process of elimination. You neglect how Protestant our entire culture is, and how impossible it is to escape immersion from that culture unless immersed in a specifically separate one.


First, American Protestantism is not "heavily Calvinistic" & hasn't been for well over a century. There are vestiges of diluted Calvinism here & there, but on the whole Calvinism is hardly a major player except in the most conservative circles. Second, not everything is "Protestant" just because it isn't Catholic or Orthodox. Believe it or not, "Protestant" has some historical meaning, even if it doesn't have an official heirarchy.

If the roots of the tree are oak, the tree isn't going to be an elm. It'll be a very twisted, diseased oak, but still an oak. So too with ideas.

"Protestant" is exactly something that isn't Catholic or Orthodox (well, except for more ambiguous groups like the Mormons... no one knows what they are). There is no other definition. Protestantism is any outgrowth the sixteenth century heretical movements started in Western and Central Europe. That is its entire historical meaning. There are categories for "radical Protestantism", "mainstream Protestantism" "orthodox Protestantism", etc. - but all of it is Protestantism. Just because you're a Protestant and you don't like being grouped in with the kookier fringes of your species doesn't make them any less Protestant.


"Mostly Calvinist" - where on earth do you come up with this stuff? Today's academic so-called "Protestant theologians" are mostly post-modernists who happen to identify with demoninations that long ago gave up the (Holy) Ghost. Most "conservative" evangelicals are some brand or other of Arminians or semi-Pelagians. Actual Calvinists are few & far between.

Have you studied under any contemporary academic theologians? They come in three flavours: Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist.

The foundations of most contemporary American theology is entirely Calvinistic; most good Lutheran theology comes from Europe. That's not to say there hasn't been some Lutheran theologians and scholars in America, but the field is dominated by people working from Calvinist foundations, except for those few Anabaptists, but really Zwinglism and Anabaptism after Calvin all bear the stamp of Calvin. The Lutherans and Anglicans form the only theological schools truly in opposition to Calvinism, and even the Anglicans are half-Calvin (Low Anglican), half-Catholic (High Anglican). Some of the more fundamental aspects of Calvinism are still very much alive even in Arminianism and semi-Pelagianism. The points of divergence largely centre on the role of free will.




I am the only one who has the guts to take logos out of the storyline of the four gospels, those groups you are talking about depend on that logos teaching? I also am the only one with enough guts to take John 3:16 out of the storyline of the four gospels, those groups you are taking about depend on John 3:16 too. There is a lot a hanky panky going on in the gospel of John, so I took it out? That life Yeshua got when Yahweh raised him from among the dead is cool stuff, thanks for all your insights.

Oh, CLEARLY this is identifiably Protestant. :rolleyes2:

You know what, Euro, I have to agree after reading that line - I have to conclude this fellow can't be Protestant: even Protestants actually learn something about the scripture before they send it through the meat-grinder.

"Has the guts"... yeah. You know what you're doing, kid? You're re-founding Jews for Jesus. There's nothing original or intellectually stimulating going on here.

[Odoacer]

On the contrary, the influence on this sort of thinking must be Protestant if it does not come from Judaism or an orthodox form of Christianity, because Protestant Christianity is the only option left by process of elimination. You neglect how Protestant our entire culture is, and how impossible it is to escape immersion from that culture unless immersed in a specifically separate one.

Our culture is primarily modernist, trending postmodernist. We've long since passed the point of a Protestant zeitgeist.



If the roots of the tree are oak, the tree isn't going to be an elm. It'll be a very twisted, diseased oak, but still an oak. So too with ideas.

Then Protestantism is Catholicism.


"Protestant" is exactly something that isn't Catholic or Orthodox (well, except for more ambiguous groups like the Mormons... no one knows what they are). There is no other definition. Protestantism is any outgrowth the sixteenth century heretical movements started in Western and Central Europe. That is its entire historical meaning. There are categories for "radical Protestantism", "mainstream Protestantism" "orthodox Protestantism", etc. - but all of it is Protestantism. Just because you're a Protestant and you don't like being grouped in with the kookier fringes of your species doesn't make them any less Protestant.

I have no problem calling Anabaptists Protestants, or Baptists, or Lutherans, or even most Adventist & Pentecostals. Swedenborgians? No. Mormons? No. Christian Scientists? No. Messianic Jews? No. Whatever it is this fellow "newnature" espouses? No. Protestants are Trinitarian, believe that Christ died as a sacrifice for sin, regard the Old & New Testaments together as the final authority for doctrine & practice, believe that salvation is obtained through faith in Christ & not by our own works, & reject sacerdotalism. I could bring other items to bear, as well, but this is sufficient to show that Protestantism is more than simply "not Catholic or Orthodox."


Have you studied under any contemporary academic theologians? They come in three flavours: Catholic, Lutheran, and Calvinist.

My university degree was in religious studies, so I have some acquaintance with contemporary theological movements, although I will admit to not having focused my reading efforts since on that nonsense. I don't regard Marxist-deconstructivist-liberationists, which feminist theologians are, as actually having any substantial continuity with the traditions they associate themselves with - and it should be noted that this brand of theology was brought to us first by some ordained Roman Catholic priests in Latin American. To call most of them even broadly "Christian" is really an abuse of the term.

[Magister Eckhart]

Our culture is primarily modernist, trending postmodernist. We've long since passed the point of a Protestant zeitgeist.

Ah, Zeitgeist, my keyword. Alright, if you're taking that view I'll concede on the point.



Then Protestantism is Catholicism.

Exactly. To be more specific, it's heresy.


I have no problem calling Anabaptists Protestants, or Baptists, or Lutherans, or even most Adventist & Pentecostals. Swedenborgians? No. Mormons? No. Christian Scientists? No. Messianic Jews? No. Whatever it is this fellow "newnature" espouses? No. Protestants are Trinitarian, believe that Christ died as a sacrifice for sin, regard the Old & New Testaments together as the final authority for doctrine & practice, believe that salvation is obtained through faith in Christ & not by our own works, & reject sacerdotalism. I could bring other items to bear, as well, but this is sufficient to show that Protestantism is more than simply "not Catholic or Orthodox."

I would argue that Christian Science is the result of Protestantism. I'm with you on Jews-for-Jesus and Mormons, though. And I definitely retract any statements claiming this "newnature" person's Protestantism. He's definitely just off the reservation. I'm waiting for him to mention Xenu, to be honest.

However, Protestantism is the interpretation of Christianity that's left when you eliminate Catholicism and Orthodoxy, so my reasoning still stands. As long as it's still Christian, and it's not Catholic or Orthodox, it's Protestant.



My university degree was in religious studies, so I have some acquaintance with contemporary theological movements, although I will admit to not having focused my reading efforts since on that nonsense. I don't regard Marxist-deconstructivist-liberationists, which feminist theologians are, as actually having any substantial continuity with the traditions they associate themselves with - and it should be noted that this brand of theology was brought to us first by some ordained Roman Catholic priests in Latin American. To call most of them even broadly "Christian" is really an abuse of the term.

Liberation theology, yes, which is itself the result of Jesuit restoration; the Jesuits after their restoration became very Protestant in their thinking, though. I suppose this was always a danger, since they were founded as part of the Counter-Reformation. More heresies have come out of the Jesuit order than any other corner of Catholicism. Indeed, as any Catholic will tell you, the popular maxim is, "they're not Catholic, they're Jesuit".

As for Marxist and Feminist theology: no, they're not even Jesuit, they come from Protestant circles.

[Odoacer]

I would argue that Christian Science is the result of Protestantism. I'm with you on Jews-for-Jesus and Mormons, though. And I definitely retract any statements claiming this "newnature" person's Protestantism. He's definitely just off the reservation. I'm waiting for him to mention Xenu, to be honest.

However, Protestantism is the interpretation of Christianity that's left when you eliminate Catholicism and Orthodoxy, so my reasoning still stands. As long as it's still Christian, and it's not Catholic or Orthodox, it's Protestant.

Well, if Christian Science is derived from Protestantism, Mormonism, which came in the wake of enthusiam of the Second Great Awakening, is even moreso. But deriving in some sense from Protestantism is not the same as being Protestant. Christian Science isn't Protestant. But since you say that Protestantism is Catholicism, then we'll have to agree to disagree; I merely note in that case that you cannot with consistency draw so sharp a line between Protestantism & Catholicism as you have been doing.


Liberation theology, yes, which is itself the result of Jesuit restoration; the Jesuits after their restoration became very Protestant in their thinking, though. I suppose this was always a danger, since they were founded as part of the Counter-Reformation. More heresies have come out of the Jesuit order than any other corner of Catholicism. Indeed, as any Catholic will tell you, the popular maxim is, "they're not Catholic, they're Jesuit".

As for Marxist and Feminist theology: no, they're not even Jesuit, they come from Protestant circles.

Liberation theology is Marxist in its basic concepts. The impact of Marxism in Jesuit theology cannot be regarded as the result of Protestant influence; it is rather the result, if anything, of the domination of Marxist dialecticism in the academy. And, there have most certainly been influential Feminist theologians who have come from the Catholic fold: Mary Daly and Rosemary Radford Ruether. So no, they don't all come from Protestant circles.

[Curtis24]

Yeah!!!

[Magister Eckhart]

Well, if Christian Science is derived from Protestantism, Mormonism, which came in the wake of enthusiam of the Second Great Awakening, is even moreso. But deriving in some sense from Protestantism is not the same as being Protestant. Christian Science isn't Protestant. But since you say that Protestantism is Catholicism, then we'll have to agree to disagree; I merely note in that case that you cannot with consistency draw so sharp a line between Protestantism & Catholicism as you have been doing.

Well, when you look at what Protestantism is, which is a heresy from Catholic orthodoxy, you have to conclude that in a way, while it's travelled very far in 500 years, ultimately Protestantism remains a collection of heresies grounded in Western Christianity (i.e. Roman Catholicism). I agree that ultimately one can go far enough to completely apostatise but having spoken to a few Christian Scientists, they still strike me fundamentally as being heretics, not apostates like Mormons are.


Liberation theology is Marxist in its basic concepts. The impact of Marxism in Jesuit theology cannot be regarded as the result of Protestant influence; it is rather the result, if anything, of the domination of Marxist dialecticism in the academy. And, there have most certainly been influential Feminist theologians who have come from the Catholic fold: Mary Daly and Rosemary Radford Ruether. So no, they don't all come from Protestant circles.

And mainline Protestantism is the result of Humanist attitudes on Christianity, mainly because of the academy. In this way, one could successfully argue that Jesuitism is a form of Protestantism.

I'll have to concede your knowledge of the feminists exceeds my own, so I'll step back on that point.

[Odoacer]

Well, when you look at what Protestantism is, which is a heresy from Catholic orthodoxy, you have to conclude that in a way, while it's travelled very far in 500 years, ultimately Protestantism remains a collection of heresies grounded in Western Christianity (i.e. Roman Catholicism). I agree that ultimately one can go far enough to completely apostatise but having spoken to a few Christian Scientists, they still strike me fundamentally as being heretics, not apostates like Mormons are.

I can't say I've met any Christian Scientists personally, but their rejection of the reality of matter & their understanding of the nature of God & Christ puts them outside of Christianity, IMO.


And mainline Protestantism is the result of Humanist attitudes on Christianity, mainly because of the academy. In this way, one could successfully argue that Jesuitism is a form of Protestantism.

I think what you're seeing is the subsuming of various religious traditions under the prevailing intellectual atmosphere of the modern academy. Mainline Protestantism & modern Jesuitism, at least in their more radical variations, actually leave their respective traditions & together become part of something different.

[Magister Eckhart]

I can't say I've met any Christian Scientists personally, but their rejection of the reality of matter & their understanding of the nature of God & Christ puts them outside of Christianity, IMO.



I think what you're seeing is the subsuming of various religious traditions under the prevailing intellectual atmosphere of the modern academy. Mainline Protestantism & modern Jesuitism, at least in their more radical variations, actually leave their respective traditions & together become part of something different.

On this point I would disagree, and strongly at that - heresy and apostasy are not the same thing. I actually rather like Aquinas' explanation of the two:


A rectitudine igitur fidei Christianae dupliciter aliquis potest deviare. Uno modo, quia ipsi Christo non vult assentire: et hic habet quasi malam voluntatem circa ipsum finem. Et hoc pertinet ad speciem infidelitatis paganorum et Iudaeorum. Alio modo, per hoc quod intendit quidem Christo assentire, sed deficit in eligendo ea quibus Christo assentiat: quia non eligit ea quae sunt vere a Christo tradita, sed ea quae sibi propria mens suggerit


“So there are two ways by which a man can deviate from the righteousness of Christian faith. In the first [he deviates] because he is unwilling to assent to Christ: this man has an almost evil will in regards to this end. This pertains to the species of unbelief of pagans and of Jews. In the other, [he deviates] because he intends to assent to Christ, but fails in the choosing of those aspects of Christ to which he assents: he chooses not the true teaching of Christ, but the suggestions of his own mind.”

The Jesuit restoration and Protestants of all stripes are, therefore, heretics, not apostates. They are not departing into something altogether different.