Atypical Speculation on Garden of Eden
Carl
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/4502
"On this understanding, the Serpent in the "garden of Eden" was a
priest of a cult that used snake imagery. They believed in a snake
spirit, as has
been discussed, but this was a man incarnating it, wearing its
emblems. The
"garden of Eden" was a temple - see its fuller description in Ezek
28:13-15 -
where priests of one cult guarded jealously the learning that had
been
gained over centuries in Mesopotamia. They used tree imagery, as did
other priests
throughout the world, such as Druids. The snake-priest of a rival
cult
was trying to undermine their authority, and took advantage of a
revolt of
the proletariat that was going on."
I credit Dr. Thiering's speculation.
I take the Adam and Eve story as historical.
Issues -
When did the story of Adam and Eve take place? Is it around 4000 BC?
Was the Garden of Eden in northwestern Iran?
Can we amplify on the cult that used tree imagery in the Garden of
Eden?
Does the Serpent have anything to do with Satan?
Best,
David Christainsen
Newton, Mass USA
snex
> Divine transporthttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/4502
there was no garden, there was no adam, there was no eve. genesis is a
myth.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
The comment above was written by a Darwinist?
Am I correct?
Ray
Carl
Amplify your reasons, please.
snex
it could have been written by a hindu.
>
> Ray
snex
the same reasons you agree that the earth being created from the
eyebrow of the frost giant ymir is a myth.
Ken Rode
>
> Am I correct?
>
> Ray
Oooh, are you getting close to discussing Atlantis again? I can hardly
wait...
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177198387.1...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
snip
>>
>> there was no garden, there was no adam, there was no eve. genesis is a
>> myth.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> The comment above was written by a Darwinist?
>
> Am I correct?
Whoever wrote it, the fact remains that the Garden of Eden story in Genesis
is a myth. If you have any evidence that the Garden of Eden is factual,
please present it.
DJT
Skitter...@yahoo.com
I have no idea, but what difference would it make? The turth of a statement
is independant of the speaker.
Skitter the Cat
--
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
1 GB/Day for only $8.95
raven1
wrote:
>The comment above was written by a Darwinist?
>
>Am I correct?
Argumentum ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. Am I correct?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Ernest Major
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
poster identifies himself as a Darwinist, nor would he be one by
academic usage. Moreover identification of Genesis 3 as a myth (perhaps
intended as an allegory) is independent of acceptance of the factuality
of common descent with modification through the agency of natural
selection and other processes.
--
alias Ernest Major
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> skrev i melding
news:1177198387.1...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
What definitely is correct is that Ray habitually, without exception, always
evade the issue at hand. He never attempts to present proof or evidence for
his wild claims, he just dismisses all and everything written that he
disagrees with simply by stating 'you are a lying Darwinist atheist,
therefore what you say is irrelevant, because I and my God, Dr. Scott says
so'
> Ray
>
>
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
Or, indeed, by ANY honest person.
--
Bob.
raven1
Come now, don't we all know that by definition, anyone besides Ray and
Gene Scott is a liar...?
Desertphile
wrote:
> I take the Adam and Eve story as historical.
Because you're an idiot?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Apr 21, 4:27 pm, snex <x...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The comment above was written by a Darwinist?
What do you mean by "a Darwinist?"
> Am I correct?
Are you ever?
Carl
> On 21 Apr 2007 16:21:51 -0700, Carl <pchristain...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I take the Adam and Eve story as historical.
>
> Because you're an idiot?
I thought our ng is moderated.
Desertphile
Or a Christian; or a Jew; or a Islamist; or a Hindu; etc.
Desertphile
wrote:
Sanity; reality; thinking; sound mental health.
Now then.... have you any reason to believe Genesis is not a myth?
Ken Rode
It is, but not for content.
Tom McDonald
You keep talking about 'our ng', both here and in
sci.archaeology. And yet you clearly fail to exhibit real
familiarity with 'our ngs'.
You insist that others conform to your conceptions about what is
appropriate on 'our ngs'; yet it is pulling teeth with you to try
to get you to learn something about how conversations can be
fruitful, and how to play nice with others.
So, yes, if you take part in a ng, you can call it 'yours.' In
the same way that termites can call the house they are
undermining 'theirs'. Doesn't mean anything constructive comes
from either.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1177284283.1...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>):
1 t.o is moderated by a robot which does things like stopping excessive
cross-posting, where 'excessive' is 'more than four newsgroups, including
t.o, are on the "newsgroups" line'. If you'd actually read the post which the
human who minds the bot autoposts on a regular basis you would know this. The
fact that you don't says volumes about you.
2 thanks for confirming that you are, in fact, an idiot.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
edwar...@verizon.net
> Divine transporthttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/4502
>
> "On this understanding, the Serpent in the "garden of Eden" was a
> priest of a cult that used snake imagery. They believed in a snake
> spirit, as has
> been discussed, but this was a man incarnating it, wearing its
> emblems.
The Orphic snake totem preexisted the Hebrew Garden of Eden myth;
there are obvious reasons why the snake was regarded as a totem
symbol: it lives in the ground and is therefore in contact with the
underworld and is a messenger between the underworld and the upper
world, it "regenerates" by shedding it's skin, etc. One of the most
widely known prophets in the ancient world was a serpent goddess.
Note that Moses used a snake emblem to heal the Hebrews; he hung on a
pole in the middle of his camp and this cured a plague. The beneficial
mystic power of the serpent was recognized by many of the ancient
civilizations, including the Hebrews
Desertphile
wrote:
To keep out idiots like you? Certainly not! Idiots who believe
myths are "historical" is why this newsgroup exists.
SeppoP
I guess that is a "good bye" from an idjet...
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Carl
> Carl wrote:
> > On Apr 22, 7:08 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> >> On 21 Apr 2007 16:21:51 -0700, Carl <pchristain...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> I take the Adam and Eve story as historical.
> >> Because you're an idiot?
> >> ...
>
> > I thought our ng is moderated.
>
> You keep talking about 'our ng', both here and in
> sci.archaeology. And yet you clearly fail to exhibit real
> familiarity with 'our ngs'.
I don't believe you have followed the provenance here of the
atypical speculation.
Admittedly, the moderator UNHELPFULLY screened out
a perfectly good, recent post of mine that said -
The Adam and Eve story is BOTH myth and history.
So, I do not like it implied that I am an idiot; any surprise in
that?
> You insist that others conform to your conceptions about what is
> appropriate on 'our ngs'; yet it is pulling teeth with you to try
> to get you to learn something about how conversations can be
> fruitful, and how to play nice with others.
FALSE - I do NOT insist... Also, put on your eyeglasses to
re-evaluate fruitfulness and niceness...
> So, yes, if you take part in a ng, you can call it 'yours.' In
> the same way that termites can call the house they are
> undermining 'theirs'. Doesn't mean anything constructive comes
> from either.
Way off the topic - atypical speculation...
Taking the plunge to meet your mind - the clue that the Adam and Eve
story is historical lies in the connection between their putting on
figleaves
and being a lower grade of priest - clothing.
So, I propose the priests, as the top grade, in the Garden of Eden
historically wore linen.
Carl
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:24:43 -0400, Carl wrote
Think what you like, but stop wronging me by making
your thoughts public.
Carl
Interesting.
In the preliminary stage of brainstorming I welcome diverse
explanations
including the "Orphic snake totem".
Hopefully, things will tighten up later in talk.origins with definite
conclusions about
the Garden of Eden and the Adam and Eve story.
Robert Weldon
> On Apr 22, 9:07 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gspammail.com> wrote:
>
> > Carl wrote:
> > > On Apr 22, 7:08 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
> > >> On 21 Apr 2007 16:21:51 -0700, Carl <pchristain...@yahoo.com>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> I take the Adam and Eve story as historical.
> > >> Because you're an idiot?
> > >> ...
>
> > > I thought our ng is moderated.
>
> > You keep talking about 'our ng', both here and in
> > sci.archaeology. And yet you clearly fail to exhibit real
> > familiarity with 'our ngs'.
>
> I don't believe you have followed the provenance here of the
> atypical speculation.
>
> Admittedly, the moderator UNHELPFULLY screened out
> a perfectly good, recent post of mine that said -
>
> The Adam and Eve story is BOTH myth and history.
>
> So, I do not like it implied that I am an idiot; any surprise in
> that?
Unless your "screened out" post was sent to four or more newsgroups,
the moderator did not touch it, T.O. in not moderated for content.
>
> > You insist that others conform to your conceptions about what is
> > appropriate on 'our ngs'; yet it is pulling teeth with you to try
> > to get you to learn something about how conversations can be
> > fruitful, and how to play nice with others.
>
> FALSE - I do NOT insist... Also, put on your eyeglasses to
> re-evaluate fruitfulness and niceness...
>
> > So, yes, if you take part in a ng, you can call it 'yours.' In
> > the same way that termites can call the house they are
> > undermining 'theirs'. Doesn't mean anything constructive comes
> > from either.
>
> Way off the topic - atypical speculation...
>
> Taking the plunge to meet your mind - the clue that the Adam and Eve
> story is historical lies in the connection between their putting on
> figleaves
> and being a lower grade of priest - clothing.
>
> So, I propose the priests, as the top grade, in the Garden of Eden
> historically wore linen.
The garden is a myth, so argueing over what they wore is kind of
stupid.
Robert Weldon
>
> - Show quoted text -
They are both stories, does that help?
Carl
> On Apr 23, 12:09 pm, Carl <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Unless your "screened out" post was sent to four or more newsgroups,
> the moderator did not touch it, T.O. in not moderated for content.
Interesting. It looks like Google gave me the response "post was
successful" and the moderator had nothing to do with the glitch.
>...
> The garden is a myth, so argueing over what they wore is kind of
> stupid
My "screened out" post said that the Adam and Eve story is BOTH
myth and history.
On clothing I break it down -
Be the Adam and Eve story a Hebrew rewrite of earlier Mesopotamian
myth/history, the Mesopotamian sources think figleaves are a grade of
lower priesthood for Adam and Eve.
In the alternative the OT writer of Genesis thinks figleaves are a
grade
of lower priesthood for Adam and Eve.
In the alternative the writer of Lk 6:44, be it Luke or Jesus Christ,
thinks
figleaves are a grade of lower priesthood for Adam and Eve.
---
Grapes, figs and thorns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/5477
Extract -
Now to the advice on how not to grow fruit. Lk 6:44: "Figs are not
gathered from
thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush." (RSV). Good enough
for the
moral that only some people are suitable to become "fruit",
Christians. But is
that a Christian tenet? However, when all that lies behind the image
is
understood, it is giving a feast of fruit, which Christian thinkers
can eat to
repletion.
Adam when cast out of Eden was condemned to manual labour to earn his
living.
"Cursed is the earth because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all
the days of
your life; thorns (akanthai LXX) and thistles it shall bring forth to
you". (Gen
3:17-18). Before he was cast out, he and Eve put on figleaves, when
they ate of
the tree of knowledge. (Actual historical meaning: a revolt of the
proletariat,
workers trying to take over the privileges of Mesopotamian priests
supported by
workers in their long established garden of learning, astronomy,
philosophy.)
Adam and Eve while wearing the figleaf vestments of lesser priests,
medicos
healing with figs, were still partly in the garden of Eden. They did
not have to
labour, suffer from the thorns and thistles. But when expelled, they
could not
even have the knowledge and vestments of the fig-grade. "Figs are not
gathered
from thorns".
---
Comments, please.
Carl
Ahem! Why do you think the first item is a story with no kernel of
history
in it? Are you absolutely sure?
Are you clear on the orgin of "Orphic snake totem"? Does it pre-date
around 4000 BC when Adam and Eve story might have taken place?
Or does it come afterwards?
I believe it is important to nail down the loose ends.
skyeyes
> On 21 Apr 2007 16:21:51 -0700, Carl <pchristain...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I take the Adam and Eve story as historical.
>
> Because you're an idiot?
Well, not necessarily. Many myths have been hung upon the scaffold of
historical events. (At the moment, I'm thinking of Troy and the
mythic figures and events involved in its story. That Troy was a real
place and was probably fought over doesn't mean that Zeus and Athena
actually exist because that's what the myth says.) It doesn't make
the magical happenings in the myth real. In fact, rooting out the
historical basis of a myth serves to strip the supernatural features
away.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
TCE
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "I've hired myself out as a tourist attraction." -- Spike
I'm a liar.
---
Strange
TCE
>
> Way off the topic - atypical speculation...
>
You need to go and read a dictionary. Can you read?
You do know what atypical means don't you?
---
Strange
edwar...@verizon.net
>> Adam and Eve while wearing the figleaf vestments of lesser priests,
> medicos
> healing with figs, were still partly in the garden of Eden. They did
> not have to
> labour, suffer from the thorns and thistles. But when expelled, they
> could not
> even have the knowledge and vestments of the fig-grade. "Figs are not
> gathered
> from thorns".
>
> ---
>
> Comments, please.
Pre-4000 BC? You can only give the garden a date (no pun) if you think
it was a real event. It wasn't, any more than other events in the
Mosiac books; perhaps some events are true historicaly, but the Mosiac
books include so many folktales and hero-myths that any true history
is lost in the noise. Was there a guy named Abrim who went down to
Egypt to raise his sheep or is his story a metaphor for the practice
of the Egyptians who let the other more northern semites into Egypt to
feed their sheep during famines? One episode is historicly verifiable,
one episode is maybe historic, but just as likely (or even more
likely) a folktale.
If you interperet the "fig leaf" episode as a metaphor, you're left
with the question of how much more of the OT is a metaphor and how
much is historical truth. You might, for example, look at the bibical
writings of how David slew Goliath the Giant. Is this a literally
true, historical event? Or is it a folktale based on the conquest of
Canaan and the area by the early Israelites? Or take the OT through
Chronicals/Kings. Is this a true history in all respects? Or is it a
metaphor for the rise of JAWH worship vs worship of the "foreign"
Canaan gods? Or is it even a almost novel-like story leading up to a
climax where the Good Guy (Josiah, I think), overcomes the forces of
early Israelite history to become the perfect Israelite king. This
story is again a metaphor.
As far as the serpent, to forstall arguments, realize that the Orphic
archetype of the serpent predates the establishment of the Orphic
religion.
Vend
Yes but the moderator is a Canadian robot.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>On Apr 22, 9:07 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gspammail.com> wrote:
>> Carl wrote:
>> > On Apr 22, 7:08 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> >> On 21 Apr 2007 16:21:51 -0700, Carl <pchristain...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> I take the Adam and Eve story as historical.
>> >> Because you're an idiot?
>> >> ...
>>
>> > I thought our ng is moderated.
>>
>> You keep talking about 'our ng', both here and in
>> sci.archaeology. And yet you clearly fail to exhibit real
>> familiarity with 'our ngs'.
>
>I don't believe you have followed the provenance here of the
>atypical speculation.
>
>Admittedly, the moderator UNHELPFULLY screened out
I doubt VERY much that he did anything of the sort.
>a perfectly good, recent post of mine that said -
>
>The Adam and Eve story is BOTH myth and history.
It is a fairy story.
>
>So, I do not like it implied that I am an idiot; any surprise in
>that?
>
>> You insist that others conform to your conceptions about what is
>> appropriate on 'our ngs'; yet it is pulling teeth with you to try
>> to get you to learn something about how conversations can be
>> fruitful, and how to play nice with others.
>
>FALSE - I do NOT insist... Also, put on your eyeglasses to
>re-evaluate fruitfulness and niceness...
>
>> So, yes, if you take part in a ng, you can call it 'yours.' In
>> the same way that termites can call the house they are
>> undermining 'theirs'. Doesn't mean anything constructive comes
>> from either.
>
>Way off the topic - atypical speculation...
>
>Taking the plunge to meet your mind - the clue that the Adam and Eve
>story is historical lies in the connection between their putting on
>figleaves
>and being a lower grade of priest - clothing.
Pardon?
>
>So, I propose the priests, as the top grade, in the Garden of Eden
>historically wore linen.
>
Duh!
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
There is only one conclusion - it is a bronze age fairy story.
--
Bob.
Desertphile
Under the category of "Stop thinking: you're hurting me!"
> > 2) Thanks for confirming that you are, in fact, an idiot.
> Think what you like, but stop wronging me by making
> your thoughts public.
edwar...@verizon.net
BTW, think about what a fig is and how a fig reproduces. Obviously one
interpertation of a fig leaf is a bibical metaphor for a human or for
humanity.
Also, a symbol never has just one meaning. It can be interperted in
any number of ways; thus just as the fig leaf signifies a number of
meanings, it is also entirely valid to see the bible as just an
extended metaphor.
Carl
>...
> Well, not necessarily. Many myths have been hung upon the scaffold of
> historical events. (At the moment, I'm thinking of Troy and the
> mythic figures and events involved in its story. That Troy was a real
> place and was probably fought over doesn't mean that Zeus and Athena
> actually exist because that's what the myth says.) It doesn't make
> the magical happenings in the myth real. In fact, rooting out the
> historical basis of a myth serves to strip the supernatural features
> away.
>
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
Thanks, Brenda.
I would like that newsgroupers do what you suggested in your last
sentence.
skyeyes
Cut 'em some slack. They probably don't have time to read as much
Joseph Campbell as I do. :)
Brenda Nelson, A.A.
Cemtech
pchris...@yahoo.com says...
> Divine transport
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/4502
/deletia
> I credit Dr. Thiering's speculation.
That might be embarassing.
> I take the Adam and Eve story as historical.
That would make you a Hyper-evolutionist.
> Issues -
>
> When did the story of Adam and Eve take place? Is it around 4000 BC?
If so, you're a Hyper-evolutionist.
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
Carl
> In article <1177197711.049717.90...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> pchristain...@yahoo.com says...
>
> > Divine transport
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/4502
>
> /deletia
>
> > I credit Dr. Thiering's speculation.
>
> That might be embarassing.
What's with your fencing with words? "Might"?
Either it is embarassing or not. It has not yet been embarassing.
>
> > I take the Adam and Eve story as historical.
>
> That would make you a Hyper-evolutionist.
There you go with the fancy words.
Why don't you just cut it out?
>...
Be serious.
Cemtech
pchris...@yahoo.com says...
> On Apr 23, 8:28 pm, Cemtech <c...@cox.net> wrote:
> > In article <1177197711.049717.90...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > pchristain...@yahoo.com says...
> >
> > > Divine transport
> > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/4502
> >
> > /deletia
> >
> > > I credit Dr. Thiering's speculation.
> >
> > That might be embarassing.
>
> What's with your fencing with words? "Might"?
>
> Either it is embarassing or not. It has not yet been embarassing.
Might be embarassing for Dr. Thiering.
> > > I take the Adam and Eve story as historical.
> >
> > That would make you a Hyper-evolutionist.
>
> There you go with the fancy words.
Not much fancy about it. If you believe in a literal Adam and Eve, then
you are a Hyper-evolutionist.
From 1 pair of humans to the diversity of humans we have today in just
under 10k years is WAY above current evolution rates today. Ergo,
Hyper-evolution.
Current science points to about a couple hundred thousand years for the
same results.
> Why don't you just cut it out?
>
> >...
>
> Be serious.
I am, if you are.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1177351866....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
Kiddo, I don't need your permission.
> but stop wronging me by making
> your thoughts public.
You just proved that you're an idiot. Again. Exactly how do you plan to
enforce your will, idiot?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <24cq23l6sklaeedv5...@4ax.com>):
>
> Under the category of "Stop thinking: you're hurting me!"
>
>>> 2) Thanks for confirming that you are, in fact, an idiot.
>
>> Think what you like, but stop wronging me by making
>> your thoughts public.
>
>
>
>
indeed.
Carl
> On Apr 23, 4:02 pm,Carl<pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I would like that newsgroupers do what you suggested in your last
> > sentence.
>
> Cut 'em some slack. They probably don't have time to read as much
> Joseph Campbell as I do. :)
>
>...
I recommend -
Joseph Campbell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell
Tom McDonald
Why do you recommend this? Is it the best resource for
understanding Campbell's value to the discussion?
Or is it the first thing that came up when you Googled Campbell?
Carl
Neither but I do recommend Joseph Campbell the man for your reading
to
understand myth.
Then again, try -
Hamlet's Mill: An Essay Investigating the Origins of Human Knowledge
And Its Transmission Through Myth
by Giorgio De Santillana (Author), Hertha Von Dechend
Susan
"Carl" <pchris...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177645385....@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...------------------------------------snip
> Neither but I do recommend Joseph Campbell the man for your reading
> to
> understand myth.
Are you talking about Campbell's discussion of the Garden of Eden story as
being like "a map of the human soul?"
Carl
> "Carl" <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177645385....@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...> On Apr 26, 11:08 pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gspammail.com> wrote:
>
> ------------------------------------snip
>
> > Neither but I do recommend Joseph Campbell the man for your reading
> > to
> > understand myth.
>
> Are you talking about Campbell's discussion of the Garden of Eden story as
> being like "a map of the human soul?"
I was speaking precisely. So, the answer is no. I advocate Campbell
that
a greater understanding of myth be obtained.
Moving on, I will look up "Campbell's discussion of the Garden of Eden
story".
Susan
and evil is our experience of life in all it's vicissitude. Desire for the
good life and the outward orientation of the senses is what keeps us bound.
He compared the serpent of the Eden story with the serpent of Oriental myth,
who is not evil but is viewed as having the power of rebirth because it can
shed its skin.
Campbell also observed at the gates of a Buddhist temple gardens a pair of
statues, i.e. guardians, which correspond to the seraphim that Yahweh
stationed at the entrance of Eden after the Fall. One statue has its mouth
open, the other has the mouth shut, representing the "pairs of opposites"
which is our experience the world. To enter the garden where is the tree of
knowledge of life everlasting, we pass through the pairs of opposites.
That's a poor and inept summary of a brilliantly written argument that makes
real sense of the Eden story. IMO, that's where the churches are failing
today, trying to prop up historical authenticity of myths when they should
be more concerned about the metaphor.
"Carl" <pchris...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177692060....@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
John Wilkins
> It's in Myths_to_Live_By. In brief, he mentions that our knowledge of good
> and evil is our experience of life in all it's vicissitude. Desire for the
> good life and the outward orientation of the senses is what keeps us bound.
> He compared the serpent of the Eden story with the serpent of Oriental myth,
> who is not evil but is viewed as having the power of rebirth because it can
> shed its skin.
>
> Campbell also observed at the gates of a Buddhist temple gardens a pair of
> statues, i.e. guardians, which correspond to the seraphim that Yahweh
> stationed at the entrance of Eden after the Fall. One statue has its mouth
> open, the other has the mouth shut, representing the "pairs of opposites"
> which is our experience the world. To enter the garden where is the tree of
> knowledge of life everlasting, we pass through the pairs of opposites.
>
> That's a poor and inept summary of a brilliantly written argument that makes
> real sense of the Eden story. IMO, that's where the churches are failing
> today, trying to prop up historical authenticity of myths when they should
> be more concerned about the metaphor.
Allegory. It's called allegory when it involves a religious scripture.
...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Carl
> It's in Myths_to_Live_By. In brief, he mentions that our knowledge of good
> and evil is our experience of life in all it's vicissitude. Desire for the
> good life and the outward orientation of the senses is what keeps us bound.
> He compared the serpent of the Eden story with the serpent of Oriental myth,
> who is not evil but is viewed as having the power of rebirth because it can
> shed its skin.
>
> Campbell also observed at the gates of a Buddhist temple gardens a pair of
> statues, i.e. guardians, which correspond to the seraphim that Yahweh
> stationed at the entrance of Eden after the Fall. One statue has its mouth
> open, the other has the mouth shut, representing the "pairs of opposites"
> which is our experience the world. To enter the garden where is the tree of
> knowledge of life everlasting, we pass through the pairs of opposites.
>
> That's a poor and inept summary of a brilliantly written argument that makes
> real sense of the Eden story. IMO, that's where the churches are failing
> today, trying to prop up historical authenticity of myths when they should
> be more concerned about the metaphor.
Thanks.
Walter Bushell
"Susan" <sus...@attbi.com> wrote:
> That's a poor and inept summary of a brilliantly written argument that makes
> real sense of the Eden story. IMO, that's where the churches are failing
> today, trying to prop up historical authenticity of myths when they should
> be more concerned about the metaphor.
But the more they prop up the literal truth of the stories, they better
the Churches do. Magic salvation has more sales power than telling
people they are going to have to do the heavy lifting themselves.