I'm just curious for the deeper theologians out there. Let's wind the clock back to the "Garden of Eden" in christian mythology. Eve eats the fruit and ruins everything obviously, but what if she hadn't? Would Christians assume that Adam and Eve would still be running naked around the GoE and harvesting nuts and berries to this day?
I think that question misses the point. Instead of dwelling on the naked couple harvesting nuts and berries, God walking around, and a serpent capable of talking, I think it's more beneficial to pay attention to what they actually have to say. I think the story of the Garden of Eden is a wonderful parable that deals with human nature, and in particular with the issue of temptation, failure and guilt. Those ancient stories are so simple, and yet relevant to the human condition today. I like in particular the part where the man says to God, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” I identify with that statement in so many levels. When I fail to live up to our own ideals, I think the tendency is to want hide from myself, to try to get busy and avoid having time for reflection, prayer or meditation. Likewise, when I know I've failed somebody else -more specifically a loved one- , I've wanted to hide from them, try to withdraw, literally or figuratively, maybe hide from them emotionally, try to avoid intimate conversation and so on. I really feel like I've been inside that story. I can identify with Adam. The feeling of nakedness is a very apt analogy. Of course, if you are convinced that a feeling of guilt is nothing more than a chemical reaction in your brain, you probably won't see much meaning in all this.
I think it's both. The chemical reaction is what we can physically measure, because it is the manifestation in the physical realm of what transpires in the spiritual -or emotional- realm in which our human self really exists.
I thoroughly enjoyed college. Even Aquinas and Heidegger were fun that way. I wouldn't however recommend Bordieu.
1) What you're saying only makes sense in a non-literalist way, but I guess the question was directed at literalists. 2) How does understanding guilt as something that transcends material reality add any more meaning to what you basically interpret as a guilt-parable?
Then you need to find a fundie to answer it. Because if I thought that my guilt feeling was nothing but my brain's chemistry playing tricks on me, -whatever "me" would mean in that case- then I'm thinking I probably would not take it seriously enough to identify with something somebody wrote about it thousands of years ago.
Why not? Whilst I wouldn't describe brain chemistry as "playing tricks" on me, I beleive that all my thoughts and emotions are purely physical manifestations of 'brain chemistry'. And I have no problem identifying with characters in stories or parables, no matter when they were written. This is just another variation on the argument that if all we are is physical and there's no absolute, supernatural cosmic moral code, then we should all just go around doing whatever we like to whoever we want and give in to any primal, selfish instinct. If, hypothetically, I gave you conclusive proof that no God existed and that we are just purely physical beings, would you seriously read that story again and just say "******** it, why should I feel guilty about anything. It's not like I'll be going to hell for it."?
I'm just saying. I appreciate your take on it, but as you said yourself, if you don't take the Adam & Eve story literally, the question is kinda nonsensical Then I have to disagree. I don't see how the natural/supernatural split adds anything. My feelings and emotions (guilt, love, etc.) are what they are. Whether they're based in the natural, the supernatural or both doesn't really matter at all as the result would be the same. Or to put it differently: I don't think that I perceive emotions much different then you do, no matter who of us is right about this. So in a very practical sense, our contrasting viewpoints on this make no difference whatsoever. Hence, I can relate to those feelings and emotions independent of my beliefs about how they come to be. Now to the second part. Emotions being entirely based in brain chemistry doesn't mean that the brain is playing tricks on me. It doesn't even make sense to formulate it that way because the brain IS me, as are my feelings and emotions. So it wouldn't make sense to not take them seriously anyway, because my feelings ARE me in a very literal sense. Certainly more so than having them being part of some supernatural entity separate from myself. Where we get a major difference is when we ask for a meaning. In my world view, there is of course no universal meaning spanning across the entire existence. So in my quest for meaning, I'm confined to myself, I can only find it within ME. You on the other hand have to look for a universal meaning (since everybody is connected to the same supernatural emotions), so you can only find it outside of yourself. But that has no bearing on relating to something. It's not that you can find more meaning in a particular story or parable, it's just that the kind of meaning we arrive at might be different. I might arrive at something that's true for me personally, while you arrive at some universal truth. (Although my interpretation would be that you also arrive at a personal truth which you then project onto the others.)
Why would I have to find meaning only outside myself? If anything, the fact that I believe in my own existence above and beyond the physical will lead me to find meaning -universal or personal- within myself. I look inward first for guidance, if I want to understand the reality behind emotions like love, faith, hope and so on. I think the absolutely best place to start is by looking inwardly within myself. I tried to explain how I find insight in ancient writings that deal with the human condition, and in particular the story that was brought up in this thread, and can apply it to myself. I didn't mean to state that it would be impossible for anybody who may see things as you do to find it relevant. But yeah, I see your point. Maybe my mention of the chemical process was unfortunate, as it led me on a tangent. My direct answer to you applied to myself, not to everybody. But my original point was more to the effect that if somebody was looking at the story from the perspective that the OP was describing, they'd be unlikely to find the significance in it. Of course if you can get past the literalist question, look at the ancient story, and find it relevant as you reconcile it with your own experience and your own views about life, the universe and everything, then that's great.
From a literal standpoint, would Adam & Eve have been able to have children if they weren't banished from Eden? 'Cause without death that could be a population problem sooner or later.
They would have been like Elves. But I guess even they had to just take a boat somewhere to deal with the problem.
It would be cool if we would be elves. I wouldn't mind that at all. If that is the case then Eve really ********ed us up. One way of looking at story is to see it as depicting the complexity of our human soul. God is our conscience, our moral compass. The snake is our sense of curiosity, what makes us human, what makes us learn and discover things, and of course, what gets us in trouble. There are many ways to read the story. We can see Adam and Eve as an embodiment of the human race, look at the forbidden fruit as knowledge and science. By partaking of it we realize how small and insignificant we are, how "naked" we are. And it's a cautionary tale. Knowledge based by eating of the fruit not only led to the loss of our innocence, but it could very well lead to the death of our species. But in terms of attempting to explain creation, I think it is a logical story, from the point of view of the ancient. They did not have science as we know it, the ability to study fossils, DNA and the like. They knew they had their ancestors, and it's a logical step to trace them back to a single couple, and come up with an insightful transforming moment that made the couple human. The existence of the divine as both a source of their existence and a factor in their transformation is -I think- also a logical step. I think most human societies came up with similar myths because there is a lot of sense in them. They are simple myths, yet very insightful. The story of the garden does wonders in reducing to one action something that really did take place over time, which is the remarkable transformation of human beings from another animal species into the unique sentient beings that we are. It's very easy for us, having built on their knowledge for thousands of generations, to dismiss these writings as childish stories by pointing to supposed contradictions and absurdities in them. But doing so really misses the point.
You should read the book of Mormon. It has a unique take on the story, and it deals with that specific question and its implications in detail. But the short answer is no, they couldn't have any children before they ate the fruit. At least if we are to believe the golden plates that Joseph Smith found. Anyway, I don't think most Mormons today see the story of the fall as literal fact, any more than most Christians do.
My religious ed. (Catholic) teacher in school taught us that the story of Adam and Eve really is about having sex, not eating a fruit. If you look at it that way, it all makes a lot more sense (like covering up your private parts after realizing what they're good for...). Also, she said that in older versions of the story, the fruit was depicted as a plum, which always stood for the female genital area. Although she didn't elaborate on what the serpent could stand for in that reading... So that would answer the question of overpopulation. It does however raise other questions regarding the animals...did they have wild animal sex in the garden of eden? And if not, why do they procreate now? Did they also 'eat from the tree' and were therefore kicked out or were the poor bastards condemned to the earth because of Adam and Eve?
I love the crucifixion story. Well, not the story itself but what it has come to represent. It is a wonderful story, because in many ways it neatly brings the story of the Garden full circle. That is one reason I find the New Testament so amazing. Even though in historical terms its scope is limited and it cannot possibly be compared to the Old Testament writings in terms of its significance, it does seem to compliment it quite well. Here is one way I look at it. If God in Eden represented our conscience, then a reconciliation with God is a reconciliation with our own conscience, with our inner self. The understanding that we can love ourselves, we have intrinsic value, regardless of how much we ********ed up. The idea that we should never give up on ourselves. That is represented by a God who loves us, who comes to sacrifice himself -or his own Son- in order to redeem us. I see the life of Jesus neatly summarized in the story of the crucifixion. Love, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, all represented in one action as a reflection of what Jesus taught, how he lived, and who he was, according to the NT stories. I see the crucifixion as a story of hope. If we can believe, conceptually, in the idea that the God who created the universe actually gave himself up for us, it is a powerful representation of the importance that we have as human beings. And I do strongly believe that we do have such importance, that we do matter, in spite of the relative small place we may occupy in terms of time and space in the physical universe, and also in spite of our failings to live up to the high standards that we set for ourselves. Again, to me the literal aspect of it is not the important point. I look at how the story speaks to me personally.
I think that is a powerful way to look at it. The fall and eviction from paradise can also neatly represent the loss of innocence that comes with our reaching puberty and our discovery of sex, and how it effectively brings to an end the magical time of our childhood.
When I think of the story, I always think it sounds more like growing up more than anything else. Kids are naive, need looking after, don't always know what's good for them but they have an innocence that adults can never have. Becoming an adult changes all that and although it's a bit sad that people lose that child-like innocence, growing up is natural and always a good thing. To me though, these are completely made-up stories no different to other old parables or even books and films made today. Whatever people have thought about whether they're literal or not, it's plain to me that when they were first written/told, they were never meant to be literal, in the minds of the people who thought them up. So although there is supposed to be meaning in the story, I suppose, whatever meaning anyone might take is completely subjective to them because there is no cosmic absolute to be taken from these stories, anymore than there's a cosmic absolute to be taken from The Merchant of Venice or the Terminator.