Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to So what was God telling Christians back then?
I think that it is interesting how as "children", i.e., teenagers, everybody wants to know about sex and everybody wants "to do the dirty" and almost all do and continue doing it into adulthood and beyond (i.e., geezerhood) but, then they don't want their children to even know anything about sex let alone, god forbid, actually do it. WTF is that all about? Moon 
(I took my daughter aside one day when she was about 12 and asked her if she knew about sex - because I was not at all sure what her mother from whom I was divorced might be telling her. She said, "Yes." I said, "How did you find out about it?" She said, "You told me." Thank God I had done my job.)
posted by
magic_moon
on October 4, 2007 at 5:26 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: FineYoungSinger - I think the story tells us to beware of naked women
gome I love how you put things. "fruit chomping floozy" has me just crying!!!! My coworkers are going to think I'm losing it!
P.I.M.P.??? ROTFLMAO!!! WAS HE SERIOUS??? O man--I can't wait to dig in his trash can!
And you are right, I apologize--my sparse little explanation leaves so much out. There's of course much more to it than this.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on October 4, 2007 at 12:52 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: FineYoungSinger - I am not completely sure which catachism was used either
O HOW FUNNY---SR NOGUYFORME---KILLIN ME!!!
If it was the Baltimore, then you and your brother did the best thing with it, gome!! They were totally useless. I'm not surprised that your Mom would be at odds with what that school was teaching, having come from a convent. My aunt always has issues with the school that her granddaughters attend for the same reasons (she was booted out--couldn't have called my dear Auntie "Sr. Neverhadaman"!!!! 
) --- crappy, antiquated materials, hard-assed, unbending teachings. I'm always amazed at how fast nuns forget what they were taught once they profess. It's a little scary, actually. (btw--I love it that your Mom believes God spoke to her! of course, I would, wouldn't I?? crazy believer I am!!! hahah)
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on October 4, 2007 at 12:40 PM
| link to this | reply
It's all allegory, as you say. We really shouldn't believe in the Garden.
posted by
Antonionioni
on October 4, 2007 at 12:32 PM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger - I think the story tells us to beware of naked women
They can talk us into just about anything.
Actually I like your interpetation, it makes a lot of sense, other than the link with the fruit chomping floozy and original sin becomes a bit more tenuous when the fable is rationalized as a concept.
We had a noted scholar and theologian here on Blogit awhile back, he claimed that the Garden of Eden story was factual and that it demonstrated for us that women cannot be trusted. Some of his other fine conclusions are: HERE
posted by
gomedome
on October 4, 2007 at 12:28 PM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger - I am not completely sure which catachism was used either
I am only fairly certain of the 1920's date stamp simply because my younger brother drew cartoons in one of his and then claimed he had lost it when it was time to turn it in at the end of the year. It hung around our house for another few years afterwards as it had more cartoons added to it. As for exorcism being a sacrament at one time, that I am only marginally certain of because of the brooha it caused amongst the nuns in 1965 when it was removed from the school curriculums. Unceremoniously I might add by ripping the pages referencing it from the catechisms. Sister Neverhadaman's protege, Sister Noguyforme went catatonic when it was officially announced as a direct result (I think) of the ecumenical council held around that time. I do remember spewing the 7 sacraments upon demand; baptism, communion, confirmation, marriage, holy orders, exorcism and penance. Exorcism was replaced with "annointing of the sick" in the latter years I was in that school.
There are two areas however where I must concede that my memories may not align with what is taught today. The school I went to was established in the late 1800's (really no kidding) . . . when we moved to the area, my mother who had left the convent because God told her to have children (again I'm not kidding) seemed to always be at odds with what we were being taught and she would know. Then we cannot forget that this all took place over 40 years ago, I have an exceptional memory but there are bound to be a few holes and unintentional revisions.
posted by
gomedome
on October 4, 2007 at 12:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: I found a book written by Michael Macrone...
Hey arGee, gotta say, this is thorough. I tend to think, however, that the story is far beyond just a garden/tree/fruit story that only happened one time, and that we all suffer the consequences of this one act. I've not read this book by Mr. Macrone, so I'm not sure where he's coming from.
If I could further explain--in order to understand matters of faith, people traditionally use stories that are considered timeless. I believe, that Adam (the word Adam means "man" in Hebrew) is "everyman". I believe we each are born in "the garden", are tempted with "the fruit of lets say now SKILL of good and evil" and a "serpant" that "tempts us to bite". And we each, like Eve, will cause others to "eat".
I believe that God created us knowing full well that we would not be strong enough to avoid temptation; but I also believe that there is a much grander plan in store for us than what begins and ends with our individual existence here on earth, and the stories found in Genesis are trying to explain it.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on October 4, 2007 at 12:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: FineYoungSinger - I've edited the post anyways, simply because the nuances
O now there's a great way to teach religion. 
Sister Neverhadaman...ROTFLMAO! She must have been Sister Mary Holy Water's mother superior.
The sickest thing, gome, is that this method really hasn't changed much. If these morons would bother to teach religion CORRECTLY, rather than letting some shitty book written by some sorry excuse for a contemporary theologan that is filled with error do the teaching for them (not to mention checking their condescending behavior while they're at it---we learn more from observation than we do from anything) we might actually have a body of believers that understand far better what they believe than the mess we're stuck with right now.
AAAHHHHHH!
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on October 4, 2007 at 11:30 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: FineYoungSinger - we actually had catechisms and not bibles to ... PT 2
Regarding the Catechism: Are we talking about the infamous Baltimore Catechism? That fabulously oversimplified version of Catholic Doctrine that was never approved for teaching to begin with? The very same book that Sr. Mary Holy Water used to crack us over the back of the heads with? ugh.
It was the source of so much error I could puke. I'm fairly certain that exorcism was never in and of itself considered a sacrament. It was, however for centuries a supplimental practice to the sacrament of Baptism (and if I'm not mistaken, which I very well could be, still is in a very abbreviated manner).
Anyway, we are digressing.
All of the story found in chapters 2 and 3 are very old--I understand the story predates the story found in Genesis 1 by over 500 years. Why did it come after? beats me. You gotta ask St. Jerome, and he's dead.
But further, note the discrepencies between the two stories. I guarantee I'm not the first to have pointed this fact out, nor will I be the last. My conclusion is that the text cannot be read for it's fact. I submit that there was no fruit and no tree in fact, and that it's just a story. (of course, stories contain truth, even if they contain no "fact".)
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on October 4, 2007 at 11:21 AM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger - I've edited the post anyways, simply because the nuances
of interpretations were beside the point.
There was only one bible in our classrooms (I have no idea which version), it sat on the corner of our teacher; Sister Neverhadaman's desk and was flipped open routinely to reconcile classroom lessons in math, science or history with the word of God. Every student had a primary school version catechism illustrated with pictures and loaded with memorization style tests which we worked our way through over the school year. There was a different catechism for every grade and because this is an expensive undertaking, they were seldom replaced.
posted by
gomedome
on October 4, 2007 at 11:00 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: FineYoungSinger - we actually had catechisms and not bibles to study from
The text from the Latin Vulgate (unchanged for centuries): paradisi lignumque scientiae boni et mali: knowing , knowledge, acquaintance, skill of of good and bad.
(Hmm. "Skill". Now there's a new way of reading the text, eh?)
And Gome, I believe you that you were taught "forbidden fruit". I was too.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on October 4, 2007 at 10:38 AM
| link to this | reply
arGee - now there's a book title I'll be rushing out to buy
Not.
Why the tree existed in the first place is more than puzzling, it contradicts the definition of an omnipotent, all knowing creator being. If it is viewed as a challenge of some sort to the character of man, it didn't get past the first married couple. Then these two, who were at the very beginning of establishing the common knowledge base of our species and literally knew nothing, blow it for the rest of us. . . . what the hell kind of deal is that?
It really becomes a situation where this manmade story hasn't stood the test of time and is incapable of being held up to reasonably intelligent scrutiny. It is either that or the omnipotent creator being, if truly omnipotent and in consideration of what has transpired outside of paradise throughout history, is a sadist. I feel the incorporation of original sin, another concept that's completely full of holes in that it again redefines God, is the key to where this story came from. It's a clever salesman's trick, very clever for its time, to get the parent's of every bawling brat ever born to come rushing in with their babies to get them cured of the imaginary invisible plague called original sin and to sign them up before the pagans did.
posted by
gomedome
on October 4, 2007 at 10:08 AM
| link to this | reply
I found a book written by Michael Macrone...
Tiled Brush Up Your Bible. Here is an excerpt from that book that clearly discusses your topic (with a slight tongue in cheek):
And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.... And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
-- Genesis 2: 9, 16-17 (KJV)
Having described Yahweh's creation of Adam, the author of Genesis 2 moves on to Adam's home, Eden (after the Sumerian word for "plain"), located roughly in what is now southeastern Iraq. God equips this primeval paradise with rivers, precious minerals, and above all lots of pretty fruit trees.
For reasons best known to himself, God singles out one particular tree -- called the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" -- whose fruit man is forbidden to eat. This, of course, is the famous "forbidden fruit," though you may be surprised to know that that phrase appears nowhere in the Bible. (It was coined in the seventeenth century; "forbidden apple" is even older). And despite all those pictures of a serpent tempting Eve with an apple, the Bible never tells us what kind of fruit the tree of knowledge bears. If anything, it was more likely apricots, pomegranates, or figs than apples. (Adam and Eve will use fig leaves to hide their nakedness at Genesis 3: 7; thus the expression "to cover with a fig leaf.")
But the important point about this tree is that if Adam (meaning "man") eats of it, he shall on that day be "doomed to death" as the Hebrew says. (The King James rendering -- "thou shalt surely die" -- jumps the gun; Adam and Eve live to tell the tale.) God wouldn't have had to say this, of course, if he didn't know Adam would be sorely tempted, which raises the question of why he put the tree in the garden in the first place.
Also puzzling is what the author means by "knowledge of good and evil." In the Hebrew original, the word for "knowledge" also means "knowing," and the entire phrase might be translated as "knowing how to distinguish good from bad" -- which Adam presumably wouldn't need to do so long as nothing bad turned up in paradise. But God never promised him that.
As we all know, a serpent does get Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, and she quickly persuades Adam to join her (Genesis 3: 6). Thus "doomed to die," they are expelled from Eden so that they can't get their hands on another magical tree, the "tree of life," mentioned in Genesis 2 as a source of immortality. This one was probably a pomegranate tree, since that fruit was a symbol of eternal life in the Near East.
If you happen to crave the "forbidden fruit" of your forebears, you can still find it today if you live near a good market. The term has been bestowed on a few species of citrus, such as the grapefruitlike shaddock, one variety of which is known as Citrus paradisi. Another term for this fruit is "Adam's apple," a name also given to that projection of cartilege in men's throats, on the fanciful assumption that a piece of forbidden fruit stuck in Adam's.
posted by
arGee
on October 4, 2007 at 8:22 AM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger - we actually had catechisms and not bibles to study from
But I think you have mentioned something important in individual enterpretations, in this case the perspective of the catechism author. The catechism that we used was date stamped in the 1920's, (it still had exorcism as one of the sacrements) and I am absolutely certain of the wording "forbidden fruit" as I had never heard the term "fruit from the tree of knowledge" until much later in life.
posted by
gomedome
on October 4, 2007 at 7:54 AM
| link to this | reply
Singer beat me to it, Gome...
But the tree is called "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" in most translations that I know. It does change the focus a bit, right?
posted by
arGee
on October 4, 2007 at 7:51 AM
| link to this | reply
Hey Gome....
I opened up my approved Catholic translation of the Bible, and the text reads: "The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." (NAB)
So whomever it was that told you that the term was "forbidden fruit" told you incorrectly. They really should have stuck with the words that were written. I don't know about you, but I find nothing more irritating than misquoting a text. It was probably Sister Mary Holy Water. You know, that old prune-faced nun that was too busy belittling and exerting her power over her students to actually bother to teach them correctly.
And of course, I have much more to add to this, but it would just take my whole morning up. If I buy more blog space and post on this topic, will you drop by and read it?
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on October 4, 2007 at 7:25 AM
| link to this | reply