27 Feb '06 14:04>1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerOnly three points, none in real disagreement:
I personally read Genesis in a way that supports the "fallen world" scenario, but it is by no means a teaching of the Church (the Church has simply never addressed the issue).
My take is that all instances of natural evil are consequences of moral evil - we just don't know how they are connected.
(1) I think the “fallen world” scenario can be read into the Genesis account, as a mythological attempt to make the connection. I just don’t read it that way.
(2) I think at least some of the kabbalists read the shevirah ha’kellim as a tale of “how things came to be the way they are” with regard to the natural realm as well as the moral realm.
(3) The only problem I have—from a viewpoint of mythological understanding, now (“true myth,” if you wish)—with the moral evil => natural evil scenario is when it leads to “blaming the victim,” either in terms of particular cases or humanity in general. (I did note your statement eschewing a “blame the victim” position, so I’m not accusing you of it; KneverKnight did catch me on it, with regard to humanity in general, in my Noah midrash from the Zohar some time back.) I do think such a conception pushes the envelope of tikkun more strongly into care and mending of the natural world—and so, from that aspect, I can see a certain richness to it.
EDIT: I didn't see Freaky's post before I posted this. I think Paul could be a masterful midrashist; he certainly came out of that tradition. Freaky reads it, I think, as revelation; he knows I do not. However, I cannot fault Christians for reading the Hebrew Scriptures through a Christian lense--even when I disagree with the reading. 🙂