Eve

Illuminated parchment, Spain, circa AD 950-955, depicting the Fall of Man, cause of original sin. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In one version of two found in the Biblical book of Genesis, Eve is the first woman created by God from Adam’s rib.

According to the Bible story, Adam and Eve originally lived in an innocent state of grace, characterized by their blissful life in Eden. God directly told them that they could eat anything in the garden except for fruit from the tree of knowledge at the garden’s center. Eve, however, was tempted by the clever and subtle serpent to eat from the tree of knowledge. The evil serpent said that her eating the fruit of of the tree would enable the first woman and man to become like gods, “knowing the difference between good and evil.”

Eve ate the forbidden fruit and then tempted Adam, who also ate. Suddenly they recognized their nakedness, lost their innocence and felt ashamed. They immediately covered their now-private areas with leaves. God their creator was stirred to great anger and thrust them out of the garden. He stationed an angel with a flaming sword at the garden’s entrance to ensure their banishment.

Women in general were cursed to suffer during childbirth and the harsh realities of suffering and mortality were imposed on mankind.

Scholars note that the story is likely influenced by or adapted from similar ancient Near-Eastern myths. Christian theologians are well aware of this idea. But they maintain that it does not necessarily contradict the idea that the Bible is a revealed text.¹

—

¹ For a Catholic position claiming that all sacred scripture is without error, see http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8441. On the role of interpretation, see http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp-FullText.htm. And on the importance of understanding scripture through the door of faith, see http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html#The_Interpretation_Of_Sacred_Scripture__In_The_Church

Related articles

• Eden (earthpages.wordpress.com)
• Eden – The First Earth-Home (brakeman1.com)
• Our free will (welcomingjesus.wordpress.com)
• Not That Tree! (susangray2011.wordpress.com)
• Bible Challenge – “GARDEN OF EDEN” (pjsprayerline.blogspot.com)
• All About Eve (chronicle.com)
• Too Soon? (withapology.wordpress.com)
• The Garden of Eden: Between two trees (onedaringjew.wordpress.com)

Elohim

Adam, Eve, and extraterrestrial Elohim (according to Raëlism) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Elohim is a modern and ancient Hebrew word that denotes god or gods, making it grammatically singular or plural.

According to Catholic teaching, the fact that Elohim has a plural form doesn’t mean that it points to polytheistic understanding of God. It occurs over 2,500 times in the Old Testament.

Elohim is also used to refer to angels, heathen gods or representatives of God. Jesus‘ human side cried an Aramaic variant  – “Eloi, Eloi” – while feeling forsaken by God on the cross.

The term Elohim is also used by Raelians to depict apparently all-wise, loving aliens whom adherents believe created mankind.

Related articles

• אלוהים (Elohim) (eliezer40.com)
• He Says Concerning Himself “I am the Son of Elohim” (guapotg.wordpress.com)
• God, Elohim (hoagiestyle.wordpress.com)

El

Elohim Creating Adam (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

El is a word for God in Semitic languages occurring in the Old Testament about 200 times.

El also refers to the chief God within the Canaanite pantheon.

The plural of El is Elohim, although Elohim doesn’t always refer to a plural entity. In other words, El in the Bible refers to pagan gods and the God of the Israelites.

Related articles

• Names of God: His Titles Revealed in Scripture » http://www.allaboutgod.com/names-of-god.htm
• Review: The Names of God Bible (GW) (exegete77.wordpress.com)
• אלוהים (Elohim) (eliezer40.com)
• Christian Book Review: The Names of God Bible (csahm.com)
• New Day, New Hope, New Song – El Shaddai (awakenyourpotential.wordpress.com)
• Names of God Study Summary (clayhearts.wordpress.com)

Figurine of the Canaanite God El from Megiddo (Modern Israel) Stratum VII Late Bronze II (1400-1200 BCE) (Photo credit: mharrsch)

Eden

Adam and Eve Are Driven out of Eden by Gustave Dore. Picture portrayed over passage in Genesis. And he placed at the east of the Garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life (Gen. 3:24). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In Jewish and Christian belief, based on the book of Genesis 2-3, Eden [Hebrew Eden: delight, pleasure] is the garden of paradise in which God first created mankind.

According to the Bible story, the first humans were vegetarians. God allowed them to eat of any fruit in the garden, except the fruit from the tree of knowledge (either an apple or a pomegranate).

Later in the Bible story, after the disobedience and expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden, God gives his chosen people (the Israelites) prohibitions concerning which meats are permissible to eat and which are not.

In the Book of Ezekiel Eden symbolizes Israel’s promised redemption after being in exile.

Eden is also mentioned in the Koran. And a rough parallel to Eden is found in the Sumerian Dilmun, a mythological place where everyone lives forever and never gets sick nor dies.

Related Posts » Adam, Cherubim, Eve, Milton (John), Original Sin, Rastafarianism, Serpent, Square Cross, Tree of Life

Related articles

• The Garden of Eden: Between two trees (onedaringjew.wordpress.com)
• Bible Challenge – “GARDEN OF EDEN” (pjsprayerline.blogspot.com)
• Eden – The First Earth-Home (brakeman1.com)
• How Long Were Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden? (jeffandcindy.wordpress.com)
• It’s official – Adam and Eve, er, weren’t. (wellthisiswhatithink.wordpress.com)

God, The Father

Matthew Inspired by an Angel - Rembrandt via Wikipedia

When translating the Old and New Testaments from the earliest sources, the idea of of God often appears as “Father.” From early Israelite history God is, in fact, regarded as a Father and the New Testament develops ideas firmly rooted in the Old Testament.

Feminist thinkers like Mary Daly have taken exception to the masculine depiction of the deity, arguing that women benefit from female images speaking to and further inspiring the female experience.

Many progressive scholars, male and female alike, argue that to see God in male terms tends to perpetuate patterns of worship that closely resemble a patriarchal religious monarchy.¹

—

¹ For a good analysis of this issue, see Paul E. Dinter, The Changing Priesthood: From the Bible to the 21st Century. Texas: Thomas More Publishing, 1996.

Related Posts » Goddess vs. goddess, Trinity

Related articles

• The Goddess is Back and Sex is Sacred (sensualblissvoyager.wordpress.com)
• Mary, the virginal mother of God, and feminist theology (insightscoop.typepad.com)
• The Holy Trinity and Mary (theskepticalteenager.wordpress.com)
• Who Can Call God “Dad”? (leadinguptoeaster.wordpress.com)

Guardian Angel

Guardian Angel, German postcard 1900 via Wikipedia

The term guardian angel refers to the Catholic belief that we are guided from birth to death by an angel, assigned by God to each particular individual.

Similar ideas are found in the ancient world. In Plato’s Apology of Socrates, Socrates speaks of some kind of otherworldly agency that tells him what not to do but never what to do.

The Old Testament also speaks of angels that intercede for mankind, the most famous example being that of Moses leading the people through the wilderness. Here God tells Moses that an angel will lead him. And many Muslims believe that they are guided by two angels.

In Shamanistic and Amerindian belief, the guardian and guide may be in the form of an animal spirit.

Today, the belief in guardian angels is quite widespread and does not pertain to any single religious group or denomination.

Historically speaking, it’s long been believed that dark or evil angels can confuse people and compel them to sin, even to suicide. No doubt as a product of mankind’s sexist history, women, especially, were thought to be driven to the point of madness by evil spirits posing as loving presences.

Contemporary psychiatry generally downplays or ignores the possibility that evil spirits could influence a person’s behavior. Psychiatry does recognize the phenomenon of “magical thinking” but usually within the interpretive framework of a cognitive error or mental illness.

Many exhibiting so-called magical thinking probably do make all sorts of interpretive errors. But the issue here is the underlying cause. The medical psychiatrist looks to inherited, (apparently) abnormal predispositions and adverse environmental conditions which may, indeed, be present. However, psychiatry tends to overlook the possibility that these contributing factors could be part of a much larger dynamic, a dynamic that might involve evil spiritual influences.

Related Posts » Angels, Kowalska (St. Maria Faustina Helena)

Related articles

• Angel Talk (theaceofswords.wordpress.com)
• Guardian angels (kitabikida.wordpress.com)
• How to ask Your Angel (theaceofswords.wordpress.com)
• Fools Rush In (davidscommonplacebook.wordpress.com)
• Lost & Found (logisticallychallenged.wordpress.com)
• Puppy Pile of Angels (mightyinspiration.wordpress.com)
• Elgar’s Guardian Angel – London Concert Choir sing Dream of Gerontius (classicalmusic.southbankcentre.co.uk)
• Angels Are Here (freedomperthought.wordpress.com)

Grace

Grace-for-all by Angela Harms via Wikipedia

The idea of grace has two aspects—one worldly and the other spiritual and religious. In everyday terms, grace refers to elegance, beauty, refinement and decency.

In spirituality and religion, the word grace has a different, often related meaning. Generally speaking, among world religions grace refers to some kind of favorable disposition and positive action of God (or gods/goddesses) toward a person, group or humanity as a whole.

The results of a deity’s action toward humanity can be visible (e.g. narrowly escaping death “by the Grace of God”) or invisible (e.g. feeling good in ways that worldly methods, alone, cannot achieve).

In Catholicism, grace is understood as a gift that is freely given by God, the creator, to a rational creature (mankind) for the purpose of salvation and everlasting bliss in heaven.

Catholicism speaks of many different kinds of grace, for instance: actual, baptismal, efficacious, elevating, external, habitual, illuminating, imputed, interior, irresistible, natural, prevenient, sacramental, sanctifying, substantial and sufficient.

In pop music, Steve Winwood and Jim Capaldi of Traffic put it this way:

Sometimes your life can be sidetracked, getting lost in things you don’t need
But we all lose direction in a world of greed

Some people’s lives end in ruin, some people’s lives never start
Someone knows what you’re doing deep in your heart

In the hour of need you stood ready, looked danger right in the face
Your heart is moved by the spirit when you’re living
Living in a state of grace

There’s a world never ending, sorrow and pain don’t exist
We can live there together, you can’t resist

Just when you think you can’t take it, dreams disappear into space
Trust in your heart, you can make it, when you’re living
Living in a state of grace¹

—

¹ Traffic, Far From Home, 1994. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_from_Home

Related articles

• The Color of Grace (biblicalnotes.com)
• Everyone heard the words “prevenient grace” at Mass on Thursday, but few people know what it means. Here’s an explanation… (te-deum.blogspot.com)
• The Doctrine of Irresistible Grace (justificationbygrace.com)
• Total Depravity/Prevenient Grace – Articles of the Arminian Remonstrance: Part 3 (theologicalarsenal.wordpress.com)
• God’s Grace (gospelapprentice.com)
• Law and Grace (wdednh.wordpress.com)

God

God Saman by Freelk via Wikipedia

There are at least three main and possibly interrelated ways of conceptualizing God, as well as three main ways of relating to the deity.

Conceptualizing God

First, in monotheism, God is generally seen as an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good transcendent but immanent (God dwells in creation but is also beyond it) being that created and rules over all of creation (e.g. Christianity, Judaism and Islam).

Second, one form of pantheism also known as polytheism boasts many gods, often ruled over by a master deity (e.g. the Greek Zeus).

Some non-Catholics say that the Catholic saints degrade Christianity with a form of polytheism. But this is a misunderstanding. Catholic saints mediate through contemplative prayer, not unlike people living on Earth who pray for one another.

Also, some say the Christian Holy Trinity is polytheistic. But this, too, is a misrepresentation because Christians generally agree that the three persons of the Trinity share a unity of substance which is One.

Meanwhile, some say that the Hindu gods and goddesses are polytheistic. But most Hindus point out that they are manifestations of the Brahman, an unmanifest ground of All That Is.

The third main way of conceptualizing God is expressed in naturalistic pantheism. Here, the forces of nature (and usually the cosmos) are identified with God. Some believe that monotheism and polytheism may coexist within a hierarchy of value. On the individual experiential level, that would mean progressing through a belief in The Many to discovering a (usually described as higher) level of monotheistic worship.

Stamp commemorating the 100th day of birth of Martin Buber (1878—1965) via Wikipedia

Relating to God

The monotheistic approach to relating to God is aptly described by the Jewish theologian Martin Buber as an I-Thou relationship. This is experienced as a

1. feeling of awe
2. healthy fear of offending the deity
3. keen sense of personal humility

Another way of relating to the deity is seeing oneself as potentially identical to God. This second way is divided into three types:

1. mythic identification
2. mythic eternalization
3. mythic inflation

A third way of relating to God is more about phenomenology, that is, about a person’s unique experience. Michel Henry (1922–2002), for instance, talks about God as the “essence of Life” experienced by the individual. His view of God doesn’t go much beyond that because phenomenologists believe we can’t really know much (if anything) beyond ourselves.

Related Posts » Agnosticism, Atheism, Deism, Mythic Dissociation, Mythic Subordination, Ontological Argument, Panenhenism, Panentheism, Panpsychism, Theism

Related articles

• Shirk (polytheism) (mudasirali.wordpress.com)
• Day 42- Nature spirits and Nature worship (thepurplebroom.wordpress.com)
• Christian Polytheism (audreyashira.wordpress.com)
• The Deity of Jesus Christ (enrichedspirituallife.com)
• Quran AND Science (socyberty.com)
• The Conspiracy of God. (hiwaychristian.wordpress.com)

The Holy

Rudolf Otto (1869-1937) via Wikipedia

The German Lutheran scholar Rudolf Otto (1869–1937) describes The Holy in terms of a personal experience.

In The Idea of the Holy (1917) he borrows from the Latin word numen when introducing the term numinous, which refers to ”deeply felt religious experience.”

Experience of the numinous may derive from a monotheistic God or from many pagan gods. When originating from God, Otto says the numinous is endowed with “rationality, purpose, personality and morality.” Pagan numinosity, he suggests, is somehow inferior.

Otto makes a similar distinction between magic and religion. Not trying to be non-judgmental or politically correct, he says magic manifests a “dimmed” numinous, in contrast to the experience of God, which he describes as an awe-filled encounter, a mysterium tremendum and a majestus.

For Otto, the experience of God is the highest type of numinosity. It’s a personal experience of an omnipotent, omniscient power that’s worthy of utmost respect and which inspires not just awe, but also a healthy kind of fear.

The individual is urgently attracted to this power, but the experience of the Godhead may also frighten, humble and purify.

In addition, Otto notes that one would experience a sense of creaturely unworthiness and perhaps wretchedness, standing naked, as it were, in the face of such a great, powerful and “wholly other” Godhead.

Related Posts » Hick (John), James (William), Wach (Joachim)

Related articles

• An Outline of Rudolf Otto’s The Idea of the Holy (epages.wordpress.com)
• Philosophy Word of the Day – Religious Experience (greatcloud.wordpress.com)
• Review – Strange is Normal: The Amazing Life of Colin Wilson (DVD) (epages.wordpress.com)
• The archetypes are gods: Re-godding the archetypes, by John H. Halstead (humanisticpaganism.wordpress.com)
• Parapraxes, Accidents and Necessary Mistakes (epages.wordpress.com)

Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes via Wikipedia

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English philosopher whose work emphasized society and politics. He’s often described as the founder of modern political philosophy, although some attribute that honor to Niccolò Machiavelli (1469 – 1527).

Hobbes makes a distinction between knowing that God is and knowing what God is. From this, the Catholic scholar Fr. Frederic Coppleston says it’s misleading to say that Hobbes is an atheist, even though many still do.

Hobbes was, in fact, embroiled in controversy from ongoing accusations of being an atheist and, by implication, a heretic. His fear of being found guilty of the latter charge compelled him to burn some of his writings and study, very carefully, the existing laws of his day.

Fortunately, King Charles II liked Hobbes. Hobbes had taught the future King, and the monarch Charles played a role in keeping Hobbes safe.

The king was important in protecting Hobbes when, in 1666, the House of Commons introduced a bill against atheism and profaneness. That same year, on 17 October 1666, it was ordered that the committee to which the bill was referred “should be empowered to receive information touching such books as tend to atheism, blasphemy and profaneness… in particular… the book of Mr. Hobbes called the Leviathan“¹

The debate continues to this day, nobody really knowing how Hobbes stood on the point of God’s existence.

The frontispiece of the book Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes via Wikipedia

In his seminal work, Leviathan (1651), Hobbes study of the commonwealth deals mostly with civil philosophy. And civil philosophy itself has two forms: ethics (relating to the individual) and politics (relating to society).

Hobbes also imagines what society would be like without a governing body. In so doing he distinguishes two types of bodies, the natural body and the commonwealth.

The natural body is, so Hobbes envisions, what life would be like without a political system.

In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.²

In Leviathan Hobbes spells out his belief that human beings are rational and, above all, seeking self-preservation. If left to our natural devices, however, we would become ruthless power seekers, each seeking to gratify his or her own interests, culminating in countless wars. Because this kind of existence would be intolerable, human beings agree to submit their individual wills to a Sovereign.

Not a few writers say that Hobbes claims that life is “nasty, brutish, and short,” but they obviously haven’t done their homework. As noted, Hobbes describes life this way when estimating what things would be like without any government. Left to its natural state, mankind would be beastly. But politics apparently saves us.

Retrato del filósofo francés Michel Foucault via Wikipedia

Hobbes also maintains that the knowledge gained from philosophizing brings personal power. This could be seen as foreshadowing the 2oth century thinker Michel Foucault’s idea that “knowledge is power.” Both Hobbes and Foucault believe that power should be expressed through social action.

But unlike Hobbes, Foucault also says that “power is knowledge,” meaning that those with more social power have a greater ability to impose their particular norms and values on the rest of society; and society is composed of people who, in many instances, would rather abide by a different set of norms and values.

By way of contrast, Hobbes says that power gained from knowledge should be applied to the common good, a perspective which, in the 20th century, Foucault might have regarded as simplistic or, at least, idealistic.

—

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes#Later_life

² Leviathan XIII “Chapter XIII.: Of the Natural Condition of Mankind As Concerning Their Felicity, and Misery.”  http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=585&layout=html#chapter_89842

Related articles

• How Google & Facebook May Have Taught Us About Hobbes (gameofroles.wordpress.com)
• Foucault and Hobbes on Politics, Security, and War (2011) (foucaultnews.wordpress.com)
• Hobbes Leviathan: Analysis of Human Behaviour (socyberty.com)
• Hobbes’ Leviathan and the absolute Sovereign (theedexperience.wordpress.com)
• And the reason is love! (nikhilchawla.wordpress.com)
• What Is a State, and What Are Its Powers? (anationbeguiled.wordpress.com)
• Really, Hobbes? (gameofroles.wordpress.com)