CONTEXT!
From Wes White: Mad at the System Posting
Anonymous said...
"The system was from the tree of good and evil. Therefore it was doomed from the start. The splinters repeatedly try and regrow the system and blatantly ignore the tree of life way. The way being Jesus Christ"
Picky I know, and we get the point being made, , but it is "the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil" in the context of scripture. One can make an analogy of anything but when using scripture, context must come first. Many a Church of God minister gives whole sermons and personal counsel to members completely out of context of the original meaning and intent of scripture. Dave Pack and Gerald Flurry are masters of this disaster.
The issue in the Garden of Eden tale is that the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, as well as eternal life, were just for the gods and not humans. Just knowing the difference between good and evil, for humans, was risky and upsetting to El and the Council of the Gods (the Elohim) That is why they were not to partake of them. It is why when they did God is quoted as saying...
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
"...Out you go!"
As well, in the story, humans were not only to ignore the Tree of Life, being eternal life, but they would die in the day they ate of it, which they actually did not.
And no cheating by using 2 Peter 3:8 as an apologetic! That would also be out of context.
8 Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day."
This issue was over the delayed coming of Jesus that observers, i.e. "scoffers" were inquiring about from the Apostles who said it was shortly and soon but was evidently not.
CONTEXT!
"Yeah, well Methuselah only lived to be 969 years old and so he died "in the very day" as do all humans now because of sin. He didn't live to be 1000 which is just one day with God." Ugh! The story is not about Methuselah and "in the day you do eat" was a threat about Adam and Eve dying, as if they knew what that was, that same day they disobeyed. It was the instant penalty for not knowing they should have listened, which they couldn't know...aw never mind! No wait! this needs exploring!...
I personally never could see what the problem was with humans having the knowledge of good and evil as it seems like it would come in handy, but I didn't write the story. But the idea of it certainly spooked Elohim and the Council of the Gods. And too, if Adam and Eve did not know good from evil before actually partaking of the tree of it, how can they be blamed for not understanding the instructions not to?
As a side note to the story, the Serpent, who only later evolved into "the Satan" of later fame, was correct in the CONTEXT saying...
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
It seems El was fibbing and the Serpent was telling the truth of the matter, go figure.
Personally, the story seems more an explanation by the Priests who wrote it as to why the people must not decide what is right or wrong themselves and think freely outside that which the Priesthood was introducing as the way all must be and the things all must do. This story is, after all, close to the first one in the Pentateuch which indeed are the instructions on how the people must live and who is in charge and it's not them. It was a bit of a warning to toe the line and stay within them. That's just me and snakes can't really talk.
Anyway, CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT!
It is a concept that still escapes many of my former colleagues in ministry when declaring with authority how it all was, how it all is and how it all shall be.
The culture of another ethnicity expresses this through yin and yang, and karma. You cannot become conscious of one precept without also becoming conscious of its precise opposite. The choices you make bring good, bad, or relatively neutral energy back to you. However you express it, this seems to be one of the laws of the universe.
ReplyDeleteBB
As John Steward Mills put it 'The likings and disliking of society, or of some powerful portion of it, are thus the main thing which has practically determined the rules laid down for general observance, under the penalty of law and opinion.'
ReplyDeleteSo it's what people like and dislike, versus following Christ. That's the meaning of the two trees.
BTW Herb and his ministers behavior was determined by their likes and dislikes, otherwise the outcry of abuse wouldn't exist, and neither would this blog.
Awesome article.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of the the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is really quite simple: humans should not take it upon themselves to decide what is right and wrong. A young child is taught that it is wrong to run out in the middle of the street --- not morally wrong, necessarily, but certainly wrong in the sense of imperiling one's personal safety. As adults, we know the child should listen to her parents and avoid running into the street where she may get hit by a car. If the child decides it's okay to run into the street and proceeds to do so then she is liable to be severely injured or killed. Likewise, the story of the forbidden fruit says that we should look to God for moral guidance rather than deciding for ourselves what is right and wrong. The problem is not that message but rather the way in which it is worded, which implies that there is something bad about knowing right from wrong. The child who listens to her parents knows right from wrong: running into the street is bad, staying away from the street is good. The point is that she gets that guidance from her parents, who have wisdom and experience about streets and traffic, rather than from her own immature reasonings. I don't know if something was lost in translation or if the concept was expressed poorly to begin with, but it is unfortunate that the implication of the Biblical story is that there is something bad about knowing right from wrong. There is nothing bad about that: it's just a matter of where you get your guidance. The other unfortunate thing is that we have so many motor mouths out there --- including those in the COGs --- who are telling us what God says is right and wrong. In other words, we get our concepts of right and wrong from other human beings --- people who are supposed to be "experts" in morality or prophecy or whatevers --- rather than from God. The best course is to read the Bible --- including the parts where carnal Israelites committed genocide and sicced their God upon their enemies --- and then prayerfully consider what God is trying to tell you regarding good and evil. In other words, eliminate the middle man, and then act on the knowledge you find. As humans, that is all we can do.
ReplyDelete8.34 AM
ReplyDeleteYour 'deciding for ourselves what is right and wrong' is a favourite expression used by the ministers. It's ambiguous and misleading. The bibles 'prove all things' means a private judgment, ie going mentally solo. In that sense, a person is still deciding for themselves what's right or wrong.
The accusation of 'deciding for ourselves what's right or wrong' is often used as a club by ministers against members who disagree with them, or the church position.
The expression is guile (ie, crafty deception) which God condemns.
I am the one who wrote the original comment Dennic C Dhiel and yes you are picky. That we agree on. You display the sort of pickiness only the ministry like to put on show.
ReplyDelete834 said: "The accusation of 'deciding for ourselves what's right or wrong' is often used as a club by ministers against members who disagree with them, or the church position."
ReplyDeleteI suspect the priests who wrote "My ways are not your ways, saith the Lord" "The wisdom of man is foolishness with God" and "There is a way that SEEMS right to a man but the ways thereof end in death" were written for the same effect back in the day. It was a club used by the priesthood of different persuasions against the Israelites who disagree with them or priestly positions on all sorts of topics that they wanted to come out in their favor.
The expression 'deciding for ourselves what is right or wrong' would frequently appear in James Malms articles. Then it began to appear in UCG articles. They copy from each other.
ReplyDeleteGoing back and reading this account again it is interesting that Eve in Gen. 3:3 repeated to the serpent that we shall not eat of the fruit of the tree in the MIDST of the garden. The Lord God said in Gen. 2:9 that the tree of life was in the midst of the garden which the tree of life is identified again in Rev. 2:7 as being in the midst of paradise.
ReplyDeleteWhat was it about the tree of knowledge that Eve thought in her mind placed it in the middle of the Garden of Eden?
I think maybe God's intent all along was for mankind to not know about evil, death or destruction and to live for eternity right from the beginning.
I think you may be right Mr. Diehl. These fruits from both of the trees were to be God/god(s) food. One fruit for those destined to be God (HWA's mystery of the ages) and one fruit for those who chose along with the god of this world the fruit of eternal death.
So the food of God/gods becomes the food of mankind and the end is just like the beginning. Those that partake of one tree gain access to enter the city with the tree of life in its midst Rev. 22:14 and others that partake of the other tree are cutoff from the gate to the city and are classified as dogs, sorcerers, whoremongers, murderers, idolaters and liers Rev. 22:15.
I just rewatched a movie from 2004, called "Crash". It follows sets of people around Los Angeles as they go through their daily routines, and depicts both good things they do, and bad. While watching the film, you really can't escape the complexity of human nature, and how all of us are a curious and sometimes lethal mixture of good and bad. Some of the characters are critical of the bad acts of others, and later on in the film, find themselves taking the low road. Some of the best sink very low, while the worst become involved in acts of heroism. A man who wrestles with an agent of the court to keep his younger brother out of prison on his third strike fails to go looking for him as their mother had requested, and the younger brother is killed. Some of the bad acts result from people with good intentions being drawn into dire situations that are beyond their control, and there are examples of unintended consequences.
ReplyDeleteReally, all any of us can do is to do the best we can. We are imperfect beings forced to exist in a very imperfect world. While we can hold our heads up over some of our finest moments, those moments do not begin to cancel out the bad ones or the mistaken ones. It's why self-righteousness is simply a non-starter.
BB
That context video didn't explain the concept of context to those who not understand it. Instead it was only a cheap shot at God and the bible.
ReplyDeleteAnon Dec. 23, 8:34 AM, said, " The best course is to read the Bible --- including the parts where carnal Israelites committed genocide and sicced their God upon their enemies --- and then prayerfully consider what God is trying to tell you regarding good and evil. In other words, eliminate the middle man, and then act on the knowledge you find."
ReplyDeleteYeah, I did that, except I left out the "prayerfully" part. Know why? The only way to do that is to first assume there is a god, instead of leaving that proposition as one possible outcome of the investigation. When I did it that way, I could not get past "the parts where carnal Israelites committed genocide and sicced their God upon their enemies." I could not get past the part where the Bible god acted like a petulant child and destroyed in a massive flood the project he had been working on. Or the part where he partnered up with his rival and tortured his favorite worshipper to the limit of what a human could bear. Or the part where he punished his first two human creations for acting on the impulses he had created them with, and then kept it up on their descendants, chapter after chapter after chapter.
And those are just my objections to the textual claims. There is also the principle that actions speak louder than words. If the universe was indeed the work of a creator, then we should be able to understand that creator by paying more attention to the universe itself than to the myths people have used to explain it. Scientists who study how the universe works find that it does not correspond closely to any creation myth ancient priests and shamans came up with. The Hebrew creation myth is interesting and worthwhile, like any attempt by our species to make sense of existence, but on the whole it approximates the universe no closer than those of the Hopi or the Greeks or any other myth I have run across. (Let me acknowledge that our current creation myth, the Big Bang Theory, may be way off too. It fits what we know about the universe better than the ancient ones, though.)
Unfortunately, as has often been noted, knowledge of the universe gives us no guidance about right and wrong. As you point out, 8:34, "we get our concepts of right and wrong from other human beings." The Bible, a compendium of ideas by other human beings, is an important source, but not the only one. The thing to do, as I saw it, was to consider many, many sources of information about right and wrong, and (as you recommend) "eliminate the middle man, and then act on the knowledge you find. As humans, that is all we can do."
It is impossible to be sure whether there is a god or not, but evidence suggests if there is, it is not the one in the Bible. Thus it is safe to ignore the rules about holy days and unclean meats and all the other ceremonial foofaraw. The important thing is to sort through "concepts of right and wrong from other human beings" and then act on that knowledge.
Anon Dec. 4, 7:12 AM says,
ReplyDelete"That context video . . . was only a cheap shot at God and the bible.
Thanks be to your god for setting himself up as a target for cheap shots. We need the practice.
712, Giving a video example of how people only love the swoozy and cuddly Bible verses but then scream that the more genocidal and ugly ones credited to the Hebrew God are taking those same genocidal and ugly ones out of context is a fine way to illustrate how apologetics work.
ReplyDeleteIf you wish some real out of context examples you simply need read Matthew's 8 "and thus it was fulfilled" scriptures in the Birth Narratives of Jesus where he takes OT scriptures incredibly out of context to weave a tale about how he thinks Jesus was born and under what circumstances. Luke weaves a different tale. But Matthew is master at making the OT mean what it never meant.
Next you can take the Apostle Paul, who wove his salvation tale and especially his anti Semitism into what we call Christian doctrine today and taking the Jewish Scriptures completely out of context to do so. You'd have to get beyond the "I read the booklet" stage of theological studies , however, before you achieve that kind of perspective.
What you call "cheap shots at God and the Bible" are simply very commonly understood contradictions and explanations that differ from the Sunday school or Church of God view of the story.
What I give as the intent of the authors story of Adam and Eve and the background of everything from the original high God even over YHVH and his council of gods which included Satan in the beginning before the book evolved, to the fact that the story is intended as put down to matriarchy and the establishment of patriarchy in Israel is true. The original explanation of the two trees being for the god's only is true and the Hebrew tale is a twist on the original Sumerian story that was copied but amended by the Hebrews to fit their own purposes.
What are actual cheap shots at God and the Bible are the simplistic booklets and simple ideas one gets from , get ready for it.....being a mere Bible reader who either will not or cannot think independently or critically about questions the text raise right before their eyes.
Retired Prof, 10:47 AM, Your post mirrors my thoughts and feelings toward religion, the bible and science. Scientists guess about how it all came about, and makes changes with new discoveries. The major religions do not. God, the same yesterday, today and forever does not reflect an atmosphere of growth and learning. I agree, how could anyone who reads the whole bible want to worship the god described therein??
ReplyDeleteWish we could have coffee a couple days a month. Your comments reflect intelligence, humility and wisdom. Haven't I read that you were once a student at AC? Congratulations on your escape.
Gerald Bronkar, thanks for the good words. If I ever apply for a job, I will list you as a reference. You won't need to fire up your keyboard any time, though. I've still got the best job of my life: retirement, with very little chance of getting laid off.
ReplyDeleteEscape from Armstrongism was not too bad, actually. I was not lured into it, but shoved partway through the entry gate. I attended services of the Radio Church of God the same way I had earlier attended Baptist and other fundamentalist churches. I sat in the back thinking my own thoughts and paying little attention to the ideas espoused by the guy at the front of the room. When I paid attention, I studied what in the style of delivery held people's attention and what did not. These lessons contributed to my eventual job as a teacher.
The ideas that held my attention came from everything from trashy comic books and *Mad* magazine, up through popular magazines such as *Life,* *Look,* and *Colliers* to the classics. I used to carry a pocket edition of some Shakespeare play or another to read while standing in line at the cafeteria or sitting in study hall after finishing a bit of homework. And science. I loved it and got subscriptions to science magazines. Some turned out to be way over my head, so I read different ones in the library.
Unfortunately, I had not read enough about colleges and universities to understand what a dumb idea it was to follow the wishes of my parents and apply to Ambassador college. That lesson came from experience, and it hit hard. Early in the second semester, I applied to a state university. It accepted me, with the proviso that I would have to start over as a freshman because my credits from Ambassador counted the same as nothing. I did some finagling by going to an accredited religious school that accepted most of my Ambassador credits, and then after two semesters there transferring the whole revised transcript to a different state university. So my journey out of Armstrongism was largely neither spiritual nor psychological but bureaucratic.