Paradise Lost

[Beren3000]

Ok,here are my thoughts:
I don't see why you can't logically come to the conclusion that God exists. However, I think that both theories can be reconciled easily. Maybe people jump to that conclusion because God already set His knolwedge in their hearts.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But why would they "come up with" the gods that people typically come up with? Personally, I'd "come up with" a god that only wants to make me happy, and overlooks when I do wrong, and isn't giving me everything I want right now because he's not all-powerful, but he will do it someday.

The Greeks in fact came up with gods "to make them happy". Bacchus is one of the most poignant examples: he's the god of wine, so on his feast day (the Bacchanalia) the Greeks would drink themselves blind and commit all sorts of lewd acts: rape, murder and what have you...
Not good enough? Zeus himself is a god to make the Greeks happy. His escapades are legendary: Diane, Lydia, Europa, etc... certainly that is a figure many men can identify with and relate to. A god you can relate to is a god that makes you happy.
Among the Ancient Egyptians' religious beliefs is that Egypt is the sky's image on earth and they strove to make it more so. I think they compared the Nile to the Milky Way or something, and what's really amazing, if you draw a line through the three stars known as Orion's belt, you'll find that the thrid star deviates from that line a little bit. If you do the same with an aerial photo of the three pyramids, you find the exact same situation: a line running straight through the centers of the first two, while the thrid deviates from that line a little bit. Even the pyramids' relative sizes reflect these three stars' relative brightness. Anyway, I drifted , my point is: they created these beliefs because it made them feel proud and important.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

and overlooks when I do wrong

I disagree with you there. People who "invent" gods must be very romantic and very meditative people. They should also be wise (or at least you'd think so!). So these people would see the justice of creating a belief system where the wrong-doers are punished and the Dudley do-rights go to heaven. If they should refrain from sin in the process, why not? It'll make things more orderly and elegant.

Anyway, here's my thought about the Tree:
God forbade to Adam and Eve the fruit of the Tree of knowledge (I knew He couldn't have forbidden the Tree itself, but bear with me please!), so considering the metaphor in this statement, God forbids us the fruit of knowledge not knowledge itself. That fruit being, as I said earlier, a godhead and a feeling of equality with God or even a complete denial of God's existence. So I would say that it's okay to pursue knowledge with moderation, keeping God in sight always. As to scientific curiosity that prods people to pursue knowledge, well we have the promise that that's going to be satisfied in Heaven. Paul mentioned something to that effect in his letter to the Hebrews, I think (Sorry can't find the CD with the English version of the Bible right now, so I can't post the exact quote).
After all, science can't be that bad, Einstein once said: "The more I observe the universe, the more I believe in a higher power." (or something close to that).

From one of your earlier posts:

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I would say one of the main reasons is in John 3:19,

You were talking about a reason why atheism is thriving right now. However, I looked that up and found the verse when Jesus tells the Pharisees that he can destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days. Explanation, please?

P.S. Get well soon!

EDIT: Brownjenkins, you're welcome to join in the discussion
I think both of you (brownjenkins and RÃ*an) would also enjoy discussion in The Da Vinci Code thread in this forum, if you've read the book that is.

[Rían]

(Thanks for your "get well" wishes, Beren! )

(I saw your note about French in the Jane Eyre thread; I'll have to ask you what some phrases are in Egyptian! That would be interesting to hear. How many languages do you speak? What's your native tongue?)

The explanation about destroy/raise up the temple (John 2:19) is found two verses down - John 2:21,22. Jesus was speaking of his body and prophesizing his death and resurrection. His earthly body was destroyed, and God raised Him up on the third day. Is that the question you meant?

EDIT - OH, it finally penetrated my brain what you meant by that question! You looked up John TWO:19; I was saying John THREE:19! Try again

(ps - Hi, brownie! I'm still gonna get to that comparative religion thread one day soon, but I've been feeling really punk lately bad health Jump in here whenever you want, tho, I always enjoy your posts. You might want to re-read PL - the language reminds me of Tolkien's "Lays of Beleriand", HOME 3 - really strong and beautiful! You could almost skip dinner if you read PL or Lays, they're so meaty! )

Good point about the fruit, Beren - let me ponder that a bit - I have to drive to another city now to return something, and that'll give me some time to think.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

EDIT - OH, it finally penetrated my brain what you meant by that question! You looked up John TWO:19; I was saying John THREE:19! Try again

No, I looked up John THREE:19. Maybe it's John TWO:19?

[Rían]

Well, now, that's very odd. The only thing I can think of is that the Bibles used in the Coptic church might have different numbering than the ones used in America. I've triple-checked, and the temple verse is John 2:19, and the verse I'm talking about is John 3:19. Well, that certainly is a bother, if our Bibles have different reference numbers!

I assume you're familiar with the famous verse "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life" - that's John 3:16 (made semi-infamous by people holding up signs with that verse during sporting events here in America - hopefully they aren't drunk and obnoxious - it seems like "Christians" on TV are too often not acting in a loving Christian manner *sigh*) Well, the verse I'm talking about is only 3 verses down from that one. For your reference, it is: "And this is the judgement, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil."

[Beren3000]

Sorry, my bad . Our bibles do have the same reference numbers. I just rechecked and it turned out I read 2:19 not 3:19.
(Side note: this verse "For God so loved the world....", I've once read that it's the most famous verse in the whole Bible and in that hotel we were staying in, it was printed on the first few pages of the Bible in all the languages you can imagine).
Anyway, that verse still doesn't make much sense to me! You're suggesting that people rejected God and became atheists because their deeds were evil so they chose that path. Well, that's all fine but it doesn't explain why atheism is rather modern and why (even though the Middle Ages were more evil with the corruption of the church and all that...) people of the Middle Ages were more pious than us and the tendency to atheism was small, if there.

So how about replying to the rest of my previous post?

[Rían]

It'll have to wait until Monday - weekends are really bad for me to Moot! Go ahead and post any other thoughts you have, tho, and I'll get to them on Monday. Have a nice weekend, all!

[Beren3000]

Ok, I'd like to add some more opinions about your statement: "People invent Gods that make them happy"
Here's a stark contradiction of this statement:
In Norse mythology, heaven = Valhalla and hell = Nifelheim. As usual, the bad guys go to Nifelheim and the good ones (the "heroes" as they put it) go to Valhalla. Now the thing is, a great conviction of theirs was that eventually, the inhabitants of Nifelheim will rebel and destroy Valhalla utterly. So they basically believed that evil will triumph in the end. YET, they still strove to be "good" and go to Valhalla. Knowing that you're inevitably doomed doesn't exactly "make you happy" does it?

EDIT: from one of your earlier posts:

Originally Posted by Rian

Again, here's where I disagree. IMO, "you need to believe in a higher, more powerful being caring for you" BECAUSE it's true and God has set it in your heart.

I thought of an example to illustrate my POV. You're saying you need to believe in a god because God set that in you. I don't completely disagree, but consider my example:
You're a five year old girl (for the sake of argument of course ) and you have to go to sleep on your own with the lights out and the door closed. Your parents aren't around, what do you do? You grab your teddy bear and pretend it's a 1000-pound giant with a club or something that would protect you from all the "ghosts and monsters" around the room.

Now apply that to real life: a Zulu tribesman struggles daily just to ensure he lives to see the next day. He needs to feel protected and "nursed" if you will. Who does he turn to? All of his fellow tribesmen are "under the same pains". But wait! look at the Sun, how it shines magnificiently! How bright and strong it is! Surely no lion can eat the Sun or enemy tribes kill it. The Sun must be the most powerful being in the universe. The Sun must be GOD! I'll worship the Sun to ensure my protection, etc... And know a new cult has been born: the cult of the Sun (btw, I don't know about Zulu men worshipping the Sun, I'm just making an example). Result: Zulu people are happier and more productive. It's true that God set a concept of His existence in this man's heart, but he wasn't aware of it until now. And it's NOT a matter of "luxury dulling the senses" it's IMO, a logical process based on observation of the world.

(Side note: remember Freud's theory "religion is derived from filial feelings"? here's a nice pun related to it: in Arabic, a father is also called "the lord of the family". Lord as in "I am the Lord thy God." not as in "English nobility")
(This doesn't mean the father is given any divine connotation, but it's a nice pun, IMO)



P.S. Enjoy your weekend, too (BTW, in Arab countries the weekend is on Thursday, Friday not Saturday, Sunday. But it makes no difference to me nowadays as I'm on summer vacation )

[Rían]

OK, I'm finally back here - summers with 3 kids at home make for less Entmoot time!

Originally Posted by Beren3000

I don't see why you can't logically come to the conclusion that God exists. However, I think that both theories can be reconciled easily. Maybe people jump to that conclusion because God already set His knolwedge in their hearts.

You know, I think you're right - I think I worded things wrong in that post (where I said something like you can't logically come to the conclusion that God exists), and I think it was complicated by the fact that I keep flipping between the 2 worldviews that I'm talking about - atheism and Christianity. I haven't explained that very well; I'll try to explain better in a little while.

In the meantime, tho, I think that altho one can't come up with a "scientific" proof that God exists (there are MANY things that one can't come up with a "scientific" proof for!), that it is indeed possible to come to a logical conclusion that He exists. I also think that God places a rudimentary knowledge of His existence and His moral laws into people's hearts.

The Greeks in fact came up with gods "to make them happy" ...

I think in general that people come up with gods that share many attributes of the one real God. And usually, this comes with some sense of the god having standards, and of people breaking them, and of the god requiring justice.

... my point is: they created these beliefs because it made them feel proud and important.

I don't know, I don't know ... I just don't think so. I think they may have added certain characteristics to "their god", but I don't think they just came up with a god "out of the blue" when sitting around and thinking "hey, what would make us feel proud and important?" I think they took something that was already there - i.e., the knowledge in their heart that God exists - and added things on. Do you see the difference?

I disagree with you there. People who "invent" gods must be very romantic and very meditative people. They should also be wise (or at least you'd think so!). So these people would see the justice of creating a belief system where the wrong-doers are punished and the Dudley do-rights go to heaven. If they should refrain from sin in the process, why not? It'll make things more orderly and elegant.

Here's where it gets a little confusing, because I switched over to the other worldview.

I think when analyzing the questions "is there a God?" and "if so, is it the God as described in the Bible?", a valuable tool is to assume the truth of the statement and then analyze what you can see around you and see if it fits. Next, assume that the statement is false, then analyze what you can see around you and see if it fits. (I think this method works well for any question that cannot be scientifically evaluated.)

What I was doing here was assuming that those statements about God were, in fact, FALSE. Be sure to catch this important distinction - I'm NOT merely assuming that I'm an atheist; I'm assuming that regardless of what I believe, that it is indeed a FACT that there is no God.

And if I assume that it is a FACT that there is no God, then I don't see WHY people would invent a God like the God described in the Bible. I think it would be more natural to invent a god like the one I described, if they ever invented one at all. I don't see an explanation for people's sense of morality, either.

And when I take the opposite position and assume that it's a FACT that God exists, as described in the Bible, I see an amazing match with what I see around me.

But that's just MHO

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

(Side note: remember Freud's theory "religion is derived from filial feelings"? here's a nice pun related to it: in Arabic, a father is also called "the lord of the family". Lord as in "I am the Lord thy God." not as in "English nobility")
(This doesn't mean the father is given any divine connotation, but it's a nice pun, IMO)

Oh, that's interesting! I think cultural things like that are really fascinating to hear about. There's also a sense of the father being the "lord of the family" in English, but I think not as strong.

(BTW, in Arab countries the weekend is on Thursday, Friday not Saturday, Sunday.

Oh, I would have guessed Friday and Saturday. I wonder why it's Thursday and Friday? Do you know?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Anyway, that verse still doesn't make much sense to me! You're suggesting that people rejected God and became atheists because their deeds were evil so they chose that path. Well, that's all fine but it doesn't explain why atheism is rather modern and why (even though the Middle Ages were more evil with the corruption of the church and all that...) people of the Middle Ages were more pious than us and the tendency to atheism was small, if there.

Well, I think people reject God because they prefer their evil deeds, but they don't necessarily become atheists. One can reject God while still believing He exists (Satan is the perfect example).

I don't know that the Middle Ages were more evil in general ... as you noted, people in the ME were generally more pious. I think each age has its good points and bad points.

So about atheism - I think that's one way of many that people reject God. And ANY time people reject God, it's because they prefer their rebellion and don't want to acknowledge their sin as sin.

So how about replying to the rest of my previous post?

Did I hit the points you wanted me to reply to? (see my previous post)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Ok, I'd like to add some more opinions about your statement: "People invent Gods that make them happy"

Again, that was a statement that was based upon assuming that there is, in fact, no God. I was assuming something to be true ("there is, in fact, no God"), and making deductions from it, and pointing out that the deductions did not generally match the observations that I can make from real life, therefore the statement is probably false.

(whew, there must be a better way to phrase that - did it make any sense?)

Here's a stark contradiction of this statement:
In Norse mythology, heaven = Valhalla and hell = Nifelheim. As usual, the bad guys go to Nifelheim and the good ones (the "heroes" as they put it) go to Valhalla. Now the thing is, a great conviction of theirs was that eventually, the inhabitants of Nifelheim will rebel and destroy Valhalla utterly. So they basically believed that evil will triumph in the end. YET, they still strove to be "good" and go to Valhalla. Knowing that you're inevitably doomed doesn't exactly "make you happy" does it?

I think a statement by C. S. Lewis helps here:

from "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis
If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic - there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong: but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others.

I thought of an example to illustrate my POV. You're saying you need to believe in a god because God set that in you. I don't completely disagree, but consider my example:
You're a five year old girl (for the sake of argument of course ) and you have to go to sleep on your own with the lights out and the door closed. Your parents aren't around, what do you do? You grab your teddy bear and pretend it's a 1000-pound giant with a club or something that would protect you from all the "ghosts and monsters" around the room.

Now apply that to real life: a Zulu tribesman struggles daily just to ensure he lives to see the next day. He needs to feel protected and "nursed" if you will. Who does he turn to? All of his fellow tribesmen are "under the same pains". But wait! look at the Sun, how it shines magnificiently! How bright and strong it is! Surely no lion can eat the Sun or enemy tribes kill it. The Sun must be the most powerful being in the universe. The Sun must be GOD! I'll worship the Sun to ensure my protection, etc... And know a new cult has been born: the cult of the Sun (btw, I don't know about Zulu men worshipping the Sun, I'm just making an example). Result: Zulu people are happier and more productive. It's true that God set a concept of His existence in this man's heart, but he wasn't aware of it until now. And it's NOT a matter of "luxury dulling the senses" it's IMO, a logical process based on observation of the world.

I think these people are acting on the knowledge in their hearts that there is a powerful being out there that loves them, and can help them, and their heart is searching for the truth because they are in pain. C.S. Lewis' book "The Problem of Pain" is the best book I've ever read on the subject of pain - have you read it? Pain is always an indicator that something is wrong.

[Beren3000]

Interesting quote by Lewis. I'd just love to get my hands on Mere Christianity.
Anyway, I think we went wildly off-topic here. I don't think we'll ever reach a mutual agreement as to this topic. I do support the fact that there is some rudimentary knowledge of God in all of us but I don't think it's strictly responsible for the process of deiogenesis (if such a term exists ).
Anyway, let's try getting back on topic. Let's explore other aspects of knowledge. Setting atheism aside, I still find that knowledge somewhat lessens our dependence on God. I mean, before, when someone fell ill people first prayed to God and brought priests in for unction (not Extreme Unction!) and exorcism and what have you. Nowadays, you just speed-dial your doctor (it doesn't make you any less of a believer, but it does make you less DEPENDENT on God, it makes you lose your primeval simplicity and innocence.)Am I making sense so far? Another example. What first was God's covenant to Noah that He shall never drown the world in deluge again (inspiring awe in people and moving them to contemplate God's beauty and the wonder of His Creation) now became the everyday phenomenon of light refraction. See what I'm getting at?
Let me hear your opinion...

[Rían]

Hmm, I see what you're saying about knowledge, but I still don't know that I completely agree...

I think it's dependant on the underlying heart attitude, but I see your point. It would have been interesting to see how the world turned out, as far as desire/need for knowledge, if people remained sinless.

*muses a bit*

Hmm, here's some initial thoughts. I haven't thought them through much, but I'll put them out

1. A lot of knowledge is sought to fix the effects of sin, because knowledge was sought by those who wished to do evil.
The vast majority of the grief in this world is because of sin and its effects. So often, knowledge is sought to assuage the effects of sin, and wouldn't be necessary if there was not sin. For example - someone figured out how to use chemical weapons to hurt/kill people. So therefore, someone had to work to gain knowledge on how to treat the victims of chemical warfare. Now we wouldn't have to work to gain knowlege on how to treat victims, if there were no victims.

Do you see what I mean? What do you think?

2. Knowledge is good, but love is better.
I love reading, and it's fun to learn new things, but when I'm with my husband and family and friends, I don't sneak out of the room to pick up an encyclopedia, because I'd rather be with them. And my husband earned his masters degree so he could get a better job. He had to study and write papers many times when he would have rather been with family and friends. I don't think the job structure would be the way it is now if there was no sin, and I think entire fields of knowledge would be useless. Conversely, I think entire fields of knowledge would be more important, too, if there had been no sin.

Overall, I think knowledge is thought of the way that it is BECAUSE there is sin in the world. There is nothing wrong with knowledge, and much good that can be done with knowledge, and I think it's great to explore and learn, but priorities are way out of place in this world because of sin, and an entire lifestyle has been created in reaction to it.

Anyway, just some musings ... what do you think?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

Another example. What first was God's covenant to Noah that He shall never drown the world in deluge again (inspiring awe in people and moving them to contemplate God's beauty and the wonder of His Creation) now became the everyday phenomenon of light refraction. See what I'm getting at?

This attitude mystifies me. How is a rainbow made less marvellous by knowing how refraction works? I know how to make a rainbow when I'm outside holding a garden hose - is it any less wonderful because I can make one? I don't think so. It's still God that set up the physics of this world so that amazingly, there are rainbows after storms. God's so awesome! What, do people think that when we reach some magic point of accumulated knowledge that God will fall from heaven? It's not magic tricks that make rainbows; it's God's creative power. Learning how light refracts is NOT revealing a magic trick, it's learning how amazingly intricate creation is.

[Beren3000]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Learning how light refracts is NOT revealing a magic trick, it's learning how amazingly intricate creation is.

You just say that because you're looking at it from a CHRISTIAN perspective. However, when people approach religion for the first time, they would be much more easily converted to religion (IMO) if they considered the rainbow as God's creation, period. Adding scientific explanations lessens that weight and makes them hesitate and maybe resist conversion. Also, the general attitdue of people would be much more adoring of God had they simply and innocently believed that the Rainbow is God's wondrous creation. Learning the scientific explanation behind it, the "aura" of God is somewhat lessened in their eyes (or so I believe).


Another effect of the pursuit of knowledge (as my mother added when I talked to her about that discussion), many people nowadays seek to philosophise too deeply about life and the nature of things and all that; and it is that that draws them away from God. It is that loss of simplicity, the need to complicate things if you will, that draws them away from God; slowly but surely. Pondering questions of Creation too much can be frustrating (after all, mortal minds can't possibly encompass God's full Nature, can they?) and would lead to estrangment from God. After all, Christ taught us to accept God's kingdom "as kids" or else we would not see it. He meant that we should have a simple outlook on life: God created us, God wills all and we just have to obey and love. Any more philosophy is extraneous if not harmful.
See what I mean? (and what my mother means? )

EDIT: I agree with your the 2 thoughts you advanced in your other post. I'll add more thoughts later (it's 2:30 AM here!).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

You just say that because you're looking at it from a CHRISTIAN perspective. However, when people approach religion for the first time, they would be much more easily converted to religion (IMO) if they considered the rainbow as God's creation, period. Adding scientific explanations lessens that weight and makes them hesitate and maybe resist conversion. Also, the general attitdue of people would be much more adoring of God had they simply and innocently believed that the Rainbow is God's wondrous creation. Learning the scientific explanation behind it, the "aura" of God is somewhat lessened in their eyes (or so I believe).

I see your point, and agree with it to some degree.

Another effect of the pursuit of knowledge (as my mother added when I talked to her about that discussion), many people nowadays seek to philosophise too deeply about life and the nature of things and all that; and it is that that draws them away from God. It is that loss of simplicity, the need to complicate things if you will, that draws them away from God; slowly but surely. Pondering questions of Creation too much can be frustrating (after all, mortal minds can't possibly encompass God's full Nature, can they?) and would lead to estrangment from God. After all, Christ taught us to accept God's kingdom "as kids" or else we would not see it. He meant that we should have a simple outlook on life: God created us, God wills all and we just have to obey and love. Any more philosophy is extraneous if not harmful.
See what I mean? (and what my mother means? )

I see what you and your mother (say "hi" to her for me! ) mean, but I think it's not quite that simple. I think it boils down to those who seek God will find Him, as He says. I think "we just have to obey and love" is right, but I think this will look different for different people in this world. For some, obeying might mean diving into research, and thus being around some researchers that might otherwise have NO exposure to Christ. For some, it means pursuing higher education, and if one does go this route, that means doing your best for God. For one couple we know, it means going to Papua New Guinea to a remote tribe to create a written language out of their spoken language and then translate key parts of the Bible and write it down for them. This involved education and learning. However, I think the MORE important thing than the education and learning is having God's LOVE for the people. Knowledge will not bring these people to Christ; however knowledge with God's love will help bring them to Christ.

Anyway, just some thoughts. I see your point overall, and agree with it overall, but I think there's some more detail involved.

There are 2 great summation verses that I like - one in the OT and one in the NT - that sum up things simply but thoroughly - in the OT, Micah 6:8-9, and in the NT, Matthew 22:37-40.

Micah 6:8-9
He has told you, O man, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justice, to love kindness,
And to walk humbly with your God?

(Jesus being asked what the greatest commandment in the Law is, replies:

Matthew 22:37-40
'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. And a second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.

Originally Posted by Beren3000

EDIT: I agree with your the 2 thoughts you advanced in your other post. I'll add more thoughts later (it's 2:30 AM here!).

Looking forward to them Get some sleep!

[Rían]

To bring up another aspect of Paradise Lost that I really liked and found very realistic - the relationship between Adam and Eve!

I just love how Milton shows the effects of sin via their conversation, rather than prose (like "and this is what sin did to them ...").

Here's a pre-sin Adam talking to Eve (she's sleeping, and he is waking her up):

book V, lines 17-19
Her hand soft touching, whispered thus: "Awake,
My fairest, my espoused, my latest found,
Heav'n's last best gift, my ever new delight!"

Now here's a post-sin Adam talking to Eve:

book IX, lines 1163-1164
"Is this the love, is this the recompense
Of mine to thee, ungrateful Eve!"

And I love the last lines of book IX - it sums up so well the change in attitude they had towards each other because of their sin - they tried to pass the blame onto each other and ignore their own part in it:

book IX lines 1187-1189
Thus they in mutual accusation spent
The fruitless hours, but neither self-condemning,
And of their vain contest appeared no end.

I must say, as someone who has been married to a great guy for 18 years now, this is a pretty good sample of the various types of conversation that go on in a marriage, both when one is close to God and when one is far from Him. This section just made me laugh so hard (rather ruefully!) because it so accurately described my own too-often attitude of ducking responsibility!

But then it ends up so beautifully, as they eventually see their need to "own up" to their own actions, and repent, and they even try to excuse the other person! What a heart change, and he presents it so skillfully - you see little bits of it fall into place during their conversation, and then a few more, and then finally a whole heart change. Here's the final bit:

book X, line 1097 - book XI, line 8
So spoke our father penitent, nor Eve
Felt less remorse. They forthwith to the place
Repairing where He judged them, prostrate fell
Before Him reverent, and both confessed
Humbly their faults, and pardon begged, with tears
Watering the ground, and with their sighs the air
Frequenting, sent from hearts contrite, in sign
Of sorrow unfeigned, and humiliation meek.

Thus they, in lowliest plight, repentant stood
Praying, for from the mercy-seat above
Prevenient grace descending had removed
The stony from their hearts, and made new flesh
Regenerate grow instead, that sighs now breathed
Unutterable, which the spirit of prayer
Inspired, and winged for Heav'n with speedier flight
Than loudest oratory.

I especially love the last bit, how the sincere sighs of the heart reach heaven faster than loud (but heart-empty) talking.

[Beren3000]

This time I completely agree with you. The relationship between Adam and Eve is so realistic and so beautiful and I think that Milton not only uses it to show the effects of sin, he also uses it to illustrate love in its pure and absolute form. Before the Fall, their relationship was so sweet and beautiful and the love between them so innocent, it makes you sad to watch what happened to them after the Fall.
One of the things I liked about the book too is the amount of Hope put in it. Right after the fall, Michael comes down and tells Adam everything that's going to happen and how Jesus will eventually come to Earth and redeem all human kind so that Adam need not worry about his offspring.
By the way, have you read The Divine Comedy? I've recently read the Inferno and found it very deep and enjoying such a level of structural and allegorical complexity that qualifies it to be one of the finest works of literature ever made. But I find the views expressed in it a bit too strict. But that's for another thread

As to the 2 thoughts you brought forth earlier, here's what I think:
I agree with point 2 completely. After all, as you quoted, this is "the Law and the Prophets". However, I beg to differ on point 1. This can be true in some cases but certainly not in all. When you establish medical research to find cure from some disease, that's fixing the effects of sin, alright. But when you observe the stars for instance, you're not fixing the effects of sin, you merely seek knowledge for its own sake. This pursuit of knowledge is due to curiosity only: it doesn't aim to advance mankind in any (practical) way. And (I believe) that it's this kind of so-called "idle" knowledge that can be harmful. It is not evil in itself, but it is dangerous inasmuch as it makes people stray with their thoughts from God and turn to alien doctrines. On the other hand, knowledge that seeks to fix the effects of sin is (IMO) less dangerous. It doesn't seek to endoctrine people, just to make their lives easier (and herein lies its danger, as I said earlier) but at the end of the day, it seems much less dangerous to me.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Beren3000

This time I completely agree with you.

Yay!

By the way, have you read The Divine Comedy? I've recently read the Inferno and found it very deep and enjoying such a level of structural and allegorical complexity that qualifies it to be one of the finest works of literature ever made. But I find the views expressed in it a bit too strict. But that's for another thread

I've been wanting to read that for the last year, but I've been really scared away from it because I don't know which translation to buy ... I've seen 3 radically different ones, and I'd hate to buy a bad one and spend the time reading it and have a bad translation mar the work. One translation was in poetry form, one was semi-poetry form, and another was pure prose. I'm really up a creek here and don't know what to do. One of the Mooters recommended a version, so I need to dig up that post and just go ahead and buy it.

Did you read PL in your native language, or in English? (what's your native language, btw, and how many languages do you speak?)

As to the 2 thoughts you brought forth earlier, here's what I think:
I agree with point 2 completely. After all, as you quoted, this is "the Law and the Prophets". However, I beg to differ on point 1. This can be true in some cases but certainly not in all. ....

Yes, I agree that the "fixing sin" knowledge is better, because it's serving someone else.

I have to go now, but I'll be back later with some new passages to share. One of the things I like is how much he can pack into only a few words. I picked out a few phrases that are only a few words, but have a world of meaning. I'll post them in a bit, and then maybe you can pick some of your favorite "short but profound" ones to share with me

[Beren3000]

I read PL in English. I always try to read literature in its original language if I can help it.
As to The Comedy, I read a good, semi-poetry version by an American translator called John Ciardi.
About your other questions:
My native language is Arabic; I speak French and English quite well. Two years ago, I tried to learn German (and have picked up some basics) but I found it hard to keep going with it what with school going on and all

I have no "phrases" to share with you from PL, I'm afraid. I read it a while ago and barely remember the wording. There was this part I particularly liked though: the part where Satan says he can't really escape Hell because Envy creates Hell within himself. Such strong words!

Enjoy your weekend