"The garden has to do with time and not place."

Except that time is place, if you think about it.

(November 28, 2011 at 2:17 pm)dtango Wrote: When atheists reach the point of realizing the difference between tradition and theology, they understand that the Old Testament is the atheist’s best friend.

What the hell does that even mean?

(November 28, 2011 at 10:23 pm)Epimethean Wrote: "The garden has to do with time and not place."

Except that time is place, if you think about it.

.
Well, philosophically thinking time can be anything you like, but philosophy cannot help you understand the reason the Sumerians were saying:

Never has a sinless child been born to its mother
(Sumerian “Lamentation to a man’s god” –a Sumerian variation of the “Job” motif-, verse 102, ANET, p. 590)

…or why Hesiod poems, legends of India and legends of the Aztecs insist that humans were happy on earth before gods brought misery and death.

P.S. @ Rhythm: I am self-taught in English and so, I regret, but I cannot understand your English as if we were both brought up in the same neighbourhood.

God created evil to create jobs. Yay Jesus.

(November 29, 2011 at 1:53 am)apophenia Wrote: What the hell does that even mean?

.
Well, that means that one would be able to discern Hebrew theological fantasies from traditional legends.

For example You read in Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”, that is a traditional legend common in almost every culture on earth.

Then you reach passage 2:8 where you learn that God had formed only males, no females at all, and then follows the funny story about the rib of Adam. That is theological fantasies not worth studying.
The garden as a place is also a fantasy. As an epoch it is a traditional legend that one can study and possibly arrive at some reasonable explanation about the origins of the legend.

(November 29, 2011 at 2:40 am)dtango Wrote:

(November 29, 2011 at 1:53 am)apophenia Wrote:

(November 28, 2011 at 2:17 pm)dtango Wrote: When atheists reach the point of realizing the difference between tradition and theology, they understand that the Old Testament is the atheist’s best friend.

What the hell does that even mean?

Well, that means that one would be able to discern Hebrew theological fantasies from traditional legends.

Telling me what it would enable me to do is not telling me what it means. Not to mention that you've essentially simply restated your first statement using different words. You remind me of the Scientologists I recently spent time with and asked them, given their advocacy of human rights, just what a [human] right is. They responded that all humans have them, if you're human, you automatically have them. Alas, I wasn't interested in who possessed them, but what exactly one was. Your answer is similar, and appears to be little more than a tap dance to avoid actually answering the question.

(November 29, 2011 at 3:45 am)apophenia Wrote: Telling me what it would enable me to do is not telling me what it means. Not to mention that you've essentially simply restated your first statement using different words. You remind me of the Scientologists I recently spent time with and asked them, given their advocacy of human rights, just what a [human] right is. They responded that all humans have them, if you're human, you automatically have them. Alas, I wasn't interested in who possessed them, but what exactly one was. Your answer is similar, and appears to be little more than a tap dance to avoid actually answering the question.

.

I think you are right!
So, we start again. You asked what the difference between tradition and theology is.
Traditional legends were handed down from times that precede the appearance of theology and organized religion and they tell us what the people believed before they were told by the priesthood what to believe. They are of pure popular origin.
Theological issues, on the other hand, are inspired by traditional legends but originate in the minds of philosophers and theologians.
The difference between them is that the legends have some value while theological ideas have none.

The Old Testament becomes the atheist’s best friend when the atheist can show that a portion of the text is based on the legend and the rest on theological imagination leaving no part having anything to do with the words or the writings of some God.

I am afraid I can do no better .

Tango, show me in the Theogony where Hesiod made such a claim, please.

(November 29, 2011 at 9:34 am)Epimethean Wrote: Tango, show me in the Theogony where Hesiod made such a claim, please.

Hesiod, Works and Days
translated by Evelyn-White

(ll. 106-108) Or if you will, I will sum you up another tale well and skilfully -- and do you lay it up in your heart, -- (108) how the gods and mortal men sprang from one source.
(ll. 109-120) First of all the deathless gods who dwell on Olympus made a golden race of mortal men who lived in the time of Cronos when he was reigning in heaven. And they lived like gods without sorrow of heart, remote and free from toil and grief: miserable age rested not on them; but with legs and arms never failing they made merry with feasting beyond the reach of all evils. When they died, it was as though they were overcome with sleep, and they had all good things; for the fruitful earth unforced bare them fruit abundantly and without stint. They dwelt in ease and peace upon their lands with many good things, rich in flocks and loved by the blessed gods.
(ll. 121-139) But after earth had covered this generation -- they are called pure spirits dwelling on the earth, and are kindly, delivering from harm, and guardians of mortal men; for they roam everywhere over the earth, clothed in mist and keep watch on judgements and cruel deeds, givers of wealth; for this royal right also they received; -- then they who dwell on Olympus made a second generation which was of silver and less noble by far. It was like the golden race neither in body nor in spirit. A child was brought up at his good mother's side an hundred years, an utter simpleton, playing childishly in his own home. But when they were full grown and were come to the full measure of their prime, they lived only a little time in sorrow because of their foolishness, for they could not keep from sinning and from wronging one another, nor would they serve the immortals, nor sacrifice on the holy altars of the blessed ones as it is right for men to do wherever they dwell. Then Zeus the son of Cronos was angry and put them away, because they would not give honour to the blessed gods who live on Olympus.

Most translators discard verse 108 the gods and mortal men sprang from one source because they think that it contradicts verse 109 the deathless gods who dwell on Olympus made a golden race of mortal men, but in the Greek text there is only the word “immortals,” or “deathless” as per the translator, (athanatoi), the word “gods” does not occur in verse 109. By the name “immortals” the Titans are meant. We read then that these mortal men lived in the time of Cronos but in the time of Cronos the gods were still as young as the mortals. They had no power at all.

Anyway, as you see the men were living happily before the gods took over the power from the Titans.

Even Greek translators do not realize that for Hesiod there were no gods before they were born by the titans. In the Norse mythology the gods are half giants by birth.

Loki is jotun directly, not all of them (and this is the seed of the ragnarok narrative). Conversely, in the irish retelling/version/cultural transfer of these myths, Baldur (or Balor) is jotun, and the roles of good/evil in the pantheon are reversed. Odin himself could be interpreted as having been a human being before hanging himself on yggdrasil. Though they are also said to have been half giants all around (but not necessarily jotun). You see, there were different types of giants, aren't you a big proponent of the neanderthal song and dance? Does that mean that these narratives could be describing our ancestors forced interbreeding with even more species of hominid? Which to pick, which to pick. You see, the religious have never been very good at consistency.

Fun fact, we were taught war to swell the ranks at ragnarok. How pleasant. Norse mythology is one of those great places to bring up the fact that alot of what we know of mythology (specifically european) is handed to us from christian monks (or was nearly annihilated by the agents of the same and left fragmentary). They blended or changed narratives, and the stories we end up with are many times twisted into the greek narratives with different characters and places. Making any attempt to pick out some singular event, person, or experience as the ultimate source is very difficult if not completely impossible. Could be that the monks who wrote the narratives down for posterity invented the whole thing to explain what the locals regarded as meaningless jewelry and knick knacks, lol. Compound this with the fact that pagans often did incorporate the gods of other cultures and assign them jobs, and you have a scenario where even the pagans themselves were never really consistent with just who any given god was or what he did, let alone where he came from.

Once we've gone down the rabbit hole of myth as a retelling of some actual thing or time or place in each and every case, especially when we try to get specific...anything becomes possible.