The story of Creation and the Garden of Eden is well-travelled ground for the Christians (and some non-Christians) in the Manosphere. I want to discuss an aspect of it that I have never realized before last night, and have never seen discussed–though I might have just missed it. Each part is a really short bit that isn’t talked about in scripture explicitly, but is unavoidable once you see it between the lines. By unavoidable, I do not mean that I have the answer, but that it is a question that should definitely be asked.
One of the ways in which the stories of the Bible, and the parables of Jesus, are so good is because they are the field in which new treasures are always being found.
44 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.”
This is part 1 of a series in digging for what is under the surface.
1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
God makes the universe including what would become the Earth; then light, and separates the light from the darkness, creating day and night. And these are good.
Why darkness first? Not too far from now, nearly everything good is going to be described in terms of light; while darkness will represent evil. This description is utterly pervasive in human thought, and therefore seems unavoidably part of God’s design. If God wants a good universe–and in the near future a good Earth, good things on it, and good people–why does He start from a position where we would describe everything as inherently bad? Why isn’t the universe luminous from the beginning?
Love through the object of man had not yet entered? Wait…I just objectified men. And I was ok with it!
I think so. In the Beginning He was the I Am. Alone.
I don’t really have a solid answer to this question, but it feels important to me. I definitely think it is supposed to inform us of the nature of the situation we find ourselves in; not just the current condition, but the overall human condition. Surely, if any of us found ourselves utterly alone, we would find it very unfair. Yet God does not and cannot worry about that. Who would hear Him?
The post I set out to write has now become part 4 or 5 of the series. As I looked at the surrounding text, I was suddenly aware of many more meaningful holes than I had thought.
…what of A: Trinitarian self-sufficiency, and B: divine timelessness?
Both are unrelated to what an initial universe without man, or some sentient, would be. God is self-sufficiently love but the initial creation wouldn’t be.
Re: Trinitarian self-sufficiency
I think GKC’s generally right, but I wondered about that too–which is really to wonder at the nature of the Trinity itself. Their roles themselves carry an assumption that God the Father (before time? before before time?) was Himself quiet, and the Word not yet spoken. But the Holy Spirit is there, moving over the face of the waters–yet that is who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The poverty of the mortal perspective…
And I’ll insert here this is armchair theology…I can if I have some time pass this on to some real theologians of the Catholic variety.
Definitely armchair theology.
Pingback: A SERIES OF NEGATIVES ON INHERENT UNFAIRNESS, PART II « Things that We have Heard and Known
I updated the prologue on each of these posts to point out that this is almost all armchair theology. It’s the question I think is important, which will become evident pretty soon.
Pingback: A Series of Negatives on Inherent Unfairness, Part III « Things that We have Heard and Known
Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You: I Have Arrived | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
Pingback: A Series of Negatives on Inherent Unfairness, Part IV « Things that We have Heard and Known
Pingback: A Series of Negatives on Inherent Unfairness, Part V | Things that We have Heard and Known
Pingback: A Series of Negatives on Inherent Unfairness, Part VI | Things that We have Heard and Known