The Fall of Man

[driver]

The fall of man is a Christian concept. I don't think the Jewish faith has one. In Christianity by Adam and Eve getting put out of the garden sin entered the world. We've been sinners ever since, born in sin and can only be saved by the blood of Christ on the cross. Now I don't buy any of this , but mankind sure has its evils. I think as we evolved we chose certain character flaws over good. I know of seven: pride, anger, lust, envy, sloth, gluttony, and greed. The Buddha thought that greed was the root of mans problems. What do you think? Did Jesus handle any of mankind's woes through his parables?

[Lily]

I don't buy the usual Christian idea of the fall of man, and I believe it's been misunderstood from the beginning. I have mostly heard it told that the fall happened when Eve ate the apple, because it was an act of disobedience to God, and that the punishment expulsion from the garden that meant mankind had to fend for himself.

That doesn't make sense to me. First, It seems to me that God would want us to desire the knowledge of good and evil, it's what makes us human, but that it would have to be something we choose. What's the easiest way to make someone want something? Tell them they can't have it. It's even more effective if you then allow that rule to be questioned. Once the desire for knowledge was created, humanity was faced with it's first real decision. Obey the rule blindly without question, disregard the rule and do as you wish, or question the rule and become enlightened.

Like Eve, most people only see the first two options, and fail to consider the third. It has become a choice to obey God, or to rebel against him. What if Eve had seen that third option? What if she had gone to God and asked Him questions about that rule and told Him that she wanted to know everything she could about life. Do any of us suppose He would have rejected her? Haven't we all made that same request, and not been rejected? Eve chose simply to rebel blindly without question, mankind's first mistake.

The next mistake Eve made that has been repeated throughout history is failure to take responsibility for our own actions. When Mankind was called to account for it's decision, we made excuses, and claimed to be misled. Keep in mind that Eve was misled without the benefit of knowledge of good and evil. For her, that is an understandable excuse, one which we cannot claim, having been given this innate sense of right and wrong. Nevertheless, we use the actions of others to excuse our own, and deny this knowledge.

Another aspect of the traditional interpretation of the story I reject is punishment. For this "great transgression," Mankind was given knowledge and responsibility and sent out into the world to use them. That's not a punishment, that's a mission. The evils of the world come because we fail in that mission, when we deny our knowledge of good and evil and responsibility to humanity and the world.

Jesus encouraged us to pay heed to that knowledge and our responsibility, without fear of punishment.

I'm really just beginning to formulate a philosophy on this, but this is about where I am now.

[gnomon]

I don't buy the usual Christian idea of the fall of man, and I believe it's been misunderstood from the beginning.

I think the "Fall of Man" concept is a Christian interpretation of Genesis, emphasizing deliberate defiance of authority, while fully aware of the long-term consequences. Among the Israelites and Jews it may have been viewed differently*. Since Adam & Eve were essentially naive cloistered children they had no experience of the moral choices outside the walls of the Garden. The wily snake was symbolic of the amoral forces of nature, and he took advantage of their naivete to present A&E with their first moral test : God's Will versus personal desires. It's like a stranger offering candy to the kids, and saying, "don't worry about what your parents told you".

Their resulting moral enlightenment was both a good thing (for surviving in the real world) and a tragedy (losing their innocence). In other words, the original understanding of the story was allegorical and mythical. But Christianity took it literally as an archetype of all subsequent disobedience to rules without reason (i.e. Faith)


* Some modern Jews may have adopted the Christian version, because it is a good source of blind obedience memes.

[Lily]

Among the Israelites and Jews it may have been viewed differently*.

Yes, you're right. I'm just starting to understand that the ancient Jews did understand things differently from NT writers. It was misunderstood from the beginning of Christianity. I learned recently that to the ancient Jews the snake represented wisdom and cunning, nothing evil or amoral. All the snake really did is offer a suggestion, share an idea, which sparked the desire for something God wanted her to want in the first place.

This was not a test, it was inspiration. It was not God's Will (what's right) vs personal desires, quite often they are the same thing. We did not lose innocence, we gained responsibility.

I know I see this radically different than a lot of people, but this is truly what I get out of the story. Take away the concepts of sin and retribution, disobedience and punishment, which we know are not aspects of the God we know, and the story changes drastically. This is what I'm left with.

[mystic444]

The fall of man is a Christian concept. I don't think the Jewish faith has one. In Christianity by Adam and Eve getting put out of the garden sin entered the world. We've been sinners ever since, born in sin and can only be saved by the blood of Christ on the cross. Now I don't buy any of this , but mankind sure has its evils. I think as we evolved we chose certain character flaws over good. I know of seven: pride, anger, lust, envy, sloth, gluttony, and greed. The Buddha thought that greed was the root of mans problems. What do you think? Did Jesus handle any of mankind's woes through his parables?

I personally think that too much is read into Paul's teaching about the entrance of 'sin' into this world (Romans 5:12-21). I'm not at all convinced that Paul believed the things about 'original sin' and all humans having been condemned because of Adam's sin that later church doctrine 'found' in that passage. Once we stop being overly literal with 'sacred scriptures', we'll find a lot more truly good spiritual truth in them.The same thing is true of many other 'Christian' teachings, such as 'substitutionary atonement'. The church doctrine is not necessarily what the Biblical writers actually taught; but church doctrine has become so ingrained in our thinking that we automatically see it when we read the Biblical narratives - so we imagine that by rejecting the absurd church teachings we are rejecting the Bible. I have had such a sharp 'paradigm shift' over the years, that I now believe it is actually 'the church' that has rejected the Biblical teachings!

Gnomon pointed out that the creation story, like so much else in the Bible, is allegory. When we recognize this, we can recognize that there is probably not one 'correct' understanding of what it is saying. I believe each person who has commented on this thread has valuable insights into the 'truth' behind the mythical presentation. The 'truth' I see in this story (or at least a part of that 'truth') can be found in a previous post: http://www.positivedeism.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4374&p=40035#p40035.

Jesus' teaching, whether in parables or otherwise, dealt overwhelmingly with the human condition and its 'problems'. For him, the 'key' to solving our problems lay in those 2 great commandments: love the LORD your God with all you heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. Many of his teachings give specific illustrations of how those 2 principles work themselves out in practice. The parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31-46 gives an interesting portrayal of the kind of things which are considered in 'the judgment'. It goes right to the core of the issue of compassion versus greed. God is the source of all true 'righteousness', whether we find God's views in nature, revelation, or a combination of the two. So Jesus' teachings emphasized being God conscious, and living our lives in awareness of God; and there are certainly many fine illustrations of what that meant in his parables.

[bmancuso]

"The fall of man is a Christian concept. I don't think the Jewish faith has one."

Excuse me if I am misunderstanding the topic but isnt the Adam and Eve story taken from the Jewish torah? Doesn't the first several chapters of Genesis describe the fall of man up until the time of Noah?

Again Im probably just confused... It happens from time to time

[Lily]

The Adam and Eve story is from the Torah, but the ancient Jews didn't interpret it the "Fall of Man," that understanding of it came later. As I understand it, the ancient Jews didn't consider Satan evil, either.

I'm not at all convinced that Paul believed the things about 'original sin' and all humans having been condemned because of Adam's sin that later church doctrine 'found' in that passage.

Mystic, I'm interested in more about this. From this passage (Rom 5) it certainly does seem that Paul believed that we are all subject to a sinful nature. What are you seeing in this that I don't? What does this passage mean, if it's not about original sin? I agree that the church has misunderstood Paul's words or taken them out of context, but it seems to me that Paul really did ascribe to the concepts of sin and evil that had become common by his time. If you see it differently, I'd love to know how.

Chapters 5-8 of Roman's are very intriguing to me. I understand what Paul is saying, but I also see that he didn't quite get it. He tells us that there is no sin without the law. (OK) Before the law and sin we didn't know what we did was wrong. (OK) He also told us that the Law of Moses was unable to save us, that it's commands brought only death, not life. (OK) I can dig all this. The law offered examples of wrong, but as a moral standard it fell short. All it did was condemn us to death, and didn't show us how to really live. Jesus showed us a better way to know what is right, that does even more than fulfill the requirements of the law. This tells me that the law has served it's purpose, has been fulfilled, and can be disregarded in favor of a more effective standard. I see that Paul was almost there, too, but he double back and said that the law itself was good, but the sin it created is bad. But, Paul, Jesus said if something bears bad fruit, it is bad. How then can the law that created sin and brought death be good? How is it even useful?

I'm not criticizing Paul. He was a Pharisee and he had cherished the law his entire life. It was hard to let go. I'm no Pharisee, but I've struggled to separate the law from a deeper sense of right and wrong in my own life. I can see how it would be much more difficult for a man like Paul. Where he was unable to take that final step and dispose of the law, I am able. I gained understanding even from his misunderstanding.

[mystic444]

Lily wrote:

Mystic, I'm interested in more about this. From this passage (Rom 5) it certainly does seem that Paul believed that we are all subject to a sinful nature. What are you seeing in this that I don't?

I need to learn to keep my mouth shut sometimes! I appreciate your interest, and quite understand your perplexity about my statement. I'll have to give some thought about an answer so it won't turn into a 'dissertation' or 'book'. Just wanted to let you know I'm not ignoring you. When I can get my thoughts together, I'll either reply here or start a new thread. If others of you are not at all interested in hearing my thoughts on that in this forum, please say so. I can always send a 'personal message' to Lily. I may possibly also do a blog article on this subject; if so, I can post a link to it here so those who wish can read it, and those who aren't interested won't have to be bothered with it.

My most recent blog post (http://mystic444.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/the-%E2%80%98second-coming%E2%80%99/) gives an example how a shift in perspective can give a quite different understanding of a Biblical passage (or teaching). There is a famous (or infamous) passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 which many 'evangelicals' and 'fundamentalists' use to teach "the Rapture of the Church" (whether they believe it will occur before, during the middle of, or after the 'Great Tribulation' which they warn us is coming). Yes, Paul (and the other apostles, following the teaching of Jesus) believed in a 'coming' of Christ in his 'kingdom' for 'judgment' - but it (from my perspective) was a quite different thing than is usually presented. If I can get my whirling brain to focus on 'original sin' in Romans 5, I believe I'll be able to show how a similar shift in perspective can affect one's understanding of that passage.

[gnomon]

"The fall of man is a Christian concept. I don't think the Jewish faith has one."

Excuse me if I am misunderstanding the topic but isnt the Adam and Eve story taken from the Jewish torah? Doesn't the first several chapters of Genesis describe the fall of man up until the time of Noah?

We're not talking about the word-for-word story in Genesis, but about the interpretation and implications. The Jews certainly believed in a mythical* "fall from grace", resulting in men earning their living by the sweat of their brow, and women giving birth in pain---i.e. physical consequences.

But Christianity has dramatized and spiritualized the meaning of the story to make the physical consequences seem inconsequential. Compared to getting kicked out of a cushy garden retreat, vacationing in an eternal lake of fire, because of the childish behavior of a distant relative, seems like overkill. The magnified magnitude of the punishment was probably intended to justify the supreme sacrifice of a son of god for the collective sins of mankind. It makes an exaggerated melodrama of a mundane ancient tragedy.


* Rank & file Jews may have taken it literally, but we would now call it a myth---like the idea of the "sons of god" consorting with human women and producing a race of giants. The intellectual elites of the day probably considered such stories to be allegorical teaching tools for the unlettered masses.

[julie]

I can't answer the whole question, but after reading some of your answers, I've come up with this intrepretation. I see the A n E story kind of as a comming of age story. Before eating the apple, they were like children. God planted the tree of knowledge to create the conflict for them to thrust them into maturity. When we come to maturity it seems to come out of nowhere, doesn't it? The appearance of the snake brings Eve to the teenage level where we start to question things our parents tell us as a way of finding our independence. The snake was the fodder which caused Eve to want to test her bounderies, to rebel. In turn she brought Adam up to the next rung of maturity. They then received enlightenment about the way the world works. God didn't punish them, although they may have felt that way,but rather pushed them out of the nest. Kind of like a parent telling an 18 year old they have to move out. It was time for A n E to make their own way in the world. I've obiviously taken out the original sin part to fit this interpretation to see it as a comming of age story, and not as the fall of man. How are my intrepretation skills? I'm new at looking at the bible this way!

[mystic444]

Julie - I think you're doing a great job of thinking; that's the important thing. I'm not sure there's any one 'correct' way of viewing Biblical allegories. Your ideas sure won't win you any points with 'born again' Christians, but that wasn't your desire, was it? I follow a bit different approach, which includes a concept of 'sin' ('missing the mark'); but as I said it's perfectly legitimate to follow differing approaches, because there's probably no one 'right' one.

[julie]

Thanks Mystic! Yeah, I realize born agains won't appreciate my comming of age story When I read bible stories, I read them as a literalist would, as they are the only Christians who've given me problems. So, now I'm also trying to read them from the interpreters point of view as well. I need to be able to learn how to dialogue with Christians, as one of my best friends is one. A bible literalist to be exact. I've been pushed in a corner one too many times, not being able to defend myself. I figure the best way to hold my head above water with "converters" is to educate myself so I know what the hell they're talking about! Is that wrong?