Well you have to realize that Gensesis was written without any knowledge of Christian soteriology (unless you believe in Divine authorship). Originally, Christ on the cross was seen as a surrogate for the Paschal Lamb, the ultimate blood sacrifice which would permanently satisfy God. This interpretation presents a number of obvious logical problems which I won’t bother to go into but I think one way to save the credibility of Christian redemption in this scenario is to see the crucifixion not as a sacrificial appeasance to God but as an example of transcending suffering through love. It isn’t the crucifixion itself which is significant but Christ’s reaction to it. He loves those who torture him and kill him and he prays for their forgiveness. What saves us from our own base natures is our capacity for empathy. We are all capable of love but we are selective about who we love. Christ says don’t be selective. Love everybody. Love transcends. If you love you are saved. Love is Spirit. Love is God. There is no way to the Father but through love. Our return to Grace-- to “blamelessness” – lies in our ability to forgive each other. Jesus said that we had been told that only God had the power to forgive, but "I tell you that the “Son of Man” has the power to forgive. “Son of man” means “human being.” That’s the good news. We can forgive each other, and Jesus showed us that we can do it no matter what because he forgave his own killers. The more we forgive the more we are forgiven.
The hard part is overcoming personal judgements and loving everyone equally without making distinctions. We must become what Jesus called the “rain which falls on the just and the unjust.”
Impossible? It seems so, but maybe Jesus was saying that we can make ourselves into vehicles for the Holy Spirit and in so doing, make us “perfect” so that we can love everybody. maybe Jesus was one who became that vessle, who became perfect. Maybe one way find that Spirit is through the suffering of Christ. In our empathy we become selfless. We empty ourselves and allow the Spirit in.
Maybe this is true for any time we feel compassion and Christ on the cross is merely a potent symbol for that suffering.
I’m sort of all over the place here and I’m just tossing out ideas which might be useful in reconciling the crucifixion with a non-literal fall. Ihope I’ve provide something useful to chew on.
I just had a thought (that I haven’t really worked through). If the Fall is an allegory about man developing rational thought which allows him to see right from wrong, wouldn’t the only true consequence be that man can see right from wrong? Wouldn’t the consequence be the same as the action?
Maybe you have heard this before, but the word for “knowledge” in Genesis 1 and 2 means “experience of”. Meaning that (for me) the point of the story is that once we become aware of ourselves as limited human beings, separate from God, we also become aware that we have sinned.
The person Adam represents in the story is me. And you. Once you can see the difference between right and wrong, you see also that you have chosen wrong, and that you are a limited and imperfect creation, not God.
Keep in mind that the first prophecy of the Messiah comes immediately after the story of the Fall. The promise is made to the woman that her seed (not the man’s - first prophecy of the Virgin Birth) will crush the head of the serpent, and that the serpent will “bruise His heel”. The actions of Messiah, in destroying the symbol of evil, will bring about His wounding and death from the serpent’s bite. The instant man becomes aware of sin, the promise is made of redemption.
It’s a complex story - a myth, in the classic sense of the term.
Well, it’s not only that they can see right from wrong but that knowing the difference makes them responsible-- makes them culpable- for their actions. The consequence of knowledge is sin.
There is no reference to a Messiah in this passage. It’s a pretty huge reach to get that out God telling Eve that “your children” will be enemies with the serpent. That means nothing except that condition of self-awareness for humans is permanent. The Messiah, in Jewish tradition is not a redeemer of sins and there was no tradition whatever that the Messiah would be born of a virgin…not that there is anyway to infer “divine redeemer of sins born of a virgin” from “your children” anyway.
My contraversial take on the Adam & Eve story is this: A young Mesopotamian couple ran off together, found a nice secluded meadow somwhere, and proceeded to frolic (they may have even gone so far as to cavort). But growing hungry, they found some mushrooms growing at the foot of a tree. Now then, God tells us not to just go ahead and eat any old mushrooms we find. In other words, we are instinctively wary of mushrooms just as we are instinctively wary of snakes (but then again there’s a reptile within us all, which is relevant). Anyway, A&E overrode this instinct, but they turned out to be psychedelic mushrooms. Now if you’ve ever done psychedelics, you know that your “eyes are opened” metaphorically, and you’re really into the whole concept of, like, good and evil, man (sometimes you swear God is trying to tell you something). But you can also become reeeeeeealy paranoid and self-conscious. Just like Adam & Eve (why would they suddenly become embarrassed about being naked if they were the only 2 people in existance?).
Diogenes I have a question and this may apply to whomever has gone to seminary school.
I have heard it argued evolution is completely incompatible with Genesis whether or not they are a literalist or not. They focus on the following passages to support this argument.
First they analyze and emphasize the fact humans were made “mature” and plants and animals were also made “mature”. They use this to argue the point plants and animals did not evolve but were created in a “mature” state capable of reproducing.
To buttress this point they rely upon the following scriptures:
Genesis 1
Now they focus upon the word “kind” indicating nothing could reproduce or could lead to something that was not of its own “kind”. Therefore, a tree had to reproduce or lead to another tree. In other words, we could not have evolved from primordial soup because everything was created mature and could only lead to its own “kind”. Primordial soup does not have as its “kind” the different types of trees and so forth.
They do not believe it is biblically possible to evolve from a primitive sea animal, such as a crocodile, to a horse because because they are not the same “kind”. Animals only reproduced and led to its own “kind”.
What is the Hebrew or Greek word for “kind”? My own personal belief, I do think evolution is incompatible with the creation account in Genesis. However, I have heard some biblical scholars account for the immense fossil record with something known as the Gap Theory but that would be a digression.
Well I was really only talking about the fall as a metaphor for the dawning of human awareness rather than trying to reconcile the creation as described in Genesis with evolutionary theory, but what the hell…
I think maybe you could look at the description of creation as mirroring the evolution of human consciousness; from a vague awareness of light and dark, to water to land to an awareness of plants and animals to human sentience.
When animals were created in “kinds” perhaps that just designates that humans became aware of the differences between animals. The “naming” of the animals is the beginning of language and the awareness that we are other than they are and have power over them. The moment of their “creation” is really just the moment of our awareness of them.
Obviously Genesis is not intended to be a scientific description of the origins of man or the universe but is about man’s relationship to the world and to God.
I have thinking about this, but I keep coming to the conclusion that if the message of Christ was his reaction to the Crucifixion he is not dying for our sins but just giving us an example. Also there seems to be text in the New Testament that specifically says that Jesus’ act bought us redemption in his death (see below). However, even though I don’t think the New Testament gives a clear view of the nature of Atonement, I don’t think any of the exemplar theories of Atonement are powerful enough. If Christ is merely the perfection of humanity and an example for man we will still fall short. Even with the Holy Spirit is in us, unless Jesus’ life and death (and reaction to that death) is more that an example for us we are still in the same place as before. If the law of God could not save us, why should Jesus? Also, under the exemplar theories I don’t think it is necessary (and perhaps not possible) that Jesus is both completely man and completely God.
The problem I have with redemption and evolution is that the only theory of atonement I see that really has the power to save man are the satisfaction theories. However, if the Fall was not a real historic event we end up with all kinds of problems about God’s perfection, the perfection of creation, perfect Judgment, etc. and the necessity of Redemption.
1 Peter 1:18-19
Romans 3:25
Galatians 4:4-7
[quote]
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God.
I agree that the theology of sacrificial atonement doesn’t seem to work, and that was also a huge stumbling block to Christianity for me. I think it’s rooted in archaic ideas of animal sacrifice and I can’t find a way to conceptualize the death of Christ (as opposed to his life, teachings, or embrace of the cross) as being redemptive. I think it’s a problem for Christianity and I don’t have an answer for it. Some liberal theologians like Spong have rejected the crucifixion of having any salvic meaning at all.
The reason why science and religion can be reconciled is because humans have a great affinity with stoopidity.
Science has proven many aspects of the bible to be false, lies in fact. At the very least deceitful. Yet you still have plebs coming along and saying. “well you have to pick and choose which part you take literally.” In other words. I recognise failings in the bible but im desperate to follow it so ill just close my mind to the embarrassing parts.
Whos the idiot? The proven liar or the people who continue to readily accept his statements?
BTW Im not saying the human authors of the bible wernt deliberately lieing its just that at the time(s) of writting they didnt know any better (of course not, scientific method wasnt invented yet).
At what point to you throw away the bible for the collection of ancient myths and legends it just so happens to be? Untill the very last statement is proven wrong?
Silly really.
When you became a follower of the bible was it because you were a free thinking person in a stable frame of being with a large amount of factual knowledge devoid of any peer pressure?
I think not.
-You were a child who didnt know any better
-An adult with lots of religious friends ie: peer pressure
-An adult going through a life crisis ie: vulnerable
-Your ignorant about reality so when exposed to simple (-keyword there, readily digestible) claims from the bible you, like your ancient forefathers didnt know any better.
If your wondering why i im so anti-religion, just think inwards of how yourself feels towards other technoligically primitive cultures, like Native americans, Maoris and ancient egyptians and there collection’s of myths, legends and beliefs.
Star Wars, I recommend reading The God We Never Knew by Marcus Borg. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060610352/qid=1079048285/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/103-8127579-3717464?v=glance&s=books It describes the importance of the creation stories and even the later descriptions of Jesus as “Christian myths,” yet recognizes their importance to the Christian faith. While I am sure some of you are about to be offended at the mention of these stories being myths, however he defends his definition as I am now unable to do (I lent the book to someone) so I recommend reading the book.
I think that the fall of man and the redemption from Christ exist only to help us understand that we can be forgiven/redeemed/saved from a relationship with God. Jesus lived and helped and spoke to a group of people and had a real relationship with him. After his death and resurrection, this same group of people found it possible to CONTINUE this relationship. Perhaps that is all He wanted to show: that just because someone does not exist in the same way that you do (physically) doesn’t mean that you cannot interact and form a valuable connection with them.
I agree with earlier posts about how God and Jesus should be seen as within rather than separate “out there” things that operate from far away. (Borg does too. Read the book.)
