Eden: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Eden » Eden

Eden

Eden

White
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 02, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 5

Posted 03/10/08 - 09:57 PM: Subject: Eden	#1
If we see Eden as a Utopia, without the existence of bad or evil, can it really be good? i.e. Good is a term which is relative to bad. Therefore good cannot exist without bad, and subsequently bad cannot exist without good. Eden is supposedly completely good, without bad. Therefore eden is neither good nor bad because one can't exist without the other. Where are the fallacies? Discuss?

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1380

Posted 03/10/08 - 11:06 PM:	#2
You can take this in two directions. One is, that Eden wasn't "good", just better than what we have now. Apparently they had a snake problem, tempting death traps, and people just walked around naked because they had no concept of shame, (implying that they ought to be ashamed -- which means there was something "not good" that they should feel shame about). The Second, which is often debated, was that Eden wasn't the only place on Earth, (or wherever it was supposed to be). Obviously there was "some place out", when they got kicked out into that other non-Eden place. There is a nod to others who might wish to kill Cain, and he is able to find a wife, (a sister?), in order to found a city -- but that is problematic because it makes Adam and Eve not the original and only humans ... at least according to Christian understanding. Even if Eden was the only place, it would be the "best" place and the "worst" place, simultaneously.
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

natureculturenothing
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 18, 2006
Location: From England, currently in Russia
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 65

Posted 03/11/08 - 12:19 AM:	#3
Eden is paradise because it is immediate. It is directly now. "Good", as you say, can only exist in relation to "bad" - like any other concept. The direct experience of now is fundamentally pre-conceptual, beyond (or rather prior to - although time-space-based concepts are inadequate to describe an experience that transcends time and space) "good" and "bad". This is meaningless for most modern people, addicted to abstraction. Conceptual thinking (and the binary emotions that sustain and are sustained by it) is a mask pulled over the present moment. The experience of the present moment, when the endless internal chatter and external stimulation stops, is eden. This was the message of Lao Tzu and the Jesus of Q, Thomas and those parts of the gospels that agree with each other (free from Pauline and evangelist mythologising, death worship and churchifying), it was the message of the Upanishads, of sufi mystics, of Zen (particularly the sweet living Japanese version) of Meister Eckhart, Jaocb Boehme, Thomas a Kempis and the like, Jiddu Krisnamurti, and most of the greatest artists of modern times (Lawrence, Tolstoy, Dostoyevski, Huxley, Wilde, etc). The kingdom is spread about you, but you see it not. Is the sun on my face "good" or "bad"? It's such a stupid question. The words "good" and bad" are tools. I use one, or the other, as appropriate, to get the job done. The actual experience is no more "good" or "bad" than a menu is nutritious. We are so addicted to thinking, conceptualising and being a complicated abstract somebody that something as simple as what is actually happening seems like incomprehensible madness - abstract. It's worth bearing in mind that all cultures have a paradisical garden myth. The Jewish one we are familiar with is quite a late one, and classically Aryan-Semitic in its hatred of women (eve) and older gods (the snake), in its emphasis on guilt and the sadistic commands of a authoritarian father, and, above all, in its placing paradise in time. Earlier myths saw paradise as timeless, an ever-present which we can return to just as soon as we connect with that sweet spot inside from whence it came. Edited by natureculturenothing on 03/11/08 - 12:27 AM
_____________________ www.natureculturenothing.co.uk

Casualty
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 12, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 46

Posted 03/11/08 - 09:33 AM:	#4
Eden means "Garden of Delights." It is God's garden of delights that we were in at first. But through distrusting God, and choosing to be one ourselves, we make a schism between ourselves and God, and are unable to enjoy God's garden. The curse set it up so that we would have to work for our fill. The ground would produce thorns; things wouldn't be easy anymore. The essence of sin is wanting to be your own god. Sin is lawlessness and lawlessness brings death. The law is good. It leads us to what is pleasing. But by the law, the nature of sin rebels and puts us to death. That is why Jesus came, to save us from our rebellion, by becoming a curse for us in order to release us from the curse of sin and death. It is not a matter of Good and Bad. It is a matter of separation. God walked with them in Eden. Eden represents full communion with God. When we sin, we lose the connection, but because Jesus paid the way, that connection can be re-established. Hell is separation from God, you put yourself there by turning away. Man was meant to be close to God. He was made to need it. God's nature is such that what He does and who He is is pleasing. God is good. But I cannot tell you where evil comes from. The Bible says wickedness was found in Satan. I am guessing that Satan, being a creator, probably created it from what was already here, rather than God creating it in Satan. Satan twists things, like the line: "You will not surely die." He was calling God a liar. However, he may have also been referring to the grace of God that he knew would work out, but he didn't know how. This would have caused a false sense of security, as if it was o.k. to sin and there were no consequences. It would have also created a very hard time for Adam and Eve to let go of Eden, seeing as every time God's grace would later play out, they would have wanted what could never have been restored in the first place. In fact, their immediate wanting of it and using it as a shield: "I can do this because God is good and loves me and will let me have everything anyway," would have made it so that God couldn't do that for them in the first place, because God is holy and must show Himself holy. In short, Satan created an idol of Eden, and I think that is why they could never return. God is not the garden. He only chose to manifest His goodness as one. A holy God is separate and I think this is where the concept lies. Idividualism demands separation. As a person we are individuals. God, being a person, is an individual, separate from other things. In God's character is the very foundation of goodness. Therefor, evil comes from what God is not and must exist as a consequence of who God is. I would postulate, based on these assumptions that if God is not a person, evil doesn't exist. Furthermore the nature of evil is seen in the verse that Jesus gives the people: "The thief comes to steal, kill, and destroy." All of evil would be anything that steals, kills, or destroys what is good. The verse continues: "But I come that they may have life, and live it to the full." A full life is the purpose of God. However, we cannot experience full life without God. We cannot have the fullness of God without God, so wanting to be our own god is self-defeating. But through deception, we don't care about that anyway. natureculturenothing --Conceptual thinking (and the binary emotions that sustain and are sustained by it) is a mask pulled over the present moment. The experience of the present moment, when the endless internal chatter and external stimulation stops, is eden. This was the message of Lao Tzu and the Jesus of Q, Thomas and those parts of the gospels that agree with each other (free from Pauline and evangelist mythologising, death worship and churchifying), it was the message of the Upanishads, of sufi mystics, of Zen (particularly the sweet living Japanese version) of Meister Eckhart, Jaocb Boehme, Thomas a Kempis and the like, Jiddu Krisnamurti, and most of the greatest artists of modern times (Lawrence, Tolstoy, Dostoyevski, Huxley, Wilde, etc). The kingdom is spread about you, but you see it not. You see the irony very well but go too far. Instead of humbling yourself to lose all hope, see that the real irony is that although things are this way, there is hope. If you are humble you will accept hope as well as the possibility that there is none. Just defeating yourself for what is true isn't enough, you must also accept the good that is true too. (Which also means accepting the bad.)

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1380

Posted 03/11/08 - 09:06 PM:	#5
First, you should know there is an earlier Akkadian story which matches up with Genesis pretty well. There is a god which takes on the form of a serpent. The first man is tricked into thinking the "bread of life" and "water of life" are actually poisons, so he refuses them and thus becomes mortal. The latter Eden story in Genesis has a few hints of being a copy/parody of this story. The serpent, (never identified), doesn't call God a liar, he simply asks, "Did God really say you would die?", then adds some additional information -- that they would receive the knowledge of good and evil, (morality?). After getting caught, God has an interesting conversation among himselves, (in plural), about how he needed to kick man out of Eden or he might find the fruit of the tree of life which would make him immortal. So, see if you follow: God says, "eat this fruit and die that very day". Serpent says, "eat this fruit and gain knowledge of good and evil, becoming more like God". The later mono-dialog confirms that they had indeed become "more like God". Most apologists bend over backward to show how Adam and Eve "died" metaphorically. Casualty, I notice you tend to reject "Pauline and evangelist mythology", but seem to accept Augustine's concept of "original sin". The Jews didn't have it -- Adam in the garden is never mentioned again in the "Old Testament". Even Orthodox Christians don't have it -- they split before the concept was introduced. If you like "Q", then you might like the document hypothesis of the Old Testament where the two contradictory accounts of Eden are reconciled as one original story, (man and woman created at same time on Earth), and the later Elohist addition which includes the traditional story. Edited by swstephe on 03/12/08 - 01:07 AM
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

natureculturenothing
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 18, 2006
Location: From England, currently in Russia
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 65

Posted 03/12/08 - 12:38 AM:	#6
Casuality - I haven't lost all hope - I never had any to lose. I accept hope, and the possibility there is none, like good, bad, and any other abstraction, as passing. Swstephe - Thank you, very intesting (no irony); but my point was not the immediate origins of the Genesis myth (which, at any rate, I'm not sure, from your description I quite understand), but generally how far it is from the simpler timeless myths which long preceded it. And I can't think why you think I seem to accept "Augustine's concept of "original sin."" I made no mention of it, or anything like it, as far as I am aware.
_____________________ www.natureculturenothing.co.uk

Casualty
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 12, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 46

Posted 03/12/08 - 08:46 AM:	#7
swstephe -a document written earlier may only confirm the relevance of Eden. The serpent does say directly, "You will not surely die, but God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be open and you will be like God knowing good and evil," which is in direct opposition to the phrase God spoke, "You will surely die." Of course, they do become more like God, but probably not in the way they wanted -knowledge is not character. If you look at it the serpent is saying, "Disobey God to become more like Him." If Adam and Eve were allowed to live forever, they would have remained sinful for all eternity and thus separated from God as long. The fact that we die saves us from a life of separation because in the ressurection we will have new bodies. The sinful nature will be done away with. As for "Original Sin" the Genesis account is pretty much all over it. God created things perfect, but man chose to disobey when he was deceived. I do not know what you mean by the jews not having it, and how Adam never being mentioned again has relevance to that.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1380

Posted 03/13/08 - 02:57 AM:	#8
Casualty wrote: swstephe -a document written earlier may only confirm the relevance of Eden. The serpent does say directly, "You will not surely die, but God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be open and you will be like God knowing good and evil," which is in direct opposition to the phrase God spoke, "You will surely die." Of course, they do become more like God, but probably not in the way they wanted -knowledge is not character. If you look at it the serpent is saying, "Disobey God to become more like Him." If Adam and Eve were allowed to live forever, they would have remained sinful for all eternity and thus separated from God as long. The fact that we die saves us from a life of separation because in the ressurection we will have new bodies. The sinful nature will be done away with. As for "Original Sin" the Genesis account is pretty much all over it. God created things perfect, but man chose to disobey when he was deceived. I do not know what you mean by the jews not having it, and how Adam never being mentioned again has relevance to that. But the earlier document doesn't mention "Eden". The document says he lived in a city called Eridu, (he wasn't the really the first man, just adviser to the first King of Sumeria). You can find the ruins of Eridu in Southern Iraq. Eden has never been located despite being given a physical location in its description. In the making up tall tales and epic legends about him, (a lot of it pretty unbelievable) -- about him being born of the serpent-like god "Ea" -- they tell a story about being tricked out of becoming a mortal. If someone told you he had a mutant sunflower that enabled him to climb to a hidden city in the clouds where he met a giant, the evidence is stronger that he is making the whole thing up and plagiarizing "Jack and the Beanstalk", than to claim that the latter story is somehow factual and accurate. The story of Genesis seems to focus more on an explanation for why life is so hard and painful. The Biblical story further seems to emphasize an inferior role for women, (shifting much of the initial blame and then finishing off with a woman being cursed with submission to the man). Genesis talks about a curse -- which is quite different than the ability for the guilt of a sin being passed on to descendants. It seems strange that a group can accept this explanation in this case, but might find it strange for anyone to be accused of a crime committed by their parents, either by human laws or holy laws. Anyway, this topic is about Eden being a utopia or paradise. I think the only reason it was described as such was to contrast this life with what could have been. The New Testament actually has some statements that tries to turn this around -- claiming that what is provided in this earth is actually not so bad.
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

Casualty
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 12, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 46

Posted 03/17/08 - 10:17 AM:	#9
Lol. Women were and are still equal to men. In fact, it wasn't good for there just to be a man, but a woman was needed to make things good. Just because she was cursed in this way does not make her inferior. The cursing is a corrective measure. Man sinned just as bad cause he was with her and he didn't stop her, but even joined in on it. Both of them chose knowledge instead of God. Woman are far from inferior, and why does submission have to equate to inferiority?

iSerpent.
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 07, 2008
Location: Saint Augustine, Florida
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 9

Posted 05/07/08 - 01:45 PM:	#10
Eden. Where the hell is it? I honestly think that the Bible is nothing but giant medaphor's. For instance; supposedly guarding the Tree of Life is a floating, flaming sword, and a Cherabim. After all of these years, and after how much we have adapted/populated, you'd think someone would have noticed something like that. Yes, some things are "hidden", but seriously.
_____________________ \|. Sincerely; Angel in Jeans .\|

gesler0811
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 138

Posted 05/08/08 - 01:07 PM:	#11
That's because according to New Testament theology, the tree of life is in heaven. I think the book of Revelation is where that is presented. There is no longer on this earth a Tree of Life that needs guarding. Hence, the flaming sword and the cherubim are long gone. At one point exactly did this happen? I have no idea. But the NT does clearly state that the Treeof Life is in heaven now. So that should be a satisfactory answer to you, iSerpent. Casualty, so far I do much like your theology. I agree with most you have said. The part about Adam and Eve having to die so they could be rejoined to God is something I have never even thought about like that, but I like it. It makes a weird kind of sense. For all those people that think a loving God would not allow us to suffer and die - To NOT die and to live forever, in eternal separation, would be much much worse. Brilliant stuff. And I second the whole "women inferiority" argument. Women are not inferior. The Bible does not promote that women are inferior. Jesus died for all of us, men and women. God loves us all equally. Every life is precious. The man and the woman were both punished. And again, submission does not necessarily indicate inferiority. If people that advocated this viewpoint would spend ten minutes in a decent church with a decent pastor, they could learn this themselves. Alas, people outside of Christianity and who do not understand it read isolated verses and form opinions of Christianity contrary to what Christianity teaches, and then proceed to judge Christianity based on their ill conceived misconceptions. I believe the term is 'econommic subordination.' It is a classification of roles that we each play in our particular station. It's not about who is the most important, but which role are you most suited to fulfill. God created women with the intention that they would be the mothers and nurturers. Their bodies are biologically constructed to give birth. Men cannot do that. That does not make the man any less important biologically to the future of the race than the woman, it just means we have different roles. You can have a different role than somebody and still be every bit as precious and valuable as that person. God does not degrade women. He sure had no problem using Mary as the earthly carrier of his Son - Jesus Christ. And God has not placed any explicit limits on what a woman can aspire to be - with the one possible exception of them being teachers of men within a church setting or leaders of a church itself. That's another topic though. You could just as easily show that God made it impossible for men to carry babies in their bodies or to nurse newborn babies. Again. Its just a question of roles. Back to the original post - - Eden is never said not to contain any bad or evil. In fact, the serpent (devil) was just that. Eden was simply a paradise... Where mankind could have fellowship with God and a carefree life. Casualty already gave a great exposition of the fall, so I won't sit here and repeat it all. But my take on the Garden is basically this - MAnkind had a choice to make. Do I accept everything that God offers, including his own fellowship, in an act of trust that he knows best, or do I reach for my own answers at the risk of cutting him out of the loop? We can see how that turned out. The irony is that any one of us would have done the same. The temptation of reaching for that fruit would have been too much to bare, really. We're all guilty of the same types of sins all the time. So it's ultimately fruitless (ha ha pun) to blame Adam or Eve for this predicament we are in.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.