Simple past

[JULIET ROS]

Hey there,
Here's a quote I asked my students to analyze:

"There ain't no Devil,
There's just God when he's drunk."
--Tom Waits

If you are so inclined, please take a moment to offer your analysis...I'd
like to compare yours to those of my class.
Thanks,
Juliet

juli...@aol.com

[chip young]

)There ain't no devil, just God when he's drunk.

One could relate it to free will. Being a fallen angel, the devil is of God.

So God also is a creature of arbitrary free will, has the capacity to choose good or bad things.

[PR...@cunyvm.cuny.edu]

In article <3hdbtt$j...@gandalf.rutgers.edu>, chy...@gandalf.rutgers.edu (chip

This reminds me of Borges' Three Versions of Judas in which he argues that
Judas was really Christ because "God became a man completely, a man to the
point of infamy... He could have been Alexander, or Pythagorus, or Rurik,
or Jesus; He chose an infamous destiny: Judas."

Has Barthes made his way into theology?

[Samurai2]

The point of an essay I might write in response to this prod would
be to say that all ideas carry within them their own negation. Thus, the
existance of the Devil is necessitated by the existance of God.

If the concept of God is literally accepted, including the concepts
of omnipotence and prescience, then God is indeed responsible for all the
evil we experience, as well as the good. This is the paradox of the
Christian faith.

Samurai.

William J. Lyle
Sam...@aol.com

[ETTINGS]

Samurai2 <samu...@aol.com> writes:

> If the concept of God is literally accepted, including the concepts
>of omnipotence and prescience, then God is indeed responsible for all the
>evil we experience, as well as the good. This is the paradox of the
>Christian faith.

In Genesis, God turns to Adam and asks him why he had disobeyed and eaten of
the fruit; Adam answers: "The woman that you gave me made me do it." God then
turns to Eve and asks her why she did it. "The serpent that you put in the
God then not confront the Serpent--
because He knows that the blame will ultimately fall upon Him.
The amazing part is that the people who wrote the Bible did
not seem to be aware of this contradiction. It is as if the concept of
God requires such intrinsic insoluble paradoxes--that is what God is:
the language of contradictions, that to which no metaphor can allude,
that to which there is NO language to describe. God is the failure of
our language. He is that for which language has no reference--The Tower
of Babel is a postmodern concept, it seems.

[Sourcerer]

The phrase "the people who wrote the Bible": to assert that that host of authors,
editors, compilers, and forgers could be characterized as not being "aware of
the contradiction" seems rather sweeping.

Without checking a concordance, I can recollect one reference to God as the
author of evil, and one very good poem in which Satan is the gofer of God.

Limiting the inquiry to the several groups of authors/editors who produced the
present "Garden of Eden Story"...we might speculate as to the final redactor's
'authorial intent', but I cannot see how we could assume much about their
"awareness".

And, as usual, I have no idea whether my comment is on-point in alt.postmodern.
--
(__) Sourcerer
/(<>)\ O|O|O|O||O||O You can have many personalities on usenet,
\../ |OO|||O|||O|O but you still only get one RL.
|| OO|||OO||O||O

[Gordon Fitch]

Samurai2 <samu...@aol.com> writes:
| > If the concept of God is literally accepted, including the concepts
| >of omnipotence and prescience, then God is indeed responsible for all the
| >evil we experience, as well as the good. This is the paradox of the
| >Christian faith.

ETTINGS <ron...@delphi.com>:

| In Genesis, God turns to Adam and asks him why he had disobeyed and eaten of
| the fruit; Adam answers: "The woman that you gave me made me do it." God then
| turns to Eve and asks her why she did it. "The serpent that you put in the
| God then not confront the Serpent--
| because He knows that the blame will ultimately fall upon Him.
| The amazing part is that the people who wrote the Bible did
| not seem to be aware of this contradiction. It is as if the concept of
| God requires such intrinsic insoluble paradoxes--that is what God is:
| the language of contradictions, that to which no metaphor can allude,
| that to which there is NO language to describe. God is the failure of
| our language. He is that for which language has no reference--The Tower
| of Babel is a postmodern concept, it seems.

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schreiben?

--
>< Gordon Fitch >< g...@panix.com ><