One of my favorite books on the topic of Taoism is The Tao Is Silent by Raymond Smullyan. (It's one of the books that will NOT be part of my book giveaway.) I pull it from my bookshelf frequently and read a few pages or a chapter or two.
While the entire book itself is fabulous, in my opinion, my favorite chapter is Chapter 22, Is God a Taoist? It features a whimsical, yet thought-provoking, dialog between a Christian mortal and God regarding the concept of free will.
Since it IS thought-provoking, here are some of my thoughts on the subject of Adam and Eve.
According to a biblical literalist, God created man and woman with free will. Once planted in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were instructed NOT to eat from the tree of knowledge. They did it anyway and, as punishment, were thrown out of the garden plus all humans were marked with sin.
Here's my question: If you are responsible for creating beings with free will, how can you turn around to punish them for exercising it? The whole point of free will is having the ability to choose amongst choices. God made his opinion known and they decided to accept a different perspective.
If God had wanted to insure that his subordinates would carry out his dictates to a tee, then there is no need for free will. If you grant beings the right to make choices, then you must know that the choices they make won't always agree with yours.
Beyond that, why mete out punishments yourself? In everyday life, all of us make bad choices. If, for example, we eat the whole chocolate cake instead of employing moderation, we end up with a bad stomachache and, possibly, a nasty case of diarrhea! Isn't the natural course of eating far too much chocolate punishment enough?
In this same vein, wouldn't being exposed to misery and suffering be a bad enough punishment as is? Why heap on more?
Of course, I don't believe in the story of Adam & Eve. I'm simply asking questions about a myth that seems rather illogical to me.
While the entire book itself is fabulous, in my opinion, my favorite chapter is Chapter 22, Is God a Taoist? It features a whimsical, yet thought-provoking, dialog between a Christian mortal and God regarding the concept of free will.
Since it IS thought-provoking, here are some of my thoughts on the subject of Adam and Eve.
According to a biblical literalist, God created man and woman with free will. Once planted in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were instructed NOT to eat from the tree of knowledge. They did it anyway and, as punishment, were thrown out of the garden plus all humans were marked with sin.
Here's my question: If you are responsible for creating beings with free will, how can you turn around to punish them for exercising it? The whole point of free will is having the ability to choose amongst choices. God made his opinion known and they decided to accept a different perspective.
If God had wanted to insure that his subordinates would carry out his dictates to a tee, then there is no need for free will. If you grant beings the right to make choices, then you must know that the choices they make won't always agree with yours.
Beyond that, why mete out punishments yourself? In everyday life, all of us make bad choices. If, for example, we eat the whole chocolate cake instead of employing moderation, we end up with a bad stomachache and, possibly, a nasty case of diarrhea! Isn't the natural course of eating far too much chocolate punishment enough?
In this same vein, wouldn't being exposed to misery and suffering be a bad enough punishment as is? Why heap on more?
Of course, I don't believe in the story of Adam & Eve. I'm simply asking questions about a myth that seems rather illogical to me.
I don't understand the story of Adam and Eve. I was thinking about it last night. If God is perfect, then when he created Adam and Eve, he created them perfectly. If God is omnipotent, then he knew what it would take to make Adam and Eve fall into sin. Adam and Eve were so pure, it took an outside malicious agency to delude them into sinning, because they themselves did not possess a faculty to even conceive of any action that would result in the falling out of God's favor. So why was God angry at Adam and Eve when they sinned when he put the Tree of Knowledge in their innocent midst, and even then allowed a malicious agent beyond Adam & Eve's comprehension to operate on them? It is irresponsible beyond all things for a parent to blame a child for eating poison if the parent puts the substance within reach, when they KNOW the child could possibly eat the offending substance. Why does God essentially do the same thing & believe this will be an instructive and encouraging message to the rest of us in this difficult & crazy world?
ReplyDeleteThe exegesis for the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis causes nervousness, especially among mystics. Why? Because the real sin Adam and Eve committed was anal sex--the mystery Saint Augustine almost solved 1600 years ago. (He thought their sin was normal penile/vaginal sex.) If something is wrong with this very upsetting exegesis, then who can find the error? Google "WikiAnswers-What is wrong with Robert Hagedorn's Blogs"
ReplyDeleteI just read this book on Sunday! Very good, thought I don't really think of it as a definitive book on Taoism, but did appreciate the fact that it is willing to approach the topic of morality, something, along with love, Taoists don't usually discuss explicitly. Worth reading.
ReplyDeleteCM,
ReplyDeleteNo argument from me.
Robert,
What a strange, strange comment!
BR,
It's one of my favorite Taoist books.
Consider: before eating from the tree of good and evil, they couldn't have known it was wrong to disobey God. Of course, it's ridiculous to question myths so closely, they're meant as allegory, to be understood intuitively. There are some neat interpretations out there, like Alan Watts' and Daniel Quinn's. I bet Joseph Cambell had some good insights too.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting and informative to understand what the symbols meant back then; for example, snakes aren't evil in most cultures, but symbols of change and growth while still retaining one's basic form. Notice the serpent in the garden told the truth (they did get 'godlike' understanding, and they did not die like God had promised they would if they ate the fruit). He's like a mentor or guide, not a devil. Since then the interpretation and understanding has all changed, but originally one wonders if the view was so negetive about the event. It was a trade off, yes, but what isn't? Yin and yang, right?
You gotta read that stuff like poetry, not science. It could be a history of humankind, or it could be talking about a birth, from the "oceanic" feeling of the fetus in the garden to being cast out into the cold. Or about the rise of self-consciousness. Or all these and other things besides. That's the power of a good myth or poem, that they serve many situations and interpretations. Literalism kills depth and understanding, so I've always shied away from it.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteTo you it's an allegory; to others it's a play-by-play description. To me it's a myth written by people; to others it's the inerrant word of God.