The Essence of the Cult of Abraham

[running turtle]

The essence of Christianity is told to us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the Tree of Knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your genuflecting mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions.

-- Frank Zappa, interview, Playboy, May 2, 1993

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

An ignorant comment made in Playboy.

Shocking.

[Parodite]

If you can't find your way, just invent a map.

That sums it up for me.

[Marcus]

The essence of Christianity is told to us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the Tree of Knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your genuflecting mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions.

-- Frank Zappa, interview, Playboy, May 2, 1993

Is this a joke?

[Typhoon]

While Frank Zappa's quote is guaranteed to offend many, something that he thankfully excelled at, it's consistent with my own understanding of the Genesis parable.

So what, if any, misunderstanding is there in this interpretation? Sola scriptura?

[Marcus]

So what, if any, misunderstanding is there in this interpretation?

waders_cartoon.jpg (14.82 KiB) Viewed 1017 times

Too deep for me . .

[YMix]

It's a Protestant thing, Marcus. You read the Bible and draw your own conclusions. Zappa's comment is a good example of that.

[Marcus]

It's a Protestant thing, Marcus. You read the Bible and draw your own conclusions. Zappa's comment is a good example of that.

More funnies . . . . you guys need to move this thread over to Levitas . .

[Ibrahim]

I've seen the argument that the "Garden of Eden" story is about free will, and Satan's role is actually sort of Promethian and to him we owe our free will. Better theologians than Frank Zappa have made so good arguments for this point of view. I think of it more as an analogy from growing up. As children we live in safety and comfort provided by our parents, but as we gain the ability to determine (rather than be told) right and wrong and accept the responsibility that implies we also gain the responsibilities of adulthood. It's not "better" to stay in the Garden anymore than it's "better" to be a child forever.


Now, this is not to say that my interpretation is "right," but simply to illustrate that much of what you take away from a story or parable depends on what you bring to it.
Or, if you will:

It's a Protestant thing, Marcus. You read the Bible and draw your own conclusions. Zappa's comment is a good example of that.

[Enki]

The essence of Christianity is told to us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the Tree of Knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your genuflecting mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions.

-- Frank Zappa, interview, Playboy, May 2, 1993

The subtext is that we had a choice and we chose knowledge. Of course, it's not much of a choice if you don't know in the first place.

[Nonc Hilaire]

I love Zappa (especially Peaches in Regaila), but really.
pKlAIhuXRLE

The tree of life was intended to be eaten BEFORE the tree of knowledge. The text is clear that that the banishment from Eden was not a punishment, but a protection (Genesis 3:22). It was intended to prevent mankind from eating from the tree of life while in a state of sin and condemning mankind forever.

All of which is a completely different myth from Abraham. Abraham tithed to Melchezedech, who was a proper priest of the God most High predating Moses (Genesis 14:18). Jesus existed before his incarnation at the time of Abraham (John 8:58). Jesus' rule is described as the reinstatement of the original faith of Melchezidech (Hebrews 7).

Zappa was undereducated on this subject. The biblical links from Eden to Melchizedek to Abraham to Jesus indicate there has always been a divine connection between mankind and God in existence.

[Marcus]

. . Zappa was undereducated on this subject. . .

Damn it! You spoiled the whole thing! I was just waiting to hear Running Turkey et al. distill four millennia of Judeo/Christian thought, philosophy, and theology into a couple foul-mouthed sentences from some comic asshole.

Oh, well . . .

[Torchwood]

As a metaphor, there is sense in it. Eden is the state that typifies an animal or early human existence, before clear subjective consciousness - one cannot sin (or do good). Mark you, the leopard could still come and eat you in Eden.

Isn't the apple thing a mistranslation in the Vulgate bible, confusing malus (apple) with malum (evil)?

Interesting that the Greeks left an impersonal force (hope) as the recourse to evils of the fruits of knowledge (from Pandora's Box) while the Israelites turned to God's grace.

[Ibrahim]

Interesting that the Greeks left an impersonal force (hope) as the recourse to evils of the fruits of knowledge (from Pandora's Box) while the Israelites turned to God's grace.

Interesting observation.

[Mr. Perfect]

I don't think that is the essence of the cult of Abraham.

[YMix]

I don't think that either. It's not even the "essence" of Christianity. But it's still a good example of people drawing their own conclusions. As somebody said once, "to each his own".

[Parodite]

I would go for Torchs and Freds reading.

Open questions though:

- To what extent are we certain what the original writers intention and meaning given was in this case?
- How important is the above to actually know?
- Is one "allowed" (by those or other) to just read the story and give it a meaning to your own taste and sense of reality?

Things often mix up. Zappa just gives his reading/interpretation with a wink... but then a number of people jump in "No No No! That is not what the writer meant!"

It all begs the question...

It seems to be a matter of "the word of God" as understood by those claiming to know it is the word of God and how to "read" it... versus any piece of art where the reader/observer is implicitly more free to let the art work have its impact on you personally; your "answer" is as legitimate as any other.

[YMix]

Interesting that the Greeks left an impersonal force (hope) as the recourse to evils of the fruits of knowledge (from Pandora's Box) while the Israelites turned to God's grace.

Because the "essence" of the Old Testament, as I see it, is obedience to the dictates of a rather unpleasant god. Christianity is something else.

[Nonc Hilaire]

I would go for Torchs and Freds reading.

Open questions though:

- To what extent are we certain what the original writers intention and meaning given was in this case?
- How important is the above to actually know?
- Is one "allowed" (by those or other) to just read the story and give it a meaning to your own taste and sense of reality?

Things often mix up. Zappa just gives his reading/interpretation with a wink... but then a number of people jump in "No No No! That is not what the writer meant!"

It all begs the question...

It seems to be a matter of "the word of God" as understood by those claiming to know it is the word of God and how to "read" it... versus any piece of art where the reader/observer is implicitly more free to let the art work have its impact on you personally; your "answer" is as legitimate as any other.

Good and valid questions, Parodite. Zappa is obviously incorrect just in a simple reading of the text. He may know his guitar want to kill your Momma, but he doesn't know his Bible.
None of your considerations come into play until after one has thoroughly and carefully read the text and related references. Applying literary analysis or reader response when one has not carefully read the text just yields nonsense.

[noddy]

i woulda thought progressives could relate to how we aint satisified with what we got and how things are.

the only thing that really irks my modern atheist sensibilities in this is the put down on the other higher mammals and birds.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

Zappa's sense of the story is accurate (and typical) enough. That isn't really the problem. The idea that suffering comes with knowledge, and that the childlike union with God is lost when man breaks with the slow rhythms of nature and enters into history, is not new or particularly controversial. The problem is that Zappa - like most moderns with no deep imagination - is pretending that the creation story is a sociological tract, and not a myth. Well, he is not pretending, most likely. He just, like most people today, cannot imagine anything beyond power/class relationships, economics, and politics. He wants to make it about existing power structures using a superstition to frighten the masses away from asking challenging questions, which, since at least the Second World War, is the only authorized interpretation of history.

[Typhoon]

I would go for Torchs and Freds reading.

Open questions though:

- To what extent are we certain what the original writers intention and meaning given was in this case?
- How important is the above to actually know?
- Is one "allowed" (by those or other) to just read the story and give it a meaning to your own taste and sense of reality?

Things often mix up. Zappa just gives his reading/interpretation with a wink... but then a number of people jump in "No No No! That is not what the writer meant!"

It all begs the question...

It seems to be a matter of "the word of God" as understood by those claiming to know it is the word of God and how to "read" it... versus any piece of art where the reader/observer is implicitly more free to let the art work have its impact on you personally; your "answer" is as legitimate as any other.

Good and valid questions, Parodite. Zappa is obviously incorrect just in a simple reading of the text. He may know his guitar want to kill your Momma, but he doesn't know his Bible.
None of your considerations come into play until after one has thoroughly and carefully read the text and related references. Applying literary analysis or reader response when one has not carefully read the text just yields nonsense.

After having done all of the above, how is the "Eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge" parable - myth interpreted?

When I read Genesis, some time ago now, my conclusions regarding this particular parable were similar to Zappa's.
My point being that it's not an unusual interpretation to make, especially from a contemporary secular perspective.
Why is this so?

Another question. Is there a verse in the Bible that explicitly praises curiousity?

[Marcus]

. . Is there a verse in the Bible that explicitly praises curiousity?

Would "Seek and you will find" work?

[Parodite]

I would go for Torchs and Freds reading.

Open questions though:

- To what extent are we certain what the original writers intention and meaning given was in this case?
- How important is the above to actually know?
- Is one "allowed" (by those or other) to just read the story and give it a meaning to your own taste and sense of reality?

Things often mix up. Zappa just gives his reading/interpretation with a wink... but then a number of people jump in "No No No! That is not what the writer meant!"

It all begs the question...

It seems to be a matter of "the word of God" as understood by those claiming to know it is the word of God and how to "read" it... versus any piece of art where the reader/observer is implicitly more free to let the art work have its impact on you personally; your "answer" is as legitimate as any other.

Good and valid questions, Parodite. Zappa is obviously incorrect just in a simple reading of the text. He may know his guitar want to kill your Momma, but he doesn't know his Bible.
None of your considerations come into play until after one has thoroughly and carefully read the text and related references. Applying literary analysis or reader response when one has not carefully read the text just yields nonsense.

Partly agree. I remember an instance where an artist of abstract painting passionately explained his work. It definately started to make more sense to me afterwards. In the same way knowing more about the sources of scripture and how through history it made sense to people and how people made sense "of" it, is definately added value. Problem remains we cannot interview the writer(s) itself to clarify their work so there is always something missing - so it seems to me.

I do think however that it is quite possible to "just read whatever in whatever way", and experience great meaning and inspiration. To actually know more about the sources, the writers intention, the histiorical context.. may also destroy a lot of potential meaning.

[Nonc Hilaire]

When I read Genesis, some time ago now, my conclusions regarding this particular parable were similar to Zappa's.
My point being that it's not an unusual interpretation to make, especially from a contemporary secular perspective.
Why is this so?

Because very few people take the time to read the Bible slowly, reverently and completely. It's a lot like that list of classic literature interpreted as tweets that is making the rounds.

Another question. Is there a verse in the Bible that explicitly praises curiousity?

Absolutely. Curiosity is a divine attribute and part of the image of God in mankind. This section in general is often used to describe the creative mandate; that part of mankind's purpose on earth is to create.

“Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.”
(Gen 2:19 ESV)