Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree

[knpraise]

Agreed.  Not sure as to your point, however.

jd

 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From:

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: 12/18/2005 10:51:18 AM

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: The tree

One other thought:   it seems to me that Eve is first confused by  outside influences (the snake)  and then  -  out of this confusion  --  she commits the sin.  I mean,  she is created in the image of God and , yet,  the temptation is "you will become like God."  Can it be said that sin springs from this same confusion?  If we all share in the same sin  (Ro 5:12),  do we not share in the same confusion?  And,  so what??

 

 

jd

cd: Eve had guilt all over her. God clearly told both A&E not to eat of the tree-Just as he tell us today not to break his commandments. To not eat of that tree was a commandment-they broke it they were punished .

 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Debbie Sawczak

To: Lance Muir

Sent: December 17, 2005 19:28

Subject: The tree

A little while ago I mentioned in an e-mail that I thought I had just understood something about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I now think my conclusion is sort of a combination of Wauchope and Victor, but I reached it from a different angle and wasn't thinking of them at the time. Can I tell you?

 

Some people and I were talking about how and why religion is always and everywhere about rules, and how it is sin that has given rise to religion. I think the tree represents the application of abstract principles (i.e., about what constitutes good and what constitutes evil) to the making of choices about action, and substituting that for letting such choices flow out of relationship or intimacy with God, out of who we are as determined by that relationship. We measure the options against principles instead of responding/submitting to a Person. This never quite works, we can tell it doesn't, but we think it is only because we haven't sufficiently refined and nuanced the principles, so we go to work on that, making them subtler, more abstract. It wasn't so much that Eve was being deliberately defiant or disobedient; but at the suggestion of the (subtle!) serpent she judged what to do, for the first time, on the basis of (sound) princip les. We won't ever be free of this kind of decision-making until our re-creation is complete and "indwelling" displaces reference to our "knowledge of good and evil" altogether; until then, the course of acting spontaneously out of untrammelled love for and intimacy with God is no longer available, except perhaps in flashes. It is why legalism (in myriad manifestations) is virtually inescapable; it is why we are now merely conscientious instead of pure. 

 

D