Creation

There are two accounts of creation in the Bible, the cosmological and the story of Adam and Eve. These aren’t, however, speaking of the same event.

Rather, these two accounts portray two distinct ways of life: one where everything is good and life multiplies, the other where everything goes wrong and we are cast out of heaven. (Where before we know it our children are killing each other.)

These accounts are reversals of each other. In the first, there is a transition from work to rest, while in the second it is from rest to work. The first account is when everything is good, and the second is where everything goes wrong. But the point I hope to make of it all is: things need not go wrong. We can avoid the events of the second creation narrative if we resolve not to adopt the way of life it evokes. Instead, we can adopt the way of life evinced by the first. (Or at least we can consider if doing so would be worthwhile.)

What is God’s character in Adam and Eve? In a word, restrictive. God does not love in the second story but rather keeps Adam and Eve from His most precious fruit. God holds back from them, which is something a loving God would never do. Adam and Eve only make matters worse with their actions, but God was the one who set the scene.

However this is not the God I follow. Instead I advocate the God of the first creation narrative, whose character is no longer restrictive, but irrepressibly giving. In this account God holds nothing back. God works so hard for creation that, after all God’s labour, God needs to rest.

But God only rests when God sees that everything is good. Thus the way of life that leads to everything being good is the way of life that works until everything is good. It is the life that gives all that it has to creation. This is the life of love, the life of sacrifice, the life of responding to others (or responsibility). This is the way of life God shows us, and shows us again through Jesus Christ.

Does such a life sound worth considering? Would it indeed make everything good and lead to the multiplication of life? Is it the way to Heaven on Earth?

As far as I know, God’s Word and Will is final. People trying to find a way around that won’t work in gaining His favor. That is what I understand form the King James version of the Bible.

I don’t hold to an authoritarian God. How do you reconcile such a notion with the life of Jesus Christ?

I reconcile it through faith and prayer. Esoteric values won’t help people give understanding where God is concerned. Apparently we view the Bible accounts with different eyes. If you had been raised in the same circumstances and environment as me, you probably would have views. Vice versa with me.

I’m not talking about esoteric values. I’m talking about prayers and answering prayers in everyday life. We might not see things as differently as you think.

To me, God just isn’t some super being ruling over the universe. Rather God is a character in a story. I’m sure once we get past this small difference we’d find much in common…

Hierarchies exist in life. There is God (The Head), Jesus (The Son) who sits on the right hand of God, there are humans (God’s children) and then there are the angels. Though angels abide in Heaven, they serve us as well as God. Even with the miracles they can perform, we still hold a higher place in the scheme of things until we fall from grace with God. God is not a character in a story to me. He is the most stable, real thing (besides Jesus) in my life. If you don’t those things, then we may not have much in common at all.

Like I said, once we get past this difference, then we’d find common ground.

You take the story and make it a reality (with no justification). I take the story and keep it a story, but then I go on to extract the way of life God/Jesus shows us in the story and turn it into historical fact through my own life.

In other words, the Bible inspires me to become an image of God, which is to say an image of the character called God in the story called the Bible (which is really thousands of little stories).

I don’t think you necessarily disagree with this, you just want to extend this fictional (i.e., Biblical) reality into an historical reality.

In your way of thinking…not mine. My justification is faith, which you choose to not implement. So, in my estimation we do not view God in the light.

Sure, as long as one doesn’t over work themselves by attempting to accomplish too much at once.

Then sure.

I don’t know what you mean by “multiplication of life”?

People not dying, birth?

Definitely not in the Biblical sense, but if someone could pull something like that off it would be pretty utopian…actually, very Amish…not utopian.

Stumps:

Regarding over-working: I think God’s way is to work until you’re consumed if need be… It isn’t a pleasant thought, but it’s true. God is the type of character that would sacrifice all that God has to the welfare of others.

Regarding the multiplication of life: Yes, this includes people not dying and birth. However it doesn’t mean the problem of death is solved (in the sense that death ceases), but that if someone has the power to help the dying they do. Someone making such a resolution is more precisely what is meant by the multiplication of life. In its purer form our life is our response to others, so that the multiplication of life means more and more people are responding. This spread of life, this multiplication of responsibility, begets the births and prevents deaths you speak of.

Regarding Amish: The point is that if everyone worked for others, if everyone served others, then everyone would be served by all. It means, paradoxically, that we don’t have to work because we’re taken care of. The multiplication of life means we all can live like the lilies of the field: without care.

Stumps:

Regarding over-working: I think God’s way is to work until you’re consumed if need be… It isn’t a pleasant thought, but it’s true. God is the type of character that would sacrifice all that God has to the welfare of others.

Regarding the multiplication of life: Yes, this includes people not dying and birth. However it doesn’t mean the problem of death is solved (in the sense that death ceases), but that if someone has the power to help the dying they do. Someone making such a resolution is more precisely what is meant by the multiplication of life. In its purer form our life is our response to others, so that the multiplication of life means more and more people are responding. This spread of life, this multiplication of responsibility, begets the births and prevents deaths you speak of.

Regarding Amish: The point is that if everyone worked for others, if everyone served others, then everyone would be served by all. It means, paradoxically, that we don’t have to work because we’re taken care of. The multiplication of life means we all can live like the lilies of the field: without care.

Well, then that’s not Amish, as Amish work a “proper days work”.

Work to famish if needed for the better of.
Work for others not yourself.
Everyone behaves this way.

Those are fundamental principles of cult communes.

I’m not saying they are bad, but I am saying that your ideology is treading a fine line that’s hard to maintain innocently and very easy to manipulate and control.

Work people so hard that they are exhausted, but have them do this for the greater good through helping others, and remove all of their personal concerns by having others take care of their needs for them while they are doing so for someone else.

It’s a deception often used in cults.
You think you’re doing the good because you are helping someone else, and you like the idea of everyone helping each other.

This is done for a long period of time at rigorous levels, often with a day of rest where community is grown and happiness is enjoyed.

Then somewhere down the line, a really horrible event occurs because everyone is willing to follow the leadership.
Why wouldn’t they, everything that has been their life for “x” time (sometimes years) has been a perfect utopia; why should they doubt.

So like I said, it’s a real close line, but I’m not saying that you are advocating such a use.

Stumps:

I’m not aware of cultic activity, however I’ll be the first to say that the way of life I advocate is susceptible to exploitation. Basically, IMO, the Christian says “exploit me”, and anyone with such intentions would find an easy time of it.

Everything I said holds ONLY IF God’s way of life is held by all. If other words, everything will be good ONLY IF there isn’t anyone left with an exploitative attitude.

Perhaps this is precisely why Christianity is a utopianism of sorts. It’s promise, in all likelihood, is never gonna be realized.

However, does that mean we should abandon the cause?

Oh what horror humanism has wrought onto the precious faith once delivered to the Saints.

One word for you folks…“exegesis.”

The true test of Christianity in a post - “postmodern” era, will be in the realm of theological hermenutics. That is of course, assuming we’re still able to have such discussions.

Shotgun:

I don’t see postmodernism as the end of theology nor do I see Christianity rising or falling “in the realm of theological hermeneutics”.

I’ve read Caputo and Kearney, Derrida and Levinas, Heidegger and Kierkegaard, and I’ve come to the conclusion (although I do hesitate to call it such) that Christianity presents us with a robust means of facing up to the problem at the heart of postmodernism.

Christianity is a way of life that faces up to the flux, where the flux is precisely what leads to postmodernism’s endless deferral of an answer. In other words, Christianity is the answer that postmodernists would have us think does not exist.

But perhaps you could better express what you mean by your comments, “theological hermeneutics” especially.

To me theological hermeneutics is interpreting Scripture in order to explicate God’s way of life. We don’t need to endlessly defer an answer here: God’s way of life is love. Scripture makes this abundantly clear.

To demonstrate my point, I could respond by saying:

"Ahh, but, what is “love?”

I’m glad that you’ve read Derrida, as well as Kierkegaard, and that you realize Christianity provides a “way-out” of the postmodern mess.

I am suspicious though. Since you’ve claimed elsewhere that the Christian God is not real in any ontological way, how do you then appeal to it as any sort of response to (say, a Derrida-like deconstruction?)

The theology of Hermenutics would be a way of reconciling the systematic theology department (at seminary) with the Bible theology department.

Put simply, do you read to develope your philosophy, or do you develope your philosophy from what you read? Put that way, we can see that both options are impossible, and so some sort of harmonization must occur.

Thus: Theological Hermenutics.

Without positing the Triune God of scripture as (not just one, but THE ONLY necessary) fact, of existence, then you’ll be ripe for deconstruction just as all the other western philosophies have been.

My allusion to a post - postmodernism was to highlight the movement away from such trends in Christandom. (Even though the movement en masse is unfortunately about 10 years behind secular philosophy.)

What is love? To love is to serve. To love is to put others before yourself. To love is to sacrifice yourself for the welfare of others.

I’ll follow Caputo and say Deconstruction in a nutshell is cracking nutshells. It’s basically a recognition of the fact that nothing stays the same, so that the job of deconstruction is to break up any ossified structures, wherever it finds them, so that something new can come. Fair enough?

All I really mean to take from this though is that Deconstruction embraces the flux (or the fact that nothing stays the same) while most philosophies try to reject this fact in their search for the eternal. Christianity isn’t a response, per se, to Deconstruction, but rather LIKE Deconstruction it too provides a way of facing up to the flux.

Christianity provides another way of dealing with the problem at the heart, not just of postmodernism but of all philosophy. Like Deconstruction it embraces the fact that nothing stays the same, but unlike Deconstruction it’s answer isn’t to break down what’s there so that something new can come but rather to give all that you have so that what’s there will survive.

Christianity faces up to the flux through sacrifice, not through dismantling reality. Rather than awaiting our demise or bringing about the demise of others, Christians resolve upon ending themselves for the welfare of others (recall love).

The God I speak of, however, is still susceptible to Deconstruction. I just told you God’s way of life is love. I then clarified this briefly above. Nevertheless every definition I provide can be deconstructed/broken down, to make way for something new to come. I’ll never be certain if I’ve read God’s character correctly, and I’ll always be open to new readings of God. But honestly, sometimes you have to press on with what you’ve got. We can’t play the game of deferral/waiting for an answer forever. In this way Deconstruction lacks the pragmatism of Christianity in its endless bickering over the meaning of words.

Regarding your notion of theological hermeneutics:

Since I’m unfamiliar with systematic/Biblical theology I’ll just say that I do both. I read to develop my philosophy and I develop my philosophy from what I’ve read. HOWEVER, I read to develop my philosophy because I know that my philosophy will only develop from what I’ve read. Does that make sense? I read knowing that my philosophy will develop from what I’ve read…

Not at all, but you shouldn’t strive for it as you are describing; that is dangerous.
It is understood that humans are limited and need to be taken care of, indeed they need to feel satisfied in taking care of themselves as well.

So while the ideal may be nice…it’s not practical by any person’s standards that isn’t part of a commune or cult as no communities exist to support any person to strive to live this way and still survive to take care of themselves.

The point is to take care of others, and trust they will take care of you.

What does Jesus say to his disciples when he sends them out? Heal the sick and give to the needy you find, and be thankful for what is put in front of you.

But you’re right, living like this in our society would not work. It’s not so much you wouldn’t be able to take care of yourself, but that nobody would take care of you.

Because they are his apostles, which do not have the same role as the normal human.

The apostles are commissioned messengers of God in the Bible.
Their mission was to send out the message and teachings of how to live and the further messages of Jesus.
This was their task, and the reason they were held to a higher standard than the expected normal human, as they were representations of Jesus and issuing as his mouth with Jesus’ blessing to do so.

This is not the same for a normal man and commonly too much to ask of each and every man; this is why the apostles were chosen specifically in the Bible and not at random.