16.7.06
Man And Woman?
Before going onwards with life outside of the Garden of Eden, two more points about the life back in the Garden:
I've been thinking of the nature of Man and the nature of God in the light of the "Let us make man in our image" and "male and female he created them". These expressions make me wonder about a plurality of gods or one God with no gender:
If there was a plurality of gods --as the ancients believed for a while-- composed of God and his Shekinah, or God and some helpers --such as the pre-incarnated Jesus of the opening of John's Gospel, then God could be the male model and the Shekinah --or another helper-- the female model for the first couple.
Yet, the book tells us there was just one human. Does that mean that the first [hu]man had both male and female features?
Or was he just human, neither man or woman?
In Genesis, the differentiation of the sexes does not come before the creation of the woman. The first human was more of an "earth creature": The name Adam, ha'adam, comes from the word "ha'adama", which means: the earth. This could lead us to think that that "earth creature", the one we call Adam, had no precise gender before the woman was "taken out of him".
In that case, the "let us create a man in our own image" might mean that God, referring to himself in the plural form (like monarchs do) might not have a specific gender.
This kind of speculation may seem blasphemous, but I don't intend it to be. Our conceptions of God evolve with time. The ancients thought God was like an immortal man. They also saw the female aspect of God, and represented this aspect with female features (breasts). The Israelites then thought of God as a warlord, a tribal leader to be feared and to respect, a warrior who would destroy their enemies. Later on, God became a king living in an overworld. Later still, God became a loving father. Today, Catholics and Protestant denominations see God as a Spirit with no forms, or as Jesus; Evangelicals see God as the Holy Ghost; Mormons see God as a parent who has a wife, our "Heavenly Mother". In short, we all see God according to the time and place we belong to, and with our own understanding and dispositions.
I personally don't venture picturing God, although I can't escape imagining his nature. I see him as a man, not a woman. Having said that, I believe he may have a female consort, or at least that there is a female side to him. The account of the creation of mankind does not give us any information, but at least it stimulates our minds to reconsider and challenge the conceptions of God that were transmitted to us.
God will always be beyond our understanding. That's a lesson that passage inspires me too.
I've been thinking of the nature of Man and the nature of God in the light of the "Let us make man in our image" and "male and female he created them". These expressions make me wonder about a plurality of gods or one God with no gender:
If there was a plurality of gods --as the ancients believed for a while-- composed of God and his Shekinah, or God and some helpers --such as the pre-incarnated Jesus of the opening of John's Gospel, then God could be the male model and the Shekinah --or another helper-- the female model for the first couple.Yet, the book tells us there was just one human. Does that mean that the first [hu]man had both male and female features?
Or was he just human, neither man or woman?
In Genesis, the differentiation of the sexes does not come before the creation of the woman. The first human was more of an "earth creature": The name Adam, ha'adam, comes from the word "ha'adama", which means: the earth. This could lead us to think that that "earth creature", the one we call Adam, had no precise gender before the woman was "taken out of him".
In that case, the "let us create a man in our own image" might mean that God, referring to himself in the plural form (like monarchs do) might not have a specific gender.
This kind of speculation may seem blasphemous, but I don't intend it to be. Our conceptions of God evolve with time. The ancients thought God was like an immortal man. They also saw the female aspect of God, and represented this aspect with female features (breasts). The Israelites then thought of God as a warlord, a tribal leader to be feared and to respect, a warrior who would destroy their enemies. Later on, God became a king living in an overworld. Later still, God became a loving father. Today, Catholics and Protestant denominations see God as a Spirit with no forms, or as Jesus; Evangelicals see God as the Holy Ghost; Mormons see God as a parent who has a wife, our "Heavenly Mother". In short, we all see God according to the time and place we belong to, and with our own understanding and dispositions.
I personally don't venture picturing God, although I can't escape imagining his nature. I see him as a man, not a woman. Having said that, I believe he may have a female consort, or at least that there is a female side to him. The account of the creation of mankind does not give us any information, but at least it stimulates our minds to reconsider and challenge the conceptions of God that were transmitted to us.
God will always be beyond our understanding. That's a lesson that passage inspires me too.
Tree of Knowledge
The Tree of Knowledge is the other point I wanted to address:
I used to think the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil meant that those eating of it knew what's right and what's wrong. In fact, I read it was a figure of speech that uses opposites to create the idea of a totality. The tree was therefore: "The tree of (total) knowledge"
Knowledge is the only way we can emulate God. The Serpent knew that Knowledge would make humans become like "divine beings", which was translated as: "like the gods" or "like God."
Without knowledge, we remain in a state of ignorance and innocence in which learning, understanding and progressing is impossible. Such a state is devoid of sorrow and joy, failures and achievements. In short, it is not much of a life.
Had our first parents not eaten of the fruit, this is the so-called life the sons and daughters of Man would have had. The eating of the fruit made our kind aware, and it made Mankind realize that there is much more to life than mere survival. It was wrong to eat the fruit, because God had forbidden it. However, God also gave us our free agency. We were free to choose. Sometimes a parent knows we need to get hurt so we may learn and grow up.
We are divine beings in the making. I kind of see this Earth as a school for our divine spirits united to our material bodies.
I used to think the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil meant that those eating of it knew what's right and what's wrong. In fact, I read it was a figure of speech that uses opposites to create the idea of a totality. The tree was therefore: "The tree of (total) knowledge"
Knowledge is the only way we can emulate God. The Serpent knew that Knowledge would make humans become like "divine beings", which was translated as: "like the gods" or "like God."
Without knowledge, we remain in a state of ignorance and innocence in which learning, understanding and progressing is impossible. Such a state is devoid of sorrow and joy, failures and achievements. In short, it is not much of a life.
Had our first parents not eaten of the fruit, this is the so-called life the sons and daughters of Man would have had. The eating of the fruit made our kind aware, and it made Mankind realize that there is much more to life than mere survival. It was wrong to eat the fruit, because God had forbidden it. However, God also gave us our free agency. We were free to choose. Sometimes a parent knows we need to get hurt so we may learn and grow up.
We are divine beings in the making. I kind of see this Earth as a school for our divine spirits united to our material bodies.
No Animal
Like I wrote above, the "earth creature" became a man once the woman was "taken out of him". To go from "creature" to "man", it took another agent.
I remember a Philosophy class: "Man is not like the animals because he has a conscience". This conscience is the knowledge that he exists. Existing means to see oneself from the outside, being able to see what one does, who one is and where one wants to go.
That teacher also said that we see ourselves and have an opinion of ourselves, only because there are other people around us who gives us some input that limits or pushes us forward. If we were to live with no other human, we would become animals.
That teacher was an Atheist, but the creation account is such a perfect illustration of her teachings! Once again, I am so amazed at the riches of the Book that many people hold to be worthless old tales!
Animals have drives and instincts, but no conscience. Their actions and reactions are caused by some stimulus. The present is where their mind is focused on. Man make choices. Man is able to dream and to decide what road to follow in order to achieve goals in the distant future.
A manifestation of our conscience is our ability to create. Yes, birds build nests, and spider webs or bees' and ants' dwellings are amazing. But, as in mountains and flowers, I see in these God's artistic hand, not a deliberate act from the creature. As we are in the image of God, unlike animals, we can emulate God and create for our own pleasure. Our novels, songs, dramas, our reaching out our communities, our building friendships are human, if not divine, prerogatives.
Humans can do what pleases them. In short, Man is the only creature to be free!
Unlike animals, humans have a special destiny. This is why God gave us a soul. The soul manifests itself in our having a conscience, being creative and being free. Like Patience, one of this blog's readers, pointed out, "I think the difference is truly that Man is not like the animals because he has a soul!"
God gave life to the animals, but only into humans did he breathe the spirit of life, that soul which gives us free-will. Because only humans have free agency, only they can sin. Because animals cannot sin, they cannot be rewarded in the world to come. Because they have no free-will, they could not fall. If they did not fall, they don't need a redeemer. If they don't need God's grace, there is no plan for them.
I go back to the idea that the Fall might have been the necessary stumbling stone that woke us up. The Fall seems to be the only way we could learn and understand our noble destiny. Our soul is that divine spark inside and the eternal element we need to cherish and keep intact, if not improve.
One last thing... Is it not strange how humans, unlike animals, can not get by on their own? They need to be clothed, they need to be taught. Unlike animals, humans need to rely on someone, or something else...
Some questions remain... I wonder just how can animals have emotions, as I think they do. Don't they have a spirit? And if so, where does that spirit go when they die?
I remember a Philosophy class: "Man is not like the animals because he has a conscience". This conscience is the knowledge that he exists. Existing means to see oneself from the outside, being able to see what one does, who one is and where one wants to go.
That teacher also said that we see ourselves and have an opinion of ourselves, only because there are other people around us who gives us some input that limits or pushes us forward. If we were to live with no other human, we would become animals.
That teacher was an Atheist, but the creation account is such a perfect illustration of her teachings! Once again, I am so amazed at the riches of the Book that many people hold to be worthless old tales!
Animals have drives and instincts, but no conscience. Their actions and reactions are caused by some stimulus. The present is where their mind is focused on. Man make choices. Man is able to dream and to decide what road to follow in order to achieve goals in the distant future.
A manifestation of our conscience is our ability to create. Yes, birds build nests, and spider webs or bees' and ants' dwellings are amazing. But, as in mountains and flowers, I see in these God's artistic hand, not a deliberate act from the creature. As we are in the image of God, unlike animals, we can emulate God and create for our own pleasure. Our novels, songs, dramas, our reaching out our communities, our building friendships are human, if not divine, prerogatives.
Humans can do what pleases them. In short, Man is the only creature to be free!
Unlike animals, humans have a special destiny. This is why God gave us a soul. The soul manifests itself in our having a conscience, being creative and being free. Like Patience, one of this blog's readers, pointed out, "I think the difference is truly that Man is not like the animals because he has a soul!"
God gave life to the animals, but only into humans did he breathe the spirit of life, that soul which gives us free-will. Because only humans have free agency, only they can sin. Because animals cannot sin, they cannot be rewarded in the world to come. Because they have no free-will, they could not fall. If they did not fall, they don't need a redeemer. If they don't need God's grace, there is no plan for them.
I go back to the idea that the Fall might have been the necessary stumbling stone that woke us up. The Fall seems to be the only way we could learn and understand our noble destiny. Our soul is that divine spark inside and the eternal element we need to cherish and keep intact, if not improve.
One last thing... Is it not strange how humans, unlike animals, can not get by on their own? They need to be clothed, they need to be taught. Unlike animals, humans need to rely on someone, or something else...
Some questions remain... I wonder just how can animals have emotions, as I think they do. Don't they have a spirit? And if so, where does that spirit go when they die?
