The Emergence From the Garden

[USU78]

1 hour ago, mnn727 said:

While I am not one that believes that the events described int he first part of Genesis are literal and historical, I do like your Birth Metaphor. 

Thank you for posting it.

Something doesn't have to be fictional to have mythic power. The converse is also true.

I happen to believe the story was crafted in order to make the birth connection. Those kids were like puppies with eyes still closed until the Enemy forced them open. What a cruel and childish thing to do.

[mfbukowski]

All this however is simply figurative as far as the man and the woman are concerned

He who hath ears....

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

Something doesn't have to be fictional to have mythic power. The converse is also true.

I happen to believe the story was crafted in order to make the birth connection. Those kids were like puppies with eyes still closed until the Enemy forced them open. What a cruel and childish thing to do.

Blake Ostler notes that the transgression was not eating the fruit- it was the separation from God when they hid themselves because they were naked.

Eating the fruit was a decision to advance mankind in an ambiguous situation- but not a separation.  Hiding from God was the moment of separation and the destruction of the unity which had prevailed until that point, God became the Other and we have been trying to correct that ever since.

And we see that so clearly with parents and as parents.  And as with Satan, that separation can be caused by siblings or other kids, cruelly and childishly 

[USU78]

On 7/20/2017 at 10:50 PM, mfbukowski said:

Blake Ostler notes that the transgression was not eating the fruit- it was the separation from God when they hid themselves because they were naked.

Eating the fruit was a decision to advance mankind in an ambiguous situation- but not a separation.  Hiding from God was the moment of separation and the destruction of the unity which had prevailed until that point, God became the Other and we have been trying to correct that ever since.

And we see that so clearly with parents and as parents.  And as with Satan, that separation can be caused by siblings or other kids, cruelly and childishly 

BTW, you should take a gander at D&C 1. A nice bit right up your alley about G-d employing language because it's the best tool available. "After the manner of their language..."

[Pete Ahlstrom]

I always viewed the story as a comming of age tale: Parents not wanting the children to leave the nest and grow up and commandments given to that end, reality of life being represented by the serpent, two unclothed youths gaining knowledge together, and then being forced out of the nest to become adults themselves.

[USU78]

17 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I always viewed the story as a comming of age tale: Parents not wanting the children to leave the nest and grow up and commandments given to that end, reality of life being represented by the serpent, two unclothed youths gaining knowledge together, and then being forced out of the nest to become adults themselves.

Because being naughty and getting laid is so all fired important that it becomes the central mythos of most of the world? Please explain.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Because being naughty and getting laid is so all fired important that it becomes the central mythos of most of the world? Please explain.

It's not like that at all, something to be frowned upon, or viewed as a frat boy would. It's part of the progress of life, part of becomming an adult. This view of the myth is not new, adam and eve were naked for heaven sake, and I would submit is an easy interpretation to have.

Is that interpretation not allowed, even though it seems obvious?

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

It's not like that at all, something to be frowned upon, or viewed as a frat boy would. It's part of the progress of life, part of becomming an adult. This view of the myth is not new, adam and eve were naked for heaven sake, and I would submit is an easy interpretation to have.

Is that interpretation not allowed, even though it seems obvious?

Lehi would disagree with your read on this.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Lehi would disagree with your read on this.

I agree with you there.