![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So I've been reading subversive literature again. I mean, really, should there be any other kind?
Anyhow, it got me thinking about temptation, and being a parent, and for some reason my mind wandered to the story of Adam and Eve. What if we're interpreting it wrong? I mean, the Bible itself is a pretty dense read, and so most people rely on the interpretations of those who came before.
What if the lesson we're supposed to take away is that if you make something taboo, you will inevitably be disappointed.
Think about it. God is the father, and he forbids his children from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The parental figure has then introduced temptation, a concept that the children don't even understand until they've committed the act and been punished for it. So the children, of course, do eat the fruit, and because it was forbidden, the parent is now forced to punish his children, or lose the power of authority he holds over his children. It's such a lose/lose situation.
So do we learn to never make anything taboo so that we don't incite temptation? Or do we continually reinforce authoritarian control over our child and hope they will obey? One of those methods sounds like a helluva lot of work to me and, recalling my own upbringing, not very successful.
Just a thought...
Anyhow, it got me thinking about temptation, and being a parent, and for some reason my mind wandered to the story of Adam and Eve. What if we're interpreting it wrong? I mean, the Bible itself is a pretty dense read, and so most people rely on the interpretations of those who came before.
What if the lesson we're supposed to take away is that if you make something taboo, you will inevitably be disappointed.
Think about it. God is the father, and he forbids his children from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The parental figure has then introduced temptation, a concept that the children don't even understand until they've committed the act and been punished for it. So the children, of course, do eat the fruit, and because it was forbidden, the parent is now forced to punish his children, or lose the power of authority he holds over his children. It's such a lose/lose situation.
So do we learn to never make anything taboo so that we don't incite temptation? Or do we continually reinforce authoritarian control over our child and hope they will obey? One of those methods sounds like a helluva lot of work to me and, recalling my own upbringing, not very successful.
Just a thought...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
If you explain that they shouldn't touch the stove because it will burn them and it will hurt, you improve the odds that they will listen to you and they have to be taught about "hot" and "burnt" before it will have any meaning or relevance to them.
So I guess my question is, why point out the tree and forbid it, but not explain what the consequences were?
From:
no subject
Of course, one can ask whether we knew what it was to die, but no matter what explanation is given, we can't now be sure that it would have been understood.
By the way, this isn't a question with A Solid Answer, even within orthodox theology. At the Easter Vigil, one of the verses which brings out the complexity of this is,
This is true in one sense, but dangerous heresy in another; the difference, as I see it, is between love and license.