Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!uwm.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Shame Message-ID: Date: 9 Apr 91 07:52:43 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 57 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In a commentary regarding a posting by sobarr@ucsd.edu (Carlos Saul Menem) Sun Apr 7 22:59:45 1991 Subject: Adam and Eve have become as Gods? our moderator offers the following: |.................................. My view of this is that the |serpent was telling a half-truth. He promised not only that they |would learn something, but that the consequences God threatened would |not happen, and by implication I think that no harm would come to |them. First, the consequences did happen -- they died. And second, |the knowledge they gained didn't help them. It caused innocent sexual |relations to turn into shameful ones. clh. I am led to wonder what kind of mystical reading of the scriptures gave rise to his last sentence. Not until the doctrine invented in the Dark Ages (long after the death of the Apostles) and later promulgated principally by T. Aquinas (who seems never to have fully repented his philandering), is this thought proffered with any kind of seriousness. I don't see any evidence in the scriptures that Adam and Eve EVER had anything like SHAMEFUL sexual relations. Oh yes, we all know that they covered their nakedness when they heard the Lord's voice...is that a shameful act? Wouldn't any one cover himself if a visitor were to knock on the door?! If this is the evidence for shame, then the real shame is on the quality of bible scholarship nakedly expressed above. Our moderator often adds a professorial pontifical postscript to the postings in this newsgroup. Wouldn't it be more seemly for him to give his own musings is his OWN posting and limit the addenda to administrative tasks? I think so. Jim Green [The guidelines for the group explain the grounds on which I make comments. I try to avoid being controversial in moderatorial comments. I confess I'm surprised by this one. As you'll see from another posting, Jim is not the only one who regarded my comment as controversial. I thought the change from being unashamed of nakedness (Gen 2:25) to covering themselves with fig leaves and hiding from God because they were naked (Gen 3:7ff) was pretty obviously a reference to sexual relations. I wouldn't want to say that this was the only implication of the sin, nor do I claim that the sin itself was sexual. (Presumably the most serious charge would have been simply disobedience.) But the change from innocent relations between man and woman to shameful ones was one of the most visible effects of the sin, and thus it seemed reasonable to cite as proof of the fact that taking the serpent's advice wasn't beneficial. According to 3:7 they started covering themselves as soon as they ate the fruit and realized that they were nake. So I don't understand your explanation of covering themselves as a courtesy to a visitor. It seems to me that hiding from God and being afraid of him because they were naked (3:10) suggests that they were ashamed of their nakedness. I'm not sure when you consider the dark ages to have begun, but my comments are consistent with Augustine's in chap 14 of the City of God. --clh]