Statism doesn’t need to control all its leading opponents. It seeks out a few who have a handle or two and -- when the moment is ripe -- twists.
Dennis of all people should have made the connection I’m about to make. But he didn’t.
This is the old story of losing our paradise because of “evil forces” playing on human weaknesses. We were misled down this path, weren’t we? We Americans who are so trusting of those in government and on the Left, confident that they are simple and decent honest human beings like ourselves, and so are incapable of treachery and worse. /s
From that radio interview it was clear that “Never Enough” parallels my exegesis of the Eden story.
We had everything we could want materially. But we could not withstand God’s simple test of our control of our ego.
When Eve fell or was pushed against the forbidden tree and saw that touching it didn’t kill her (as she mistakenly thought was the bar), she then listened to the voice that said that “God’s selfishness for His knowledge and power was why He barred her from eating of it” (targeting her sense of trust and undermining her obeisance and gratitude). Furthermore, she succumbed to coveting all that was His: "if you eat of it, all that is His could be yours."
Ambition is good, but unbridled ambition is costly (what do you say now welfare state lovers?)
And then, once she ate of it, she couldn’t be alone in her sin, she felt the need to have company in sin. And so it goes.
When God later confronted Adam, he complained it was “the woman whom YOU gavest to me” was the fault — like he didn’t see it in the salad she provided. “It’s not my responsibility!”
Back to the current dilemma: It’s not YOUR responsibility conservative Americans?
Back to Eden: When quizzed, can’t you just imagine Adam explaining to God how he was totally misled by the woman? Right Adam, nothing willful in your being misled was there? It never occurred to you that you could give into temptation and blame someone else for the consequences, did it? Right? “No — not Me. Never. I swear.” God’s omniscience is a pisser ain’t it?
Back to Now: Like we were misled by the “Progressives” into believing we could borrow until the cows came home and not worry? Mr. Prager: You want us to believe that there was no willful misleading maybe by you or any of your colleagues. Nor even that you have willingly permitted yourself to be misled. Do you Mr. Prager? When will you recognize how much bilge you are pumping?
As Doug at BC noted:
The whole time he was prattling on about liberals not having an evil bone (“proof” being that he loves them) in their bodies, I was reliving my behaviors and the feelings I carried in my guts after college gave me multiple rationales to take out my unresolved issues and hostilities on others in pursuit of utopia.I swear, I can hardly stand listening to Dennis Prager because of all the “ultimate issues" he knows so well how to skirt. He’s worse than any hypocrite. He’s an enabler of the Statist advance.
Wishing for a World Devoid of Evil does not make it so.
It was Doug's words which prompted me to the title of this post.
Dennis Prager is a Rodney King who wants us to believe we can all just get along so he doesn’t have to confront his complicity in the disaster unfolding around him -- and us.
View My Stats
I listened to Prager off and on for 10 years or so, when I lived in Los Angeles. Prager is good for interesting philosophical perspectives, but you don’t go to him for answers about how to deal with evil. He lives in his own safe, secure little world.
ReplyDeleteYea but millions are also living in their little safe if not so secure bubbles.
ReplyDeleteIt is our responsibility to bust that bubble and give them the truth of the matter and to enlist them to get out and not only vote themselves but to make sure that other Americans who with to preserve and protect our Republic do also.
Papa Ray
And then, once she ate of it, she couldn’t be alone in her sin, she felt the need to have company in sin.
ReplyDeleteShe already had company in sin. She ate the fruit in the presence of Adam and he said nothing.
Gen 3:6 ...and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Excellent! You must be a calvinist, they're experts at taking the OT out of context to make it mean what they want to mean.
ReplyDeleteNow, as an exercise, my theology instructors used to make me go back and prove myself wrong when I came up with this kind of blather. I doubt you'll do that, because you're too invested in being right; however Adam told Eve, clearly, because God told Adam before Eve was created. Therefore the only way Eve can know is if Adam told her. The only way Adam would eat the fruit would be if Eve misrepresented the fruit as something else, as is clear from the passage.
This is why God sent Paul to the church, a forced conversion on the road to Damascus because the Creator knew that the Church undirected would become a matriarchy, and the Creator knew the tendency of women to be easily deceived, perhaps even wanting to be deceived. And men, out of their love for and trust of the flesh of their flesh, bone of their bone, would be deceived by the women. Paul made certain the early church became a patriarchy so it would not be subject to the fickle faith of women, anxious to listen to the whispered lies of serpents.
Make sure to be offended and disagree violently so you miss the point of this comment. Also be sure to pick it apart word by word so you can prove yourself right and me wrong.
eve.
Adam told Eve, clearly, because God told Adam before Eve was created. Therefore the only way Eve can know is if Adam told her.
ReplyDeleteBut apparently when Adamu told her, he added legalisms of his own, like "Don't even touch it." No doubt if he was given more time, he would have proceeded to teach Hava to not even look at the fruit. Certainly the same process occurred with the traditions of handwashing and how far one can walk on the Shabbat, etc. So by the time the serpent came around, Hava probably had it in her head that the fruit was evil to look at, like a piece of rotten meat ridden with worms and filth. All the Serpent had to do is say, no, look at it, it's just a piece of fruit. And she took a peek. Hey, you're right, it doesn't look half bad. Maybe Adamu was lying. And if he lied about that, maybe it tastes good too. So the story is really about the tragic psychological consequences of legalistic human traditions and encrustations on the plain the simple Word of God.
"But apparently when Adamu told her, he added legalisms of his own"
ReplyDeleteNow we're making shit up so we can cast aspersions on the creator's intent.
Nice.
I hope for you that someday you let go of your pain and anger and hatred long enough to just listen to the word of God, and not spend so much time reading ulterior motives into it. Spend a little less time obsessing about how God is wrong and how everything is fucked up. Maybe you'll hear a little voice, then, if you can turn all the others off.
The Word of God is less a lesson to be learned than a Koan. The understanding comes, certainly, but it is the dwelling on it that heals and calms. Fight with Pascal, fight with me, if you have to- but open yourself to the Creator. leave everything else behind.
"But apparently when Adamu told her, he added legalisms of his own"
ReplyDeleteNow we're making shit up so we can cast aspersions on the creator's intent.
Even Pascal agrees that the precept of not even touching the forbidden fruit is a tradition of men, but he attributes it to Eve rather than Adam.
I agree with you that Eve received her religious instruction from Adam, but it makes sense to me that the additional tradition was added by Adam, not Eve, since she was in the role of a learner, not a teacher.
As for me "fighting" you and Pascal I don't know where you get that, it's not derived purely from a plain reading of my text.
Even Pascal agrees that the precept of not even touching the forbidden fruit is a tradition of men, but he attributes it to Eve rather than Adam.
ReplyDeleteI didn't attribute it to Eve or Adam, but to them as a whole.
The bar on touching was derivative, and it appeared at only the second reference to that test. It raises the question of "how DID the extra measure creep in." That certainly seems like a good exercise for humans to gain self-awareness. I think it's a warning against going overboard. The overly ascetic acolyte for instance makes him more easy prey to be led astray by his own excess.
We already know that claiming "she gave it to me, and YOU gave her to me" is not exculpatory. All suggesting that Adam wasn't really tricked, but was pulling a stunt that God saw through. Maybe it didn't start out premeditated, but the thought crossed his mind after he told Eve, maybe in frustration like one does with a "why" child "Look, don't even touch it!"
I've come up with two reasons Eve would have said "don't even touch it" was the bar. In neither instance did I place the blame entirely on her. She may have been misled, but I suspect she went along with being misled. As for Adam, he may or may not have accidentally misled her, but on second thoughts would not have corrected that error, waiting to see where the misinformation might lead. A testing or probing of his own for his own reasons. It's all so human. I see it, don't you?
Og's point I think is that Paul was chosen because he was a misogynist, and thus likely to keep women in a subservient role, and it's all based upon the Eden story
Og's point I think is that Paul was chosen because he was a misogynist, and thus likely to keep women in a subservient role, and it's all based upon the Eden story.
ReplyDeleteOMG -- No, I am NOT intentionally trolling my own blog. LOL
There's about two more sentences missing from that last paragraph. But I won't insert it now. LOL
"I agree with you that Eve received her religious instruction from Adam, but it makes sense to me that the additional tradition was added by Adam, not Eve, since she was in the role of a learner, not a teacher. "
ReplyDeleteSo, you have a time machine in which you can travel back in time and know what Adam did, or you just think the only way this could have happened was if Adam was an inadequate teacher or uneccesarily embellished?
"It makes sense to me."
if it makes sense to me that Hagar deliberately prevented Sarah from conceiving so Hagar could bear Abrahams firstborn, does that make it true?
Just because something "Makes sense to you" doesn't mean you can rewrite scripture in your image.