The Fresh Fruit Diet

(Written 5.September.2013)

In lieu of a certain peaked curiosity elicited by my blip about this chapter in my book, I’ve decided to give a short blog post containing excerpts from the chapter, blips about the themes discussed, an outline of ideas and conclusions, and just where I gleaned what I have about judgment, ours and Gods, and what was going on in the garden.
Here it is:

There’s always this same humorous reaction that people give me when I’ve tried to explain to them that—according to the Bible, mankind (nor, in fact, animalkind for that matter) was not originally created to eat meat, but rather: fresh fruit. There’s this sort of disconcerting demeanor until I tell them to get out their books and look it up.

It’s true.

Meat was not “given” by God as something to eat until after the flood; all the way in chapter 9 (v.3).

Cue “Mind Blown.”

mind. blown.

When in all fact, the only mention of food for mankind—up until that point, is found in verse 29 of the first chapter of Genesis. Here God instructs both the man and woman (take note of that as it’ll play a part in the whole “complimentarian”/“egalitarian” bit later on…) that they have been given “every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it,” for food.

Here’s the thing that stands out to me about this, and it is not that we should go back to eating raw fresh fruit only, cause that may lead to some unwanted consequences…

But that—within the given “command” is an unspoken negation that I think we tend to look over. If every seed bearing plant and every tree with fruit that has seed in it is good for food, then every plant that isn’t seed bearing and every tree that has fruit without seed is not good to eat.
I’ve heard it put best with this explanation that Adam and Eve effectively became “fruit inspectors.” They interacted with what was provided for them, inspecting each to see if it bore seed or didn’t.

See it was then that they had both a free will, and a good free will—for they only wanted to good, namely, seed bearing food, but were free to interact and choose the good. Yes, given in the command is also a judgment—that only seed bearing plants and fruits are good for food (given by God), but that same judgment was wired into them. They only wanted the good, because they trusted the judgment, and so they too looked, “inspected” and—in effect, judged which were seed bearing and which weren’t.

And this–if I had to state it, would be where the most concise expression of the overarching idea of this chapter is” that I believe we were made to judge from the moment we were created. I believe it was wired into our being. I believe (as was stated by a man far more articulate and brilliant than me) that originally, we had a free will, yes, but it was a good free will.

Every judgment made was a free choice that only desired the good. I believe that after the fall, this judgment was corrupted and tainted, because we gained an intimate knowledge of both good and evil–note, NOT good from evil. Now our judgment is screwed up. And the only solution is to do what we were originally wired to do: trust God’s judgment, not our own.

Mind.
Blown.

mind. blown.

This is just a “taste” of what I get into in “The Fresh Fruit Diet” chapter. The implications of what I’ve read (and this point in itself) are vast, and this is something only a big chapter in a book can get into, including the following:

***The serpent asks if God said the man and the woman can’t eat from ANY tree. This line of questioning leads directly to their interaction, their fruit inspection job, their own judgments about which is good and which isn’t to eat, given God’s command. See, the serpent wasn’t questioning the prohibition of the one tree, but specifically the judgment of God on that tree. Making man’s judgment seem greater than God’s. That is, if Adam and Eve weren’t to even go near it, it meant that they were to trust God’s judgment that this tree’s fruit had no seeds, it was not good (at least for them). They had to trust that judgment without making their own. They had to trust without “inspecting” it for themselves. The serpent dared them to “inspect” for themselves. See whether or not God was lying.
And what was the fruit but “pleasing to the eye”? What else could this random description mean given the context except that—upon inspection, this fruit may have indeed seemed to have seeds?

***We tend to read and assume that the serpent stated that we would know—intimately (yada) good and evil, as distinct. And that is where the idea that “judgment” came into being. That we would know good from evil.
Yet there’s no distinction or distinguishing between the two—Good and Evil. We tend to see it that through the fall, through the eating of the forbidden fruit, we’d be able to know good, and separately know evil, mutually exclusive. This isn’t stated by the serpent nor by God later in Gen. 3 that the consequence of breaking God’s command has imbued us with the ability to categorize good and evil separately, good from evil—judgment, BUT RATHER, we would “yada” (know intimately, based on experience, relationally) BOTH GOOD AND EVIL. Which we now do.

***Eve is always portrayed as making stuff up.
Stupid woman. She was deceived because she was silly and ignorant and childish and naïve. She added commands to what God had originally instructed Adam. This is what happens when you let a woman in charge…
all that bullshit.
Really, Eve displays a coherent knowledge and the text expresses her own personal relation with God. She makes a clear statement of their charge, and a declarative statement of what God said to them both: they are both to not eat, and not touch it (that is, inspect it).
Adam was told that there was only one tree that had fruit that was not given by permission. God did not say the location of the tree but that would not have been needed since Adam was there when God created and named the trees including the tree at the center of the garden. While these trees were created after Adam was placed in the garden, the woman was not there to see the creation of the trees. She was the one who needed to know where this special tree was located.
The woman identifies that the location of the tree was given to her by the words of God. It is her testimony that “God has said,” not “the man told me that God said.”

Aaand more!
Hope this clears some things up—or at least opens minds up for discussion, thought, your own pursuit, etc. But if even some of these notes are unclear, or—you wish to discuss some of the points (or the main point) leave a comment below and I’ll get back to you.

UPDATE (20.February.2020): You can now find my official book proposal and finalized introduction (as well as a free chapter–THIS completed Chapter, in fact, by visiting the valuable resources, links, reads, and views link)

Leave a comment

Filed under Beauty Tips From a Seminary Washout, Book

I’m Writing a Book (pt. 3)

(Written 3.September.2013)

In case you still don’t know, I’m slowly writing a book about (read: loosely about) arriving at a theological foundation that is both revolutionary and yet entirely familiar, or rather nothing new and something close to the heart of many (if not all) regardless of spiritual and religious self (or otherwise) affiliation. It will include how being in and out of Seminary has helped firmly root just what is and isn’t real.
Just what is and isn’t truth.
Just what is and isn’t gospel, love, all things at the core of EVERYTHING.

Here are a few of the tentative chapter titles and a brief synopsis of each:

Chapter 1: It Really All Starts With a Good Foundation (For Makeup, and Everything Else)
A very concise breakdown of beliefs OR….I’ll nix this altogether in favor of a clearer set of parameters about creation and a true understanding of things…

Chapter 2: Makeup in the Hands of an Angry God
See HERE.

Chapter …? : The Fresh Fruit Diet
On judgment and how it’s actually wired into our nature prior to the fall (given Genesis) but how it got screwed up.

Chapter …? : Rock Bottom is the New Black
There’s quite a few people in this world who—and God bless ’em, have experienced their “rock bottom,” their moment when they’ve hit the lowest point of their lives and have learned from it, grown from it, and are all around better for it. I, however, am one of the other sorts who can’t admit they’ve had a “rock bottom”, but rather, too many rock bottoms. So many so, that I could hope to say that it’s just because Rock bottom is so in vogue right now that I’m only keeping up with the latest trends…

Chapter …? : Your Body is a Wonderland
This is where I talk about Sex. My own, my sexual “awakening,” and just how far both the American and Evangelical culture take it so that it’s really become the new God. Whether you agree or not, the sacredness, hallowedness, fear of crossing this line (or blatant celebration in doing so) has become such a staple that Sex is–in fact, the American God. You either worship it by doing it, or worship it by putting it in a holy of holy’s with laws around it making sure only certain few can enter it.

Chapter …? : Gonna Need More Cow Bell!
On the rhythm of everything…the romance. It isn’t a formula, it’s an ebb and flow. How not just love is a song–and has a rhythm, but everything does. On “Logos” and how it not only means reason and logic, and meaning and plot, but also rhythm.
So there I was…Killing them softly with my song. Or rather, being killed, and not that softly either.” – Hugh Grant, About a Boy

Chapter …? : You can’t spell a Prodigal Without Prada
Everything I’ve learned–more and more about the Prodigal and how it makes everything click. On how God’s grace for ALL makes evangelism “slaving” to those who feel it’s their duty to do so. And, how calling a christian an “older prodigal” can be one of the most insulting things you can say.

Chapter …? : “My God. What is that smell? That’s the Smell of Desire, Milady.”
The woman in Luke that broke her perfume, cried at Jesus’ feet, and went away free, forgiven. Not because she was repentant, but because she was accepted. She was free to “sin no more” because she was forgiven, not forgiven on the condition that she tries really hard to “sin no more.” On how revolutionary forgiveness of life was at the time, how it translates now to love and acceptance, and how the “followers” of Jesus were given that same revolutionary authority–not to go out and tell people that if they do the right thing they’re forgiven, that they have the ability to come to the cross and be forgiven, but it’s their choice, but that–they ARE FORGIVEN, regardless of their choosing, and it’s that FORGIVENESS that frees them to do the right thing.

Chapter …? : The Good, The Bad, and The Nothing
On the kid’s story “The Fire Cat,” and how I really am “Good for nothing,” which is to say I’m good.
But for nothing.
Which is to say, I’m not bad, but I’m not good for anything that I can bring.
All this is mixed together with God’s sovereignty, and how in a world and realm of grace, a realm Joseph and his Coat lived in, there is no need for forgiveness because actions–both good and bad, are used by God. Thus, there are good actions, bad actions, and actions that are nothing. And which are really the “bad” actions? The “bad” ones as we define them, or the actions that are “Nothing” actions, which don’t bring about anything? Create anything, are nothing compared to God’s everything?

Chapter …? : Shaving Off Hell
On which I bring up…Hell. And how I got into a discussion about Matisyahu shaving off his beard and its implications contrasted with a Christian “shaving off Hell” and its implications…

Chapter …? : I’m Sure Somebody Loved Hitler, But…
On Love…Hitler…and Roald Dahl…

Chapter …? : ALL Things In the Men’s Room
Is All things REALLY ALL THINGS? There’s a poster hanging in the men’s room of the coffee shop that I work that reads “DEWEY’S VICTORY: NOT A SINGLE CASUALTY SUSTAINED IN DESTROYING THE SPANISH FLEET.” Then goes on to discuss how the Spanish lost 300 ships and 600 men. Are we off about what we mean with all, none, etc? How does 600 men dead translate to “NOT A SINGLE CASUALTY?” How does “Behold, I’m making ALL THINGS new” translate to only those that are saved being the ones made new?

More may come, but any feedback, thoughts, interest, encouragement, etc, are greatly appreciated. Lemmie know in the comment section below and/or on Facebook!

**Also, Perfume and Prodigals may just be the two biggest chapters in this book, as they have everything I have to say…which may or may not be enough in and of themselves for a book. Not to mention “Perfume and Prodigals” has a catchy ring to it…
anyway, in the event that you fancy just what I have to say on these matters, lemmie know and I’ll get you all the notes compiled over the past year or so on each.

UPDATE (20.February.2020): You can now find my official book proposal and finalized introduction (as well as a free chapter, by visiting the valuable resources, links, reads, and views link)

Leave a comment

Filed under Beauty Tips From a Seminary Washout, Book

I’m Writing a Book (pt. 2): Makeup in the Hands of an Angry God

(Written 23.August.2013)

Here’s a couple of excerpts from the beginning and middle of Chapter 2 of my (in process) book, Beauty Tips From a Seminary Washout::

CHAPTER 2 — MAKEUP IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD

I’ve never paid much attention to, nor read a whole lot (if any) of John Piper, but I did happen to discover my own sexuality at a very young age, and the fact that there were certain things which just happened to stimulate me in ways I didn’t realize up until then that I—or my body, were designed to find pleasure in. And while I sit down to begin writing this chapter, and am pretty sure it won’t have much of anything to do with general sexuality, I am sure that I’m less sure that general sexuality doesn’t have everything to do with John Piper.

…..

Religion (especially Christianity) has a strong disposition of attempting to make it clear as crystal to all humanity that we are nothing but “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” to do with whatever the hell He will.
[But] what did God do, what does God do?
Remember the Garden of Eden story in the first 3 chapters of Genesis?
What did God do immediately after confronting his children–his creation, made in his image, when their eyes were opened, when they saw what they were, when—after never knowing shame(rf. Gen. 2:25), felt it and knew it intimately.

He killed an animal, and made garments for them.

At the cost of another of his creation’s life, HE covered their shame.

He could’ve left them to their predicament, let the leaves die and fade away so that they constantly saw themselves naked and exposed, constantly saw their shame and were reminded of their shortcomings, their failings, their inability to be what they’re supposed to be, their incompletion, sin.

He could’ve carved them up (like a young 13 year old boy on the back of a bus), he could’ve given them scars that passed down from generation to generation, that every time they were made aware of those scars, they would remember their place, remember their sin, remember their failure, remember that they are nothing but sinners in the hands of an angry God.

And it would serve them right.

Good.

They should always remember just how much they’ve fallen.
We should always be made to remember our place. We are nothing but sinners in the hands of an angry God.
Right? [Religion would seem to agree…]

But God didn’t do that.

He didn’t do what makes sense to us.
His judgment isn’t what makes sense to us and would naturally be our “judgment.”

He killed an innocent at our expense.
He killed innocence.

And he did it to make clothing that would last (at least longer than their own attempts at doing so) to cover them up.

He.
Covered up their shame. For them.*

*To be continued….

UPDATE (20.February.2020): You can now find my official book proposal and finalized introduction (as well as a free chapter, by visiting the valuable resources, links, reads, and views link)

1 Comment

Filed under Beauty Tips From a Seminary Washout, Book