Err, you've got your trees confused. There's three parts: God gives the warning, then there's the temptation story, and then God's reasoning for ditching the pair. In the warning, he tells them not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (although they can eat of any other tree). The temptation story also only refers to this, but in God's reasoning as to why he's evicting, he says in verse 3:22 ...the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" (translation from the New Oxford Annotated Bible. Alternately, the phrase 'like god' may also be translated 'like gods,' possibly meaning the Septuagint, which are the divine beings of the heavenly court.
What I've always found fascinating is that it wasn't the tree of life that made humans like gods, but the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Often these two trees seem to be mixed into one big tree of everything, in the more popular tellings and worse translations, and in the modern pseudo-oral tradition.) So knowing the differences between right and wrong was the beginning of the end -- or perhaps the end of the beginning.
But I agree about its impact on Western civilizations when it comes to sexuality and women's roles. And I also think whatever I can do in my lifetime to tear it down is what I'm perfectly willing to do.
So because nonconsensual sex can/can seem to take these intangible things away, in society it becomes confused with sexuality in general. Anything that can be taken by force can be given away as well.
Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think you're right. And either way, it still reduces a woman's sexuality to some kind of commodity, as Branch mentions above. And that, IMO, is where things are going wrong, to see it as a limited use, easily damaged, one-time-only kind of commodity.
(Btw, in the notes on the translation -- my sole bible has copious notes in the bottom margins about translations -- I came across this bit on 2:18 in the notes: "To be fully human one needs to be in relation to others who correspond with oneself. Helper, not in a relationship of subordination but of mutuality and interdependence." and "24-25: Sex is not regarded as evil but as a God-given impulse that draws a man and woman together so that they become one flesh. The two were unashamedly naked, a symbol of their guiltless relation to God and to one another." (emphasis in original, quoting.)
What I've always found rather eye-rolling, for the most part, is that the story has a god who says, what you're doing is great! and then the little humans learn good and evil, realize what they're doing is not great, and are ashamed of it, and the god then tosses them out because now they can see things as clearly as him.
I never gave the snake much thought as a child, but when I studied theology, I really started to feel for the poor guy. He's the only one in genesis with his head screwed on straight; the god of genesis wouldn't know logic if you rammed it up his nose -- because if that is his logic, it's a damnned devil's deal, more than anything the snake ever did.
no subject
Date: 4 Dec 2005 12:11 am (UTC)What I've always found fascinating is that it wasn't the tree of life that made humans like gods, but the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Often these two trees seem to be mixed into one big tree of everything, in the more popular tellings and worse translations, and in the modern pseudo-oral tradition.) So knowing the differences between right and wrong was the beginning of the end -- or perhaps the end of the beginning.
But I agree about its impact on Western civilizations when it comes to sexuality and women's roles. And I also think whatever I can do in my lifetime to tear it down is what I'm perfectly willing to do.
So because nonconsensual sex can/can seem to take these intangible things away, in society it becomes confused with sexuality in general. Anything that can be taken by force can be given away as well.
Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think you're right. And either way, it still reduces a woman's sexuality to some kind of commodity, as Branch mentions above. And that, IMO, is where things are going wrong, to see it as a limited use, easily damaged, one-time-only kind of commodity.
(Btw, in the notes on the translation -- my sole bible has copious notes in the bottom margins about translations -- I came across this bit on 2:18 in the notes: "To be fully human one needs to be in relation to others who correspond with oneself. Helper, not in a relationship of subordination but of mutuality and interdependence." and "24-25: Sex is not regarded as evil but as a God-given impulse that draws a man and woman together so that they become one flesh. The two were unashamedly naked, a symbol of their guiltless relation to God and to one another." (emphasis in original, quoting.)
What I've always found rather eye-rolling, for the most part, is that the story has a god who says, what you're doing is great! and then the little humans learn good and evil, realize what they're doing is not great, and are ashamed of it, and the god then tosses them out because now they can see things as clearly as him.
I never gave the snake much thought as a child, but when I studied theology, I really started to feel for the poor guy. He's the only one in genesis with his head screwed on straight; the god of genesis wouldn't know logic if you rammed it up his nose -- because if that is his logic, it's a damnned devil's deal, more than anything the snake ever did.