Whether or not we are currently suffering from human-made climate change, it has always struck me as odd that any Christian would outright deny we have the power to affect the earth in this fashion. While I believe, despite data being manipulated by all sides of the issue, that modern industrialization has had a significant impact on our climate, I also believe that the full story has yet to be told. Scientists observe the empirical data and give an adequate, but incomplete, analysis of the situation. Why incomplete? Because the hermeneutic used to interpret the data is metaphysically naïve, and ignores the spiritual crisis which has led to our ecological disaster.
The Holy Scriptures, in whatever fashion one wants to interpret them, presents to us the fact that humanity has a profound amount of power and influence over the earth and all that is on it. When humanity found itself in a state of purity, the world was paradise. When we fell into sin, the world became a world of conflict, a world filled with death. Indeed, we find in Scripture that there is a relationship between natural disasters and sin, and this was a fundamental point which the prophets used to understand human history.[1]
But there can be no greater scriptural example of this principle than that of original sin and the fall of humanity in Adam. We are told of the paradise he lived in before the fall; the world was in perfect harmony and order. He did not have to struggle for survival. The world was working for him even as he was working for the betterment of the world (exemplified by the notion that he was giving names to the animals of the world). After Adam sinned, the situation drastically changed. The world was no longer the utopian paradise he had first lived in. It stopped serving him and his every need. Through sin, the ecological system has been shown to be fundamentally changed. Indeed, the power of entropy entered into the ecosystem because humanity now was embraced by death. Life was to continue, but now humanity must struggle in order to survive; the world had become “cursed” due to human sin:
And to Adam he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, `You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return’ (Genesis 3:17 – 19).
What can we say about this original sin? If one looks closely, an argument could be made for each of the eight deadly sins to have been involved with its execution, showing how each of those sins can, in their own way, degrade the earth.[2] Each tempted Adam and can be seen as working together as Adam gave in to the serpent’s temptation and partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil – he gave in to his gluttonous appetite by eating it, an excess which was not his to eat; he gave in to his lust, his inordinate desire, and satisfied it with the fleeting pleasure of the fruit before he found himself in the bitter terror of sin; his greed led him to want what God possessed, thinking he could and should possess it as well; his anger at Eve made him too hot-headed to think about what it was that he was going to do when he took of the fruit himself; in despair, thinking he would never progress beyond the spiritual state he was created in, he took the short cut offered to him, thinking he could attain instant deification; this despair would not have been easily provoked if he did not have an element of sloth, where he wanted to achieve his goal simply and quickly without the right work and labor for it; his pride made him think he was worthy of the fruit he desired, and his taking of the fruit can be seen as a kind of boast, telling God “I am ready whether or not you think I am” when he was not.
Sin continues to interfere with the natural harmony of the world, creating the defiled conditions in which nature itself is perverted. It is easier to see the effects we have upon the world in some ways more than others, where the effect is far more obvious and direct, such as in a case when industrial waste is carelessly thrown into a lake leading to the destruction of all life in that lake. One might ask what kinds of sins could be involved with such an activity. Is it really an issue of sin? If we look to the root causes as to why someone would throw such toxins into a lake, usually we find elements of greed (it is cheaper to do this) and sloth (it is easier to do this) are involved. While we can show an immediate correlation here between the cause and the effect, we must not assume all causalities are so simple to ascertain.
All that exists in the world have various interdependent relationships with one another. The way things interact with each other are often not readily apparent. An individual action, however insignificant in and of itself, might combine with others, slowly leading to a great effect. Each cannot be said to directly lead to the effect, but without each of them, the effect would not exist. One sin might seem to do little harm to the world; but when that one sin is combined with a billion others doing the same thing, the impact will be quite different, and often not understood or rejected by those who want to excuse their sin. In this way, the argument “I’m not doing any harm” might appear to be correct, but it is only looking to immediate, direct harm one is doing, ignoring the long term consequences of one’s actions as they mix with the actions of others. Sin has a corrosive effect upon the people who sin and upon the world, and it is for this reason why no sin can be said to be “harmless” (though, to be sure, some sins are far graver than others, and the harm produced by one can be much greater than the harm of another).
Looking into Western consumerism, it has, like all cultures, some good associated with it, the kind which is used to justify its existence (for example, the concepts of freedom and tolerance which has formed in Western culture), while it also has various sins which it tempts of its people more than others (such as gluttony greed, lust, and pride). Looking at the kinds of sins associated with consumerism, it is easy to see they are the kinds which will slowly have an effect on the world at large. It is because they are not easily satisfied, and so consumerism finds new ways to appeal to them, with new resources being used in each occasion. These sins when brought into the consumer world require excessive resources to be met. They also encourage, through lust, the disregard to moral concerns. It is not just sexuality that lust affects, but the whole person, and the way in which they deal with the passions. Consumerism entices us through lust, and it tells us to give in to the demands of our desires; morality is determined not according to goodness, but pleasure.
While using up one of the things of the earth might not have any immediate adverse effects, the constant use of goods by a multitude of people will have a different result. The world changes one abuse at a time. Let us look, for example, at deforestation. If the trees in a forest are used one by one, the slow destruction of the forest will produce a slow change in the local environment. For example, when the trees are no longer there, erosion becomes a major concern. When the forest itself is gone, more than the trees will be gone; trees help keep in the water; without them, the place can easily dry up. And if one area, once rich with water, has dried up, the effect this will have on bordering areas should be obvious – it is easy to see how this can create a region-wide drought. More importantly, the forest and its immediate environs might slowly change from the fertile, rich land, to a desert, unless something is done to help bring back the water.
The problem of deforestation is, of course, merely one example of how humanity can wreck havoc on the environment, and it is an example which can be readily verified. It shows us how consumption can have a tremendous impact on a region, leading to great negative changes. The problem with the exploration of the world and its overall climate change, however, is that we are not dealing merely with the question of forestation, but in the combined effects of human consumption and the changes it produces on the earth. People who deny this change look to short term, immediate consequences, thinking it proves there is no harm being done; but we should be stewards of the earth and examine the potential long term impact our activity has not just for ourselves, but upon the future of humanity. There is, of course, a difference between use and abuse, but one must be careful not to assume an action is not an abuse because there is no immediately noticeable effect from that action. Consumerism encourages one to consume – to keep using what is available, and it continues only as long as people want to consume and have things to consume. If people are able to live simpler lives without the need for constant consumption, our culture will be changed. As it stands, our culture encourages people to give in to their desires; is there any wonder as to why people sin? If people learn to deny themselves, they will slowly stop being consumers. But this is exactly what we must do. Christians are called to deny themselves, to overcome the passions. In this way, we can not accept the foundations of a consumer mindset.
However, if someone really questions the effect of our sins upon the world, and its ability to transform it, to make it worse, all they need to do is explore traditional worldly eschatology: the world is said to end in the time of humanity’s greatest era of sin. Sin is seen to increase in the world, causing more and more harm to the world, until at last it is so great, the world itself can no longer last.
Now, this is not to say that any era in which there is great sin and great destruction that we have reached the end of time: history shows that people often became aware of the relationship between their actions and sin, and repented, turning back the doomsday clock. Indeed, this should give us hope that we can fix things. If the cause of the devastation is our sinful use of the earth, then if we change our ways, the earth can be healed. But to do so we must repent and reject those lines of thought which promote sin. There must be no question here. When the environment is out of balance, the Christian response should not be to deny human responsibility, but to proclaim it and use it as cause for social metanoia. We must see it as a warning to us and to the world: repent. If we do not, then we must accept, with shame, that the judgment of God is at hand.
[1] Thus we find Scripture showing us God’s judgment is expressed through natural disasters. Cf., for example, Gen 6-9; Isaiah 8:7; Ezek 13:13 14. Paul follows through with this idea by saying the world has been subjected to futility because of sin. Rom 8:20. Now we do not have to think of this as though God is directly intervening through natural disasters (but he can if he so desires); rather, the point is that the natural system itself is affected by our sin, and the natural harmony, being disrupted by sin, slowly reveals that disturbance through such disasters. Spirit and matter are interdependent realities, and what happens in one will have an effect in the other.
[2] The Western tradition has seven deadly sins, the Eastern eight, but this is because the West has merged two (vainglory and pride) together as one. They are: gluttony, lust, avarice, anger, despair, sloth, vainglory and pride. Cf. St John Cassian, The Conferences. Trans. Boniface Ramsey, O.P. (New York: Paulist Press, 1997), 183.
Henry, A friend of mine who is a woman asked me today why there are only two women at the top of this web site.
She was afraid to ask. Why didn’t the man recognize the woman as Eve until he had the knowledge of good and evil? Why is the earth known as Mother Earth? Why do we not know how to take care of her just as we do not know how to care for women? Why does Gottman’s research at the University of WA point out that one of the traits of a strong marriage is that the woman has more influence over the man especially in the area of teaching the man empathy?
Empathy not only is expressed with human beings, but with all of creation. This note did not sound friendly now that I read it. It is the end of a long day and I state everything with the utmost respect.
Simply, “progress”, so-called, is destroying the earth(land, air, water, vegetation, creatures) and perverting that which is Spirit(Light, Life, Truth, Love, Peace, Hope, Grace, Miracles, Faith, etc.) ;-(
And The Creator(G-D, Father,Spirit) has promised that HE would “destroy those who destroy the earth(HIS Creation)!” (Rev11:18c)
Yet there is a Living, Lively Hope!
However, such Hope is not for that which is of the earth, earthly and fleshly, but there is a Living, Lively Hope for that which is Spirit, Heavenly and Spiritual.
Hope for that which is Spirit is Alive because “progress”, which is the product of mankind’s “imag”ination, can pervert, yet not destroy that which is Spirit! For that which is Spirit is Real, and only that which is Real is Forever!
So no matter how perverse this world’s systems of religion become, that which is Spirit can only be abused and perverted, not destroyed!
That which is Spirit is Eternal…….
And as for that which is called “religion”?
Pure religion and undefiled before G-D The Father is this, to visit the fatherless (those children who know not their Father, HE WHO is The Only True G-D, Father{Creator} of ALL) and widows(those who have not “experienced The Messiah and The Power{Our Father} that raised Him from among the dead”) in their affliction and to keep oneself uncontaminated by the world…….” (James 1:27)
Simply, all other religion is impure and defiled, and so it is that those who are of this world, those who are “contaminated by this world” are destroying the earth…….
And notice that “pure and undefiled” religion is of “oneself(individual)”, a Brother or Sister doing The Will of Our Father, led of The Holy, Set Apart, Spirit…….
Corporate “religion” is pagan, and of this wicked world(babylon)…….
And “Brothers and Sisters” is not “religion”, for what are Brothers and Sisters if not Family? Would not The Family of The Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL, known by many(yet experienced by few) as “The Body of The Messiah” be joined in Spirit as One? And would not such a Family be much closer than any natural, fleshly family?
What is declared to be “religion” today is truly the devil’s playground…….
Simply, Faith will not create a system of religion…….
As stated previously, “that which is called “”progress” is of mankind’s “imag”ination and can pervert, yet not destroy, that which is Spirit”, and so it is that this world, and it’s systems of religion, have their version of “Light”, which can be turned on and off;
Their version of “Truth”, which is of the “imag”ination;
Their version of “Love”, which should be called lust;
Their version of “Peace”, which needs be enforced;
Their version of “Hope”, which is but a desire for temporal “things”;
Their version of “Faith”, which is powerless;
Their version of “Grace”, which is the liberty to “do your own thing”;
And sadly, the favorite color of this world’s religion is gray ;-(
So come out of the shadows! And as is said by many, “Get Real”!
Once again, “only that which is Real is Forever, and only that which is Spirit is Real”!
Hope is there would be those who “see” that The Life is in and of The Spirit.
Those who “see” will no longer have their portion with the multitudes who are destroying the earth(water, air, land, creatures, vegetation) and perverting that which is Spirit(Light, Life, Truth, Love, Peace, Hope, Faith, Grace, Mercy, etc.) ;-(
Simply, each breath(Spirit) you take is a revelation of The Source of Life.
And “A Simple and Spiritual Life is the only Life that will survive!”
Forever…….
So “set your affections on Heavenly things” and be not of those “whose god is their bellies because they mind earthly things”. Be not of those who “love this world and it’s things” and who are “progress”ively destroying the earth(land, air, water, vegetation, creatures) and perverting that which is Spirit(Light, Life, Truth, Love, Peace, Hope, Faith, Grace, etc.)…….
Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(no-peace) that is of this world and it’s systems of religion, for “the WHOLE(not just a portion) world is under the control of the evil one” (1John5:19) indeed and Truth…….
Truth is never ending…….
Why didn’t the man recognize the woman as Eve until he had the knowledge of good and evil?
Interesting question. Is it maybe because Eve does not really become Adam’s wife — and “the mother of all things” — until after the Fall? Were Adam and Eve going to have children in Eden?
David, It seems they did not “know” each other in Eden. Could they “know” each other in an environment in which they have everything given to them except wisdom? Could they appreciate what they had if they did not know the absence of what they had? Could they relate to creation from the womb of the Garden? Could they truly love if they do not experience separation from security? Was it Carol King who wrote “You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone…”? I love exploring these mysteries rather than the traditional answers.
Such questions stoke the fires of mankind’s “imag”ination, and mankind’s “imag”ination is destroying Creation(water, land, air, vegetation, creatures) and perverting that which is Spirit(Truth, Light, Life, Peace, Love, Faith, Wisdom,,,, all that is Truly Good) ;-(
Francis, you have expressed Truth that paints with a broad brush but your perception about the substance of my questions comes from your imagination.
Simply sad for you and all others who yet seek to feed their “intellect”, which is but another term for “imag”ination ;-(
I see you do not want to know me and would rather judge based on your imagination.
Ronald,
I thought Francis’ comments were more than a little odd as well; I originally deleted the first and hard it restored, hoping that some good conversation could be had (but I think Francis’ writing patterns indicate this is not likely).
As for the questions you have brought forth — well, I think there are many levels and layers to the story in Genesis and each need to be considered in its own way. There is I think a “historical core” behind the myth, though it is hard to get at (and not, of course, the same as saying the book is empirical history following Enlightenment ideas of history). But the importance is not the “history” as much as the symbolism, of which I think patristics understood more than most moderns, because this was the way they looked at the world far more than us in the modern world (even those of us who appreciate symbol). Third, I do think there is something Sophiological behind this story — this area, of course, is difficult, and even harder to get people to appreciate (though I think the Sophiological principle is found in all religions, hence the idea of the ‘Mother of all Buddha’s in Buddhism).
I was sick for most of last week, recovering (though still with sniffles even today) and so my “output” and response have been and will be for sometime “slower” than usual and “less” than what I would otherwise like. However, because you like this side questions, you might like (if you can find it) Divine Sophia: the Wisdom Writings of Vladimir Solovyov which I think will start to take on the more esoteric, mystical elements of the Christian faith (and a good introduction to Christian Sophiology, though Solovyov, being a ‘founder’ also needed some correctives, which later Sophiologists did).
One important thing to remember about Genesis is that it is an edited work combining a number of different sources, and unless your position is that the editing was divinely inspired and conveys a perfectly coherent message intended by God, the fact that the text was pieced together from a number of different sources has to be taken into account in interpreting its meaning.
One thing I find interesting is that the serpent is telling the truth when he tempts Eve. The serpent tells Eve that if she and Adam eat the forbidden fruit, they will be like gods, knowing what is good and bad.
When God becomes aware of what has happened, he confirms what the serpent said in words very close to the serpent’s.
Dare one suggest that God had not been entirely honest when he said Adam and Eve would die if they ate the forbidden fruit? Here are three translations of his words, from the NAB, the RSV, and the JPS (Jewish Publication Society):
The NAB translation seems to leave open the possibility that Adam and Eve are setting in motion a course of events which will lead to their eventual death through the loss of a chance at immortality. But the other translations basically say that if Adam and Eve eat the fruit, it will kill them on the spot. But in fact they don’t die from eating the fruit, which confirms that the serpent was telling them the truth when he said they would not die.
It seems to me that until their disobedience, God was dealing with Adam and Eve as children. He did not explain why they must not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, because they were incapable of understanding it. So he told them they would die if they ate the forbidden fruit.
The Fall is about loss of innocence, but it seems to me that in order for there to be human history, the loss was necessary, otherwise the human race would be a race of children — if there would have been a human race at all. The story of Adam and Eve, unlike the other story in Genesis about the creation of humans, doesn’t seem to imply that Adam and Eve, before the fall, were going to have children (or were going to live forever).
If it had not been for their disobedience, Adam and Eve would have remained childlike creatures in Eden, unequipped to deal with the “real world.”
I have to acknowledge here that while I believe the story of Adam and Eve may tell us something about the human condition, I don’t believe it is in any way historical or even a figurative account of historical events, and I don’t believe that all humans descended from two individuals whose actions affected the fate of the entire human race.
Thanks Henry. I truly believe that the mystical elements of faith are ignored by the leaders and the masses beyond the obvious dogmatic proclamations and consequently a rigidity of perception and beliefs develops which inhibits believers from delving deeper into the mystery of God’s Love.
In relationships, when we look beyond the obvious differences of the superficial manifestations, we find that it is likes that attract one another. These likes have in common core beliefs about self, others and the world. These core beliefs construct the foundation of one’s identity and this identity is cemented in place through the primitive limbic system in the brain whose language is symbolic and its influence is devoted to maintaining the integrity of the construct of self, others and the world. The glue that holds this together is the neurochemistry and hardwiring of the survival structures in the limbic system which are instinctive in nature. One of the areas identified as critical in social learning is the amygdala which is involved in learning fear. By the age of 24 the chemical which enhances learning(NMDA) greatly decreases in production. Therefore, new emotional learning is extremely difficult and consequently it is difficult to change one’s conditioned patterns of thought and problem-solving style.
Humility and God(love) are critical all along the developmental path. The extent to which we experience and interpret the mystical elements of our faith in our adulthood is influenced by the hardwire and the love we receive in those early developmental years. So when I see rigidity I think of loss of love and fear and one’s love of God being influenced by unresolved fear and anger associated with less than loving human beings.
Once again thank you Henry.
David
You mention several things; I will only briefly discuss them one by one — because there is good in what you say, but also confusion as to the Christian interpretation.
First, yes, Genesis (as with much of Scripture) is edited together, collecting material from several sources. But we must remember this is exactly what Catholics have always said about Holy Scriptures. Though we detect more of the synthetic elements of the book than people before did, is there anything odd or wrong to think there is a spiritual guidance going in in the development of Scripture and its selection of sources from many different and diverse groups? To me there is not.
Second, there was a lie, but like all lies, it is based upon truth and its perversion; here it is equivocation upon the word knowledge. The knowledge of evil that humanity has is the knowledge of being engulfed by evil, which is different from the omniscience of God. Indeed, the knowledge of evil in the human sense is actually an euphemism for defiled knowledge, which is ignorance based upon the distortions of consciousness that comes about through sin. We know evil by reifying it and giving it a false objective existence which then becomes the mediation by which the world is known. Then is the question who is it that God is talking to by saying “like us,” and I think some authors have suggested “those in the heavens” in which there has been a knowledge of evil because of the fall (though I am not certain on this, been sometime since I’ve read/studied commentary on this verse). But many authors then think that death is a boon in the fallen modality of consciousness due to the fall, because it puts a limit to evil.
Many sources point out that if there had been no fall, they would have grown, but without the accompanying growth of evil with the growth of consciousness. In the way of the world, Baudrillard points out that good and evil grow together, and this imo, is because of the fall; humanity would have been equipped to handle the world — would have grown in consciousness, but without the defilements (recognized as original sin and concupiscence).
Henry and David, I do not know if you can do this Henry or if you would want to do this David, but, I would like you, David, to have my email address so that we can communicate directly in more detail.
Would the man and the woman even know what disobedience is unless they were to learn it by the consequences of experience? Could it be that the interpretation of “disobedience” is the consequence of death coming later in human relationships?
One more thing I failed to mention. We do know that childhood abuse and/or threat of harm will influence gene expression. The amygdala becomes larger in the presence of a consistent threat and creates a hypersensitivity to the threat of harm to oneself or another. We do know that the amygdala is larger in women than in men.
Looking at the garden experience there would be no threat until the man became aware of evil. What is interesting is that the woman did not react until the man reacted. Their reaction also indicates that they did not know God as an omniscient and omnipresent being. It also indicates that they did not know Him as a loving being. The shock of their awakening would result in a gene expression making them more sensitive to every feeling and behavior that may seemingly separate them further from the security they now experienced as being lost. This in turn would influence fear to enter their relationship and thus being passed down to the first born and diminishing the experience of love he was constructed to receive. In psychoanalytic terms this is known as the “basic fault” which influences one to believe that he or she is made wrong. Actually, this is transgenerational shame.
The accumulation of material and status starts right there in Genesis as the source of one’s value and survival both emotionally and physically.
Though we detect more of the synthetic elements of the book than people before did, is there anything odd or wrong to think there is a spiritual guidance going in in the development of Scripture and its selection of sources from many different and diverse groups?
Henry,
If there is such a thing as divine inspiration in writing an original document than there could certainly be divine inspiration in the assembly and editing material from multiple sources. However, in interpreting such works, I think it is necessary to take into account that it was indeed compiled and edited and even may contain errors made by the original editor. Also, the text we have is obviously not the original and may have been corrupted. This is true of Genesis or of the Gospels
Ronald alluded to Genesis 3:20 (“The man called his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all the living.”) The NAB says in a footnote: “This verse seems to be out of place; it would fit better after Genesis 3:24. The Hebrew name hawwa (‘Eve’) is related to the Hebrew word hay (‘living’).” What I am saying is that one might make a case about how meaningful it is that Genesis 3:20 comes exactly where it does, and one might possibly be right. But it is also possible that somewhere along the line, either in the original editing or the manuscript transmission, the verse got misplaced.
I sometimes wonder if way too much isn’t read into things like the story of Adam and Eve (and particularly into Genesis 3:15, the so-called protoevengelium). To the extent that the story is figurative — and I take it to be very figurative — it doesn’t make a great deal of sense to say what might have happened had Adam and Eve not sinned. (Of course, I made a conjecture about that myself.) In reality, Adam and Eve didn’t sin, because Adam and Eve are not historical characters. They are fictional characters in a figurative account of the origin of the human race.
The Church maintains that the human race originated with two individuals, but it does not maintain (to the best of my knowledge) that we know who these individuals were or what they did. It does not maintain that they lived in an idyllic garden and that a serpent tempted them to eat forbidden fruit, for which they were expelled from the garden. It does not even make sense to say the serpent was Satan, since the serpent is also a fictional character.
It seems to me a lot of thinking about Genesis is influenced by centuries and centuries of reflection on the story during which it was considered to be literally true. The Church now says, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.” That makes very little concession to modern science, but it does seem to me to indicate that there was not (or at least no one is bound to believe) there were two individuals who were tempted by Satan in the form of a snake and ate forbidden fruit, realized they were naked, and were expelled from Eden.
For me, the symbolism represents the development of human self-awareness as it begins with the development of identity and the influence of the drives for self-knowledge through the attraction to the other and in that attraction the overwhelming effect of innate animal instincts and drives as they surface to the unsuspecting naive and innocent human beings. It is filled with the dynamics of interpersonal and intrapersonal experience based on ignorance which is the spark of fear. It is in that fear that human relationships are damaged, but, until the proper conceptual structure is formed to begin to understand those dynamics the instincts of fear based emotions dominates and begins to alter gene expression so as to increase the chances for survival in a violent world.
God influence in the scripture is filtered through the human awareness of fear and thus is expressed and read at the most primitive level of spiritual development.
When God told the man that he would die if he ate of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil could that message have been figurative also since the rest of the story is figurative. What happens when we lose our innocence? There is a shock of awakening into self-awareness. My first memory of the awakening was age 3, looking at my body lying on a small bed crying, and my mother and my aunt attempting to comfort me. I was observing this from above. Years later, when I told them this memory, they told me that I had started crying the moment their father died in the next room.
What is interesting for me when thinking about this is the awareness that I was not suffering within my body as yet and perhaps this meant that I did not have the hardwiring in my brain at that time to become aware in the physical sense. The soul may need a fully wired brain to experience the physical world consciously. The next moment of awakening was about a year later when my gold fish died. When that fish died I died to my innocence. I was now connected to my body through the self-awareness of pain. My identity was now being reformed with the influence of the senses and the genetic history of everyone who came before me. It is comparable to reincarnation and this can happen daily in which we die and are reborn.
When this takes place with the integration of painful experiences and feelings it causes an identity crisis and for a period of time there is a regression into a state of confusion and fear as the person begins to cope with the shock of overwhelming stimulation that had not been experienced previously. What helps is when a knowledgeable person guides the innocent through the pain in a loving way. God did this in the story when He made them clothing or what may be seen as defense mechanisms against the intrusion of unwanted and overwhelming knowledge and feelings. When these defense mechanisms are functioning they do protect a person from feeling vulnerable, but, they also inhibit the full expression of love and create a sense of being disconnected from others.
It is my belief that there was no other way for human beings to be in a mature relationship with God than through this process of being created in the image of God. The ‘image’ would be ‘like’ God and thus would want to know the world that was ‘imagined’.