Edens in the Cosmos

[tabibito]

you seem sharper than most Christians I’ve talked to about this. I appreciate the discussion.

Please don't play this game.

[rogue06]

Childbirth appears to have always been painful for mammals.

I see no scriptural reason to believe that it wasn't .

Considering that Genesis 3:16 speaks of increasing or multiplying the level of pain involved, that would more than suggest that there existed a certain level of pain involved previously since you can't multiply or increase what does not exist.

[tabibito]

[/INDENT]

Considering that Genesis 3:16 speaks of increasing or multiplying the level of pain involved, that would more than suggest that there existed a certain level of pain involved previously since you can't multiply or increase what does not exist.

Aside from the scriptural reference, that is what I said. And a certain level of pain is a good thing - it prevents the sufferer from doing things that put them at risk.

[rogue06]

Aside from the scriptural reference, that is what I said. And a certain level of pain is a good thing - it prevents the sufferer from doing things that put them at risk.

Exactly. People who have Congenital insensitivity to pain and anhydrosis (CIPA) often do grievous injury to themselves without being aware of it. Feeling physical pain is vital for survival and most of those who can't feel pain don't survive past age 25.

[whag]

Exactly. People who have Congenital insensitivity to pain and anhydrosis (CIPA) often do grievous injury to themselves without being aware of it. Feeling physical pain is vital for survival and most of those who can't feel pain don't survive past age 25.

Nowhere have I argued human childbirth pain is a theodicy. Attributing greater pangs to an additive curse (following tab’s terminology) is what I questioned.

[whag]

Aside from the scriptural reference, that is what I said. And a certain level of pain is a good thing - it prevents the sufferer from doing things that put them at risk.

As I didn’t argue otherwise, I’m assuming this is for students of John MacArthur, Ken Hovind, et al.

The issue at hand isn’t pain as theodicy but the attribution of the increase to a curse.

[tabibito]

As I didn’t argue otherwise, I’m assuming this is for students of John MacArthur, Ken Hovind, et al.

The issue at hand isn’t pain as theodicy but the attribution of the increase to a curse.

Given that I have not yet been able to determine which parts of Genesis are factual, if any, This is going to be kind of a drawn out process. Adam and Eve CAN be a true account, but that doesn't mean that it IS a true account. For the story of Noah to be true (and which parts might be unembellished) potentially throws the timing back 300 000 years (at the latest.) Right now it is a matter of looking at everything that might influence a decision about the "fallen world" precept . Your objections sort of blew my hypothesis out of the water. By way of reuducing it to the basic: "redo from start."

(which includes the existence of pain from the outset, and the subsequent increase thereof) ... head size?????????

[whag]

Given that I have not yet been able to determine which parts of Genesis are factual, if any, This is going to be kind of a drawn out process. Adam and Eve CAN be a true account, but that doesn't mean that it IS a true account. For the story of Noah to be true (and which parts might be unembellished) potentially throws the timing back 300 000 years (at the latest.) Right now it is a matter of looking at everything that might influence a decision about the "fallen world" precept . Your objections sort of blew my hypothesis out of the water. By way of reuducing it to the basic: "redo from start."

(which includes the existence of pain from the outset, and the subsequent increase thereof) ... head size?????????

My view might be a shortcut to a resolution, but I find the “re-do from start” hypothesis simpler than trying to determine which parts of Genesis are factual to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion about why the world looks the way it does.

Would anyone take a bet that human beings would act perfectly during their entire existence, sans Satan and the Edenic drama? I don’t think anyone would. Therefore, the myths of Satan and the Edenic drama aren’t needed to explain anything about human beings and the world.

[whag]

Please don't play this game.

The so-called “game” is my observation that you seem to understand the nuances of Biblical literature, which—surely you’ve observed—a large segment of Christians completely misapprehend by feeling religiously obliged to interpret parts of Genesis as literal.

Every Christian I know is stuck in that worldview. I noticed that you “cogitated” nothing worth sharing.

[tabibito]

surely you’ve observed—a large segment of Christians completely misapprehend by feeling religiously obliged to interpret parts of Genesis as literal.

That is so - the church population includes many viewpoints. Some of them are even valid.

Every Christian I know is stuck in that worldview. I noticed that you “cogitated” nothing worth sharing.

Cogitations continue. It is a slow process, trying to make sure that all the holes are filled in without producing bumps and hollows.

[whag]

In my “cogitations,” Satan can be easily deleted from the OT but not so easily removed from NT.

The Genesis serpent could be symbolic of the forces of nature and decay that tempt humanity to do bad things (for example, stealing as a choice or fornication as a choice or killing as a choice.) Nature and mental decay can account for the temptations that some Christians regard as “Satanic,” yes? And so in that case, the serpent needn’t be believed as a literal character called Satan but can be read as symbolic of something else.

If I’m not mistaken, that is a classical interpretation of Genesis 1-6.

Removing Satan from the NT—just as a thought exercise—is more problematic. He seems to play a more prominent role in religious thought by then. He’s integral there.