Posted on 07/22/2012 12:14:15 PM PDT by wmfights
http://www.aish.com/sp/k/48951781.html
...For the sake of creation, the sparks which began on a very high spiritual level were sent down to the lowest of spiritual levels, a place of great spiritual impurity. To make creation, God drew out exactly as many sparks as He deemed necessary to make creation, and left the remainder for man to utilize as a partner in perfecting creation.
There is not an infinite amount of Holy Sparks in creation. In fact, history is measured by these sparks, and will come to a close when all sparks have been drawn out of the tohu and returned to their holy source Above. It is then — once all the sparks that God has made available to mankind are expended — that by definition the Messianic Period must begin.
How does one use up Holy Sparks? Through the learning of Torah and the performance of mitzvot, Holy Sparks are redeemed, purified, and ascend to Above. Indeed, transgressions also use up Holy Sparks, but in the process the sparks themselves become defiled and require “cleansing” before being able to ascend. The cleansing process comes in the form of either sincere repentance by the transgressor, or through Heavenly-ordained suffering...
I don't claim any special knowledge, but your question struck me, in that I've not heard the topic discussed.
My only offering is to recall Christ's admonition that in order to "receive" the kingdom, one must become like a child.
In terms of knowledge then, and the (future) relationship between a (heavenly) Father and child, I wonder if there is such a thing as returning to a place of relative innocence. And I guess it bears noting that innocence does not necessarily equate to ignorance.
My point is simply that there may be knowledge that is best "unknown". Perhaps you would agree that there are many things we learn in this life - that we would rather NOT know. Essentially (for me anyway) this knowledge falls into the category of the knowing what evil man can inflict upon fellow man - the abhorrent evils of child molestation, etc.
Worse yet, the knowledge of the selfishness (evil) that lies within my own heart.
These things I would rather not know...
I think in the current church age it is God who draws us to our Savior Jesus Christ. So in this age I guess my free will led me to realize that I did not save myself.
I do believe we see dispensations where free will is at work. Adam in the garden choose to eat the fruit after Eve did. At the end of the Millennial Reign of Jesus Christ the descendants of the Tribulation survivors choose to rebel after Satan is let loose. IOW, when given free will (even before the fall) we make the wrong choices. It is truly merciful that God intervenes for us and saves any of us.
And by 325CE, it was promulgated as Dogma.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
You said a mouthful there. It is SO easy to get lost in theological nuance and forget - or worse yet assume - that we are somehow entitled to this mercy.
Which begs a discussion on topic: Why is fear of the Lord the beginning of wisdom?
I asked the question because I don’t see man existing like Adam and Eve, as innocent childlike beings. It would mean a fundamental change of human nature. So long as we are beings of volitional consciousness some will choose evil. Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge which means they could not have been reasoning beings since the purpose of man’s faculty of cognition is to identify that which is right and that which is wrong.
I forgot to add that yes there are things I wish I didn’t know. But I also feel that evil should be acknowledged and faced with eyes wide open and moral judgement must be pronounced against it. I believe that the only true sin is the refusal to think.
One cannot derive purpose or morality from pure reason. IMO.
For instance, most Americans believe all men are equal. This is not a rational POV, of itself. Since every person is different, by definition they are all unequal.
Now I personally believe God created Man, and that we are equal because he created us equal. While I do not believe one can derive this position from the exercise of pure reason, once one accepts it you can derive all other, or at least almost all other, precepts of morality and ethics from it.
In the TV show Star Trek the Vulcans, who were supposed to exist on the plane of pure logic and rationality, had a greeting and farewell of “May you live long and prosper.” Which I always thought was hilarious, since the idea that a long life or prosperity is desirable cannot be derived from pure reason.
Of course reason can be used to work towards irrational ends, or at least immoral ones. We saw a lovely example this week with the CO theater shooting. The perp very obviously designed his attack using a great deal of reason to make it effective.
Perhaps I should turn your question around. Give me a precept of morality that you derive from pure reason and I will try to show you why you are mistaken.
You are quite correct that this is the classical historical Christian position. I believe what the original article is pointing out is precisely that this position is based primarily on imported Greek philosophy rather than on the Bible.
If you disagree, could you point out where in the Bible it states that the Garden or Earth was to be only a temporary period of testing? I know of no such statements.
The Bible itself does not, AFAIK, give us any reason to believe Adam or Eve would have died had they not sinned, or that they would have "promoted" to Heaven.
What happens to knowledge of evil when evil no longer exists?
I'm unclear why you think this is my position. My points have been pretty much limited to wondering where in the Bible it is explained that the permanent home of man from the beginning was intended to be Heaven, with us as spirit creatures.
God of course had created many spirit creatures before he created man. So what was his point in creating material creatures with a plan of promoting them to Heaven? If that was indeed his intention.
Thanks for the ping!
Conscious beings, by definition, have free will. If they don’t, they are merely automatons. And God created beings with free will because he wanted friends, not robots.
The first exercise of free will in the Bible was not Adam’s, it was Satan’s. He exercised his free will to rebel against God.
My theory is that Satan’s challenge to God was that creatures of free will would not choose to serve Him. Christ answered that claim definitively to the contrary.
So after the various events foretold in the Bible, such as the Last Judgment, men and angels will still have free will and therefore the ability to do evil. But IMO God will not have any reason to tolerate it any longer and will rdeal with it accordingly whenever it pops up.
YMMV, and probably does.
Habakkuk says God is of purer eyes then to behold evil. Yet Job offers us God interacting with the Accuser. So we have a problem. CAN God NOT know the evil one -- better than he knows himself?
It seems to me that one way Adam and Eve came to know evil was by experience and commission. That certainly is one sort of knowledge but maybe not the best or fullest sort.
I certainly encounter among the gentiles those who "know" guilt, because, though they may deny it and in some ways be unaware of it, they ARE guilty and they know it. But they know it without hope. To me that suggests that their knowledge is incomplete. They do not know themselves in the light of the redemption wrought by God in Christ. Nor do they really know evil in the context and fuller light provided to those who have turned themselves over to God.
A "bad guy" may "know" with intimacy the back alleys and filth of the urban combat zone where he works, but does he understand them, their being and meaning, as well as the angels or even a halfway decent social worker?
Put it another way: When I am asleep, in one way I know sleep best of all. But I do not know sleep as well as a sleep scientist, who not only sleeps but when he is awake he inquires deeply into what sleep is.
Waking understands both sleeping and waking. Sleeping understands neither. Holiness understands profanity better than profanity understands holiness.
Heck! If all the music I hear is rap and hip-hop, I may distinguish between good and not so good rap and hip-hop. But if my ears are ever opened to hear Bach, then, I think I can know more about rap and hip-hop than I did when they were all I knew.
The knowledge the serpent offered was knowledge that hampers knowing.
As to the inclination to evil and freedom -- and pardon the sexism: Suppose two women are before me, one a ravaged meth whore who will tolerate me if I will allow her to devour my money in her addiction, the other a lovely, wise, virtuous, and pious woman who loves me with the spousal love that seeks my good and the good of the relationship.
If I have ANY inclination toward the junkie, it seems to me it must be because I neither see nor understand what she is. Therefore my inclination arises from an unknowing will lacking in understanding. Such a will is not free.
But the clearer my vision and the deeper my understanding, the more I will be drawn by the good and beautiful woman and the more I will give consent to that attraction. In this case, appetite and reason work together to help me see and choose the good. I can entertain, as a mere proposition, the idea of pursuing the junkie, but it does not draw me, BECAUSE my will is so free it no longer can be drawn by evil.
All this is to reflect on what it might mean to "know good and evil" and to be free.
In hope, I foresee a time when, by God's grace, I will know and understand the evil in my heart FAR better than I do now and will marvel and thrill at the great redemption which God undertook to rescue me from it.
If I understand your analysis correctly, based upon your understanding of God, then God expects us to do certain things for Him in order for us to receive His favor. This view is certainly different from the Protestant view that believes God is present to help us and He neither seeks nor wants our help. He only wants us to acknowledge Him.
Man was created to obey G-d's commandments. That is the purpose of our existence. It isn't something we do to "work our way into Heaven." It's simply something we do because we have been commanded. G-d is gracious to reward our efforts and just to punish our sins, but the commandments are an end in themselves.
By obeying G-d's commandments we bring holiness into the physical world. By disobeying we destroy holiness. Every commandment we obey unleashes unseen spiritual forces in the world; every sin we commit does the opposite.
The sole purpose for the creation the the physical world (when G-d could merely have created spiritual worlds) and a creature in G-d's image (free will) was this: letaqqen `olam bemalkhut Shaqqay (to rectify the world in the Kingdom of the A-mighty). This is very different from the beliefs of any chrstian church, Protestant or otherwise, but this is what it's all about nevertheless.
So I understood.
If you disagree, could you point out where in the Bible it states that the Garden or Earth was to be only a temporary period of testing? I know of no such statements.
Neither do I. As a Fundamentalist Protestant converting to Catholicism I was told none of this because Catholics assume that Fundamentalist Protestants believe exactly the same thing: that life on earth (even for the sinless Adam) was a prelude to the "beatific vision." My whole point was that no one seems to be discussing this point of contention and that Fundamentalist Protestants have no conception of "heaven" apart from man's creation in paradise.
The Bible itself does not, AFAIK, give us any reason to believe Adam or Eve would have died had they not sinned, or that they would have "promoted" to Heaven.
As I have said, I agree with you. Thus another reason for my being unable to remain Catholic beyond six years or so. This issue is so fundamental, yet so invisible, that no one talks about it or even knows it exists. Catholics thing Protestants believe Adam was destined for a non-earthly "beatific vision" and Protestants think Catholics believe that without sin all mankind would live immortally on an unspoiled paradise earth.
Thank you, jjotto!
The beatific vision, hinted at in I John, is thought to be the fulfillment of all man's longings, the happiness for which he was made.
Also, if nobody died and everybody obeyed the command to be fruitful and multiply, where you gonna put ‘em?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.