Interesting take on Adam and Eve

Post Reply New Topic

https://youtu.be/_A7pFcnHVoo

That was an interesting take in Adam and Chawah.It sort of reminds me of the Christian interpretation where God secretly wanted Adam and Eve to fall from grace and develop a sinful nature,so that if one did love God it was by free will.As opposed to an Adam and Eve who never sinned stayed in Eden and always loved God because God gave them everything,which to God was like being loved by a robot.

In this case God wanted there fall so they could fix a lesser world and make it better,one would have to believe God wanted them to eat the fruit,otherwise an all knowing God would not have made a temptation he knew would be given into.

What Christian community did you get that interpretation from? It ain't the Catholic interpretation, it's true that The Fall is sometimes referred to as "The Happy Fault," as it gave us a new and better Adam (Jesus) and a new and better Eve, (Mary) but God would've been pleased with and wanted Adam and Eve not to sin. Also the love of Adam and Eve, would've been just as freely and genuinely given to God -and sense even more so- in the Garden, as it was in the fallen world; this is because their nature wasn't fallen yet, but I'll spare you the details of what that all means.

Vermont must have misstated it. He said "the" when he should have said "a". And even "a" might be questionable. That take is fine within Judaism, but it's definitely not "THE Christian interpretation" because its definitely not the mainstream Christian interpretation of the Fall. He must have meant "the...one thing I read somewhere written by a Christian". A Gentile of Christian background might have come up with an interpretation similar to that rabbi that Vermont might have read somewhere. But its so far off the mainstream Christian interpretation that arguably it would be too heretical to be considered "Christian". Not saying the theory is wrong. Just that its not mainstream Christian.

I see.

I didn't say I agreed with that theory, I just eluded to the theory.

It would be more predestinstionists who might believe who might believe God intended the fall to happen.

What did you mean I said the instead of A, didn't get that.

I wasn't talking rocket science.

What you said was "this reminds me of the Christian interpretation of the Fall...". when you meant something like "this reminds me of a certain one interpretation of the Fall I got from SOME small number of Christians (among the many Christian interpretations I -Vermont-have run across)." The way you said it was confusing and ambiguous.

I knew what you meant- but I also figured that SOMEONE was gonna misinterpret what you said. And they did.

By saying "X is the Christian interpretation of Y" instead of saying "X is a Christian interpretation of Y" it implies that that you think that X is the ONE mainstream thing that Christians teach about Y. Which in this case would mean that you have a huge misconception, because X is NOT the mainstream Christian interpretation of Y, but an oddball deviant interpretation among Christians of Y. Might be the right interpretation, or not. The mainstream might be wrong. But its not THE one mainstream Christian interpretation. Obviously the mainstream Christian interpretation of the Fall is that God got angry at Adam and Eve and punished them because they disobeyed him...and so forth....and that's why we need Christ to rise us up from the fall and save us. And like that. Very different from what that rabbi was saying.

In short...you said "the" when you shoulda said "a".

Capice?

One of my preferred interpretations is when you include Lilith into the mix, ie. the transition from Lilith as wife to Eve as wife denotes man's move from hunter/gather and being preyed on by nature to agrarian life and having a relation with nature more clement to his needs while Lilith, abashed at a distance, still had more chaos to shake up from the human spirit (the level of nature that we can't seem to get a grip on).

^ Yes, Lillith does make things more interesting.

^^ I think the use of "the" is at least colloquially accurate here.

Someone says: I am so frustrated!
Respondent: About what?
Someone: The dog that barks a lot.

He doesn't mean any dog that barks a lot. He means one particular dog of many possible. I took VS as meaning, the one (of many) Christian interpretations that holds ...blah, blah.

It never occurred to me that someone would take that as meaning THE Christian doctrine was ....etc.

That said, I do get your point naturalplastic.

Ok,Gotcha

I know this was at naturalplastics (or at least I think it was) but one way I might unpack that - the way I understand archetypal stories is that they're really akin to something like prisms or blue prints where you bring your own content, organize that content along the lines of certain given rules, and there could be several 'winners' branching off in different directions based on what use someone is trying to get out of the end result. For example if someone wants to take the socially crazy results out they reify it (somewhat the way I did). If they want to take it into mystical or internally alchemical territory they'll talk about the Promethian / Luciferic impulse within the godhead pushing us along and maybe even suggest that Adam is symbolic of the conscious mind, Eve symbolic of the subconscious, and that in some way this craving that the subconscious (or perhaps the right brain along the lines of Iain McGilchrist's 'Master and Emissary model', or Daniel Khaneman's 'Thinking fast and slow') had a survival level interest in mapping the world around itself while the conscious mind got pulled along for the ride in a more secondary and instinctual manner.

This is again one of those areas where I think one of the saddest things to have happened in the Jordan Peterson phenomena is that most people just know him as 'that guy who said x about gender' when really he spent a lot of time unpacking a lot about archetypal templates, how they fill religious texts, as well as how our minds use them (and extend them well beyond religious context - Emile Durkheim was most well known on discussing that sort of abstraction, John Gray has used that as a tool to criticize social movements under the influence of them). Without having that grasp of the liquidity of myths one ends up at their mercy rather than being able to novate their contract with them.

Archetypes are really important to understand. Anyone (not you - just in general) who wouldn't agree perhaps hasn't noticed that major cities in the US are burning because a white cop killed a black citizen by holding his knee on his neck, on the ground, on camera, and now rather than simply having Covid we have a classic 'white hat / black hat, government vs. citizen, race vs. race' historical narrative bearing down as the result of something like a living mass-mind drama that got played out in real life. This is where the mytho-poetic is a real double-edged sword. You can use it to heal a nation or you can use it in the way some strong-man regimes around the world do to beat the war drums, and they can sow anarchy if and when they get treated like immutable objects in the same way that mangled incentive structures tend to do.