RE: [gthomas] Adam Reconsidered (Amy)
- At 12:28 PM 04/06/00 -0700, Amy Clark wrote:
> We have the advantage of looking back on Adam, either as a historicalActually, I look at the story of Adam and Eve as a sort of early
> or symbolic figure, and learning from him, knowing that certain
> actions could have certain consequences, or cause and effect.
Brothers-Grimm children's fairy tale, whose moral is suspiciously akin to
"obey your father", and whose explanation of how things first started is
roughly on a par with the stork theory of childbirth. If there hadn't been
so much thought devoted to it so long after its usefulness and relevance
had so obviously passed, we wouldn't believe that there could have been.
The "shelf-life" of an "inspired" book is just unbelievable! I bet Steve
Davies wishes his books were considered even a little bit as "inspired" -
then we wouldn't have to go to his website to read his Thomas book. <g>
>It is vanity for us to ever assume that we can know theI'm not sure what you mean here. Is it any more "vanity" for us to "assume"
>true implications of Thomas's words.
that we can know the "true implications" of Plato's words - or Paul's? Or
is it because Thomas declares itself to be esoteric?
>I believe the objective is to interpret the words so that we can learn fromAgain, I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you mean that GThom was written
>them in our own individual ways, as the ascetics did.
with the specific intent of causing folks to puzzle over it? Both Robert
and I would probably agree with you on that. In fact, we had a discussion
of this issue back around Jan 20th. You may want to look it up in the
back-messages at eGroups.