I had the "revelation" this morning that the writers of genesis were
being "tongue in cheek" when they said that Adam and Eve would become as
god(s). My interpretation is (of course) psychological. And I believe
this story is the story of an oedipal complex... that is, adam and ever
were in awe of god (as father) and feeling they could not live up to the
example set by god, they felt "castrated" or impotent (also, this
reminds me that god has a castration anxiety, too, as the social
re-creation of god incarnates the circumcision pain of the male in a
repressed--unconscious, spiritual-- sense... but that aside).
So, having a fear of god's power, their desire was to be like god
(though they became hopeless in this attempt and so did the opposite--
hopeing form more hopelessness, hell in a hand-basket). To tell adam
(and eve?) that he could be like god (in a sarcastic way--that is, it is
true, but not truely desireable), He said you can be like me--adam--but
you must learn the hard way, through *experience* instead of knowledge
(as experience is taking the good with the bad and learning from one's
mistakes... which would not have been necessary if adam had continued
being inspired by the example of god).
Well, adam (prob. having given up the developmental path of god as
father and having taken up the path of eve as mate) turned against god
(or his father, or the leader of the tribe, etc.) as being in
competition for his babe. The statement "wanting to be as gods" is
therefore a 3-way paradox (Adam truely wanted to be as good as god, Adam
didn't want to be like god, and God sarcastically said adam could do
this but that he didn't really want to).
The sin was turning against god and wanting to learn things the hard
way... but more than this, the sin was turning against the unity of god
within the self (in the form of a single-minded understanding) for a
dichotomous understanding of good/bad without an ideal to look up to.
Brett Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
www.window.to/mindrec
news:alt.pub.coffeehouse.amethyst
--WebTV-Mail-376616344-6754
Content-Type: MESSAGE/RFC822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
X-Authentication-Warning: maxwell.kumo.com: majordom set sender to
owner-virus@lucifer.com using -f
From: FallAwake <FallAwake@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ac238381.351e9469@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 13:35:19 EST
To: virus@lucifer.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: virus: Original Sin (was: Truth) <---- irony, no?
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18
Sender: owner-virus@lucifer.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
In a message dated 98-03-29 13:03:07 EST, you write:
<< Fall awake seems to assume that the original sin was ignorance (of good
and bad). The opposite of "original sin" might be "original
perfection". Thus, an assumption that Adam and Eve were "ignorant" (no
matter how this is labeled... ignorant, innocent, misled, lied to,
tricked, tempted, etc.) is ALSO an assumption of original sin-- since it
does not follow "original perfection". To use an original sin idea to
refute the argument of original sin is poor logic. The better
assumption-- again-- is to assume there is no good/bad dichotomy to
begin with. >>
"And the Lord God said, `Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know
good
and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of
life,
and eat, and live forever:
"Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the
ground from whence he was taken." --Genesis 3:22-23 (KJV)
indeed once they committed the sin they became more godly, more perfect. ("the
man is become as one of us, to know good and evil") god booted them from the
garden of eden so they wouldnt become immortal, even more godly ("and now,
lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and
live forever:")
so we see here that the original sin is being godly.
--WebTV-Mail-376616344-6754--