It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Genesis Paradox

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: jigglypuff

What about this fellow then? Mind you it's written in the book of life as well... and not quite as long ago.





posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Brother,

Just to let you know you are wasting you time responding to Jigglypuff, KingPhillipsiX,Matrixsurvivor(and a phlanx of others)...they are the same psychotic ignorant person.If they have an obtuse condescending opinion ranting about that EVIL liar Paul(and everything else) with a very low post count and recent registration it is this HUGE LIAR.Please do not feed him anymore.Thanks



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, why did he create Adam and Eve in the first place, knowing they would disobey him when tempted with the opportunity? It wouldn't serve as a convenient method for people like you to excuse evil permitted by God (because evil HAD to originate from God) and be in the position to praise God for everything good in the world and man for everything bad? Tell me that isn't why?

If God did not place the tree of life in the garden, would they have disobeyed him?


The basis of the Gospel's Design is very simply to afford equal potential upon its completion. God made his statement clear about equal potential from the very beginning: COMMON MISTAKE: God uses the Tree of Life/Star Wormwood/Healing Waters, to give Equal Potential ... God uses the Lake of Fire to eliminate any possibility of salvation for those he simply rejects, Rev. 20:13-15/1Thes4:16-17.


originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: jigglypuff

Jiggly. you are confusing Old testament law for how modern christians are to act. The OT law is not for us under the new covenant Jesus created when he sacrificed himself. And no the new covenant didnt destroy the old law it just changed it to history for christians.

Originally it was meant for the hebrews/jews to follow. it even states it in there.


God declares the Old Testament Law under the premise of the entirety of the Gospel's Program (1Chronicles 5:1-2)
144,000 of Reuben
144,000 of Benjamin
144,000 of Joseph
Moses was given two sets of 10 Commandments...Joshua was given one set of 10 Commandments (Joshua 8:32)
10 Generations of Genesis 5
10 Generations of Genesis 11
10 BABYLON THE GREAT of Gen 10:10-12

ROMANS 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
ROMANS 5:15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Adam to Moses = 144,000 of Joseph ... represented by the "Rod of Joseph/Rod of Iron/Staff of Moses" (same)
Moses to Christ = 144,000 of Joseph ... represented by the "Two Mites, Two Men on the Cross with Jesus, Two Witnesses" (same)

144,000 of Joseph's precedence in the New Testament Era beginning with the arrival of Jesus, does not and did not invalidate any of terms of law, it only revealed the condemnation of the law to a greater degree (Global Census Bureau reports only 4 Significant classifications of rape and murder to only 4 Races, plus darker skin colors, plus significant aggression among all nations outside of the usa's population, either by civil offenses, civil rights offenses, or straight moral and devil disobedience).


originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: jigglypuff

What about this fellow then? Mind you it's written in the book of life as well... and not quite as long ago.


Jude 1:4, Calls the "Generation of Sin", Pet People, it calls them unable to receive any mercy from Jesus, so that they are unable to receive the 144,000 of Joseph and they are suicidal for this reason at the end of time, in the presence of the Antichrist which God uses to represent the interests of the 144,000 of Joseph for this very specific reason. Genetic Dan since the New Testament Began, even before Jesus arrived officially, began to thrive on death and suicide only, this is what they have become now, facing the end of their lives. (God gave the Holy Spirit the "Tree of Life" to create Animals, but God did not give Adam the "Tree of Life" or a Legal reason to create, Pet People or Animal People, they must be put to death soon, it is necessary).
edit on 21-6-2016 by jigglypuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Rex282

Well in the equality of voice it is not beyond reason, to hold out a hand of understanding than it is to draw such lines... Im not on a side other than equanimity so everyone can achieve balance.

If it appears as any line thats why I show up... to see the pointed stick of bias and hate by whatever group knowing the argument on those sides.

Then I use logic and ration to present reason... over time of lending that hand out of whatever stagnant pond of bias that once baptized not only them but others can progress. Many drown in what saved them and cease living in anything else altogether than the hell the previous life before being drowned saved them from... only to create the same thing in the name of whatever it was that saved them... instead of into full integraqtion and understanding that moment of spirit was trying to point at in joining humanity.

People cling to the garmet or cloth someone wore as if that was the path or even them instead of a remnant of a larger whole that can be sewn into a quit so no one is left out in the cold in this thing called humanity.

So I see your line and you hand saying hey forget them over there... thanks but no thanks. Earsing the one you just drew for whatever reasons in the past or present can be erased right now... but thats up to you, and of your own free will, not me.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
(Jesus essentially illustrated that he did not intend to pay for everyone's sin with "Joseph the Blessings", when God called the miracle of the "Pool of Bethesda" and healed everyone that got into the water...God at the same time allowed Jesus to kill about "Two Thousand" by casting them into the water.........................(When God Kills the "Two Witnesses", he also kills all of mankind that cannot obtain any more mercy for the 5 months of Star Wormwood, so this information is a parable about that fact) "Two Hundred Thousand Thousand" of revelation relative to the 5 Months of Star Wormwood, when God announces the further limitation of his mercy for this period of time, by euthanizing the Generations of Sin, and many nations along with them.....................That is what happened in the Garden of Eve, yes? God told Adam and Eve that they could not have the "Pool of Bethesda", but only the Gardensnake/Molech could...now at the end of time, God says that only a portion of the people can, but not all man, and certainly not the "Generation of Sin") (When John the Baptist was killed, and then Satan spoke of his great authority and power, well, Acts 12:21-25, God immediately killed a great many peoples ... based on the level of force and lethal force, we have not yet obtained certain levels of euthanasia, that is why we must be careful, not to say or do anything that will eliminate these people's drive to kill the Antichrist, we need to see what happens)
edit on 21-6-2016 by jigglypuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: jigglypuff

Pretty conveniant of you to say someone didnt die or be a martyr for sin, then wrap it up with doom porn saying his death or life or entire teachings had nothing of value according to other such and such.

All life has value and we are constantly teaching learning and growing in this infinite mirror or face in which ours shines or is cast upon.

Makings ones face or mind as you want to see it, instead of revelaing what is already there? IS taking the place of what one claims to believe in... and spreading of such is no different than manure.

It can sit in a heap, be spread out to fertilize but either way it can stink and burn if not put to good use.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rex282
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Brother,

Just to let you know you are wasting you time responding to Jigglypuff, KingPhillipsiX,Matrixsurvivor(and a phlanx of others)...they are the same psychotic ignorant person.If they have an obtuse condescending opinion ranting about that EVIL liar Paul(and everything else) with a very low post count and recent registration it is this HUGE LIAR.Please do not feed him anymore.Thanks


Seriously? You think I'm the same person as Jigglypuff (who quotes Paul, by the way). LOL. If I have an "obtuse condescending opinion ranting" (you really need to use comma's) about that EVIL liar Paul, then how in the world does that make me a "HUGE LIAR"???? What, I'm not entitled to challenge the Bible? Paul was a false apostle. Just because he's "in the book" doesn't make him legit. You see, the way I see it, the Bible is a book....not God. But, Christians have pretty much made it their "god".



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Well you don't have to sarcastically tell me this, I'm not exactly known for my friendly opinions towards Christianity and its beliefs on these boards.


I don't remember what I responded to you, honestly. I looked through my posts and it was Seede I was responding to.
I apologize. If your opinion towards Christianity is such as you said, that's way cool by me.
Truly, my sarcasm is actually towards the religion itself. I spent way to many years immersed in it....now that I'm out of it, I'm just a tad jaded, lol. It's just the stage I'm in at the moment. It's like realizing you've been lied to multiple times over, and you're kinda ticked at the liar.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: birdxofxprey

Very interesting perspective. I have never seen the story analysed before like in your opening post.

Just curious: for what purpose do you believe Eve was set up or tricked by God?


Please forgive me for taking the long route in answering your question. I’m trying to address some other interesting comments along the way…

--- Literal or Allegory? ---

Some suggest this story is literally true, and that understanding it this way resolves the inconsistencies we’ve been discussing. Others contend that it is allegorical and that understanding it as such is more proper. I don’t think it makes any difference. Here’s why –

Let us assume the story is literally (factually) true.

Resolving the inconsistencies in the story, then, invariably involves as hoc appeals to ideas and events that are not mentioned in the story itself (Satan, Jesus, sin, salvation, etc.). Whether or not such literalism is best is certainly debatable, but it is – with respect to the Genesis story – the historical standard of Christian doctrine. [That is, while literalism as a general mode of interpreting Biblical text is a more recent development in Christianity, the Genesis story has been understood in a literal context since the beginning of Christian doctrine.]

Paul, for example, refers to this story numerous times in his New Testament construction of the doctrine of original sin (prior to the writings of Paul, there’s no mention of original sin). Paul’s belief that God created Adam, then Eve, that Eve was deceived, they both disobeyed God by eating from the tree and were condemned to death is explicit. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” [1 Timothy 2:13-14] (see also Romans 5:12-14 and 18-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 and 45).

The history of Christianity is replete with “church fathers” who have consistently (and viciously) cashed in on Paul’s allegation that women are ultimately responsible for the presence of sin and evil in the world. Examples of this are abundant:

Tertullian (160?-220?): "Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil's doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly. It was your fault that the Son of God had to die; you should always go in mourning and rags."

Ambrose (339-97): "Adam was deceived by Eve, not Eve by Adam…. It is right that he whom that woman induced to sin should assume the role of guide lest he fall again through feminine instability."

Augustine (354-430): "Woman was merely man's helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God."

Pope Gregory I (540-604): "Woman is slow in understanding and her unstable and naive mind renders her by way of natural weakness to the necessity of a strong hand in her husband. Her 'use' is two fold; animal sex and motherhood."

John Damascene (645-750): "Woman is a sick she-ass ... a hideous tapeworm ... the advance post of hell."

Thomas Aquinas (1225-74): "Woman is [a] defective and misbegotten male."

Malleus Maleficarum (1486): "When a woman thinks alone, she thinks evil.”

Martin Luther (1483-1546): "Women should stay at home, keep house and bear children. If a woman dies from childbearing, let her die. That is all she is here for."

John Wesley (1703-91): "Wife: Be content to be insignificant. What loss would it be to God or man had you never been born."

The point of all this is to note that a literal understanding of the Genesis story puts us on questionable moral (and rational) ground; it requires the invention of concepts (not mentioned in the story itself) which are nonetheless necessary to explain a doctrine of original sin, while also providing the means by which the subjection of women has been legitimated.

-------------------------------------------

Let us assume the story is allegorical. An allegory for what?

- The emergence of the human capacity to think for one’s self?
- The development of our species from non-moral to moral beings?
- Rebelliousness and its consequences?
(each of these has been suggested in this thread)

It doesn’t seem to matter which is the primary focus, the lesson is always the same; thinking for one’s self, awareness of good and evil, not deferring to authority – these are all undesirable, “sinful,” the essence of human badness from which we need to be “saved” lest we suffer the torment of eternal damnation. The wages of sin is death.

Several people have likened the story to a parent providing instruction to a child (God is like the parent, Adam and Eve are like children). Of course, when children are disobedient or think themselves smarter than their parents, parents get annoyed. At the same time, though, parents (at least decent parents) desire that their children should eventually be smarter than they are, outgrow the need for constant instruction, etc. What would we think of a parent who, upon learning of a child’s first act of disobedience, cursed the child, kicked them out and condemned them to death or eternal torment?

If the story is an allegory, its message is antithetical to any reasonable standard of human conduct; that we should replace the cultivation of our rational capacities and our moral sentiments with mere deference to authority. Don’t ask why, just obey. It is a lousy parent who desires this for their children, and a tyrant creator who desires it for his creation.

------------------------------

So, whether the story is taken literally or allegorically, the result is the same, unquestioning obedience or else... It is no small coincidence that these themes emerge simultaneously with and are promulgated by the Patriarchs of the faith. Patriarchy (and hierarchy, more generally) is utterly dependent on portraying deference to authority as a virtue. Men are virtuous by deferring to God, women are virtuous by deferring to men, etc. No hierarchically structured society or institution can sustain itself if its members are thinking for themselves or failing to show proper deference to authority. If an authority says that something is good or bad, and a subordinate asks why, the answer is invariably intolerant (see God’s rant when Job asks, quite understandably, why he has been made to suffer).

--- Why was Eve tricked? ---

Well, consider who has benefitted over time from the perpetuation of this story; Christian men. Without original sin, people don’t have a default setting of “damnation.” And without that, there’s no need for salvation. Few would feel compelled to become Christian if it alleviated no fear and came with no reward. Every evangelist has capitalized on this tactic of inventing fear and then subsequently providing the means by which it can be alleviated. Moreover, without Eve “taking the fall,” there’s far less of a divine sanction on the subjection of women.

BOP

ps - can't remember who asked, but yes, a talking snake is also a little suspicious. and since so many people have mentioned the children of Adam and Eve, it might be worth wondering how they managed to find spouses...



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

Both of you are drawing lines in the sand with belief, Im just observing... I merely pointed at that line.

Youre welcome to pause whereever you would like... does a comma control you to such an extent that such a thing renders words unreadable unless to a certain flow or timbre other than ones own mind? Im not a control freak so pause where you like...

This isnt a song although thats what these words arose from... random sounds like hoots from other spaiens as seed syllabols for all current language today... hymns and notation arose from this conceptual as well.

Since it is just strung together hoots and yeows and other noises we once made?

Here's some more...





posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor


Oh, and while I'm at it, Jesus broke just about every law that YHWH gave out.

There was so much ground to cover that it would take a book to try to answer but one thing did stand out in your post and that is the above quote in your post. I think that is a lot of what you are misunderstanding. Would you explain to me who YHWH is in the Christian belief?



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor


Oh, and while I'm at it, Jesus broke just about every law that YHWH gave out.

There was so much ground to cover that it would take a book to try to answer but one thing did stand out in your post and that is the above quote in your post. I think that is a lot of what you are misunderstanding. Would you explain to me who YHWH is in the Christian belief?


YHWH is the foot stool of the Way.

I don't think that the Christians even know their beliefs on him. They are his little toy soldiers.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 09:33 PM
link   
another possibility is that the tree of life symbolized the Goddess.




Asherah, along with Astarte and Anath, was one of the three great goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon. In Canaanite religion her primary role was that of mother goddess. In mythological texts from the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 b.c.e.) city-state of Ugarit, she is called “the creatress of the gods”; her consort at Ugarit, the god El, is called “creator.” El is also referred to as father and patriarch at Ugarit, as Asherah, likewise, is called mother. Their children form the pantheon of the gods, who are said to number seventy; a Hittite myth similarly mentions the seventy-seven and eighty-eight children of Asherah. On occasion in Ugaritic myth, Asherah performs the maternal role of wet nurse. Ugaritic and other Canaanite materials further associate Asherah with lions (indicating power), serpents (representing immortality or healing), and sacred trees (signifying fertility). Thus Asherah’s children at Ugarit can be called her “pride of lions”; the goddess is called “lady of the serpent” in second-millennium b.c.e. inscriptions from the Sinai; the late-thirteenth-century b.c.e. Lachish ewer dedicated to Asherah is decorated with images of sacred trees.

jwa.org...


and that the story of the garden of eden is one of the earliest forms of propaganda which the early jewish people used to solidify their new one god religion. which didn't really work all that well since artifacts that hint of the Goddess worship have been found in many jewish sites.

of course, there's hints of the those surrounding religions in christianity today also, catholic traditions are filled with them.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Do you really need to understand all the consequences of an action before obeying a direct command?



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Seeing how a womans egg can fertilize another womans egg and the offspring be born female every single time and a mans sperm requires and egg to reproduce itself... is it any wonder that the male god business is about the man trying to reproduce himself in every son he has? It's like that so called penis envy but in reverse... thats the only womb a man has to reproduce another in his image out in the world not in a womb like two women can.

Of course there is such a thing as consciousness transferance where one can project or incarnate oneself into the womb to accomplish such... the childs face as a baby is interesting to watch tranform from all of those that possibly wanted the baby to be like them to transform back into ones own.

All this other business isnt really required to mold and shape someone into oneself... just in such a state of release already and emminate another form of oneself... yet not oneself, just born to a better condition that oneself was, as a hope for much better in a sort of evolution... not that regression of training and programming forcing one to be like oneself having that womb envy and wearing it on the outside in their offspring... instead of looking at ones child and just knowing and smiling at each other like two idiots or twins, but they get that whole mental boost of all one could know from that state of void, instead of from someone else wanting to manifest into your child.

No different than incarnating life to life to life ignorant of the entire process... until one escapes the wheel itself binding one to ignorance.

Esoterics sure, but science has been making leaps in the area in the pursuit of transfering consciousness in AI by setting aside the woo of it and actually looking at it very methodically.

Of course theres some that have such knowledge and practice out of body into other things such as animals and children... not different than hungry ghosts for a life not their own in an abuse of power... many think them demons or gods when they arent. Its just psyhic projections of mental energy and can be a very nefarious practice... but it leads to getting trapped in hells one couldnt even possibly imagine trying to do such for selfish gain. Some even go so far to have children and then attempt to make such a leap and take over instead of laying such powers down not knowing the proper useage and releasing the shell of a body back into the source as well as the mind wholly free no different than any of the matter nor energy that makes up the entire universe unattached unburdened and no suffering.

Ive felt faces in such people practicing trying to land on my own and I see it as an assualt... even though I planted two seeds physical and mental that leaves me to remain in the spiritual without any abuse occuring just out of love... trying to make the world a better place for all and not to my standards but to what all children inheriting this earth ask for: world peace, equality, leading to equanimity.

Not heres my brand of life I suffered from and didnt take the time to learn how to properly deal with it so heres my burdens on you too business... many forget how free one is as a child then suddenly every single one becomes an atlas expected to hold it up on their shoulders from all the burdens past. Thats whats wrong with the place btw...

I hesitated before writing that out, but since theres people already playing with such practices for no advancement of humanity just selfish gain and abuse of power... its worth noting so people arent ignorant of it.

Certinaly not asking for any belief. Its simply a phenominon Ive experienced and observed, things arise and pass moment to moment to moment not clinging has a beauty all its own rarely ever seen.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: troubleshooter

it's a good idea to at least take them in consideration?
remember, it was the priests, the kings, as well as husbands and masters that were the ones telling the people what god was commanding. and, there were some pretty bad priest, kings, husbands and masters giving some pretty crappy commands that did little to benefit god or the people they were commanding.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: troubleshooter

it's a good idea to at least take them in consideration?
remember, it was the priests, the kings, as well as husbands and masters that were the ones telling the people what god was commanding. and, there were some pretty bad priest, kings, husbands and masters giving some pretty crappy commands that did little to benefit god or the people they were commanding.

My comments were only addressing the OP.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I'm afraid you've kind of lost me on the first paragraph.




Seeing how a womans egg can fertilize another womans egg


god only knows what science can make possible in the future, but I don't think this can occur naturally.
although, I think there possibly could be rare cases where a women could produce a child without anyone else being involve.

the rest of your post, I am not sure where you are coming from. kind of sounds like you are talking about psychic attacks, both in the womb and after birth, even as adults. I've had my share of experiences with them. have shared my existence with another for a short time as well as the other allowing me to share in hers. we had a pretty enjoyable time together really. but well, the trick was that in reality, both were me, just in different times.

I read once a theory about the 144,000. it went something like this, is it does correspond to a point to what I have accepted as being reality... at least for now. first, once you get to a certain point in your spiritual development ( I ain't really there yet.) there is no such thing as time... the past, the now, the future, are all in the now. you exist in the past, the present and the future... now. and just like what we do now alters that which we see as our future, the past can be changed and thus alter our present. the trick is to be able to connect with those alternate yous. but there's a possibility that there are also others on this planet that is also a part of you...
so, in total, there are only 144,000 souls on the planet... call them your super soul, you higher self, whatever. that is all there are, all there have even been, experiencing every possible experience that can be experience.... in a state where there is no time... or that is about as good as I can describe it, weather or not it makes sense to you who knows... if not just chalk it off as the ramblings of a crazy lady.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Please forgive me for taking the long route in answering your question. I’m trying to address some other interesting comments along the way…

--- Literal or Allegory? ---

Some suggest this story is literally true, and that understanding it this way resolves the inconsistencies we’ve been discussing. Others contend that it is allegorical and that understanding it as such is more proper. I don’t think it makes any difference. Here’s why –

Let us assume the story is literally (factually) true.

Resolving the inconsistencies in the story, then, invariably involves as hoc appeals to ideas and events that are not mentioned in the story itself (Satan, Jesus, sin, salvation, etc.). Whether or not such literalism is best is certainly debatable, but it is – with respect to the Genesis story – the historical standard of Christian doctrine. [That is, while literalism as a general mode of interpreting Biblical text is a more recent development in Christianity, the Genesis story has been understood in a literal context since the beginning of Christian doctrine.]

Paul, for example, refers to this story numerous times in his New Testament construction of the doctrine of original sin (prior to the writings of Paul, there’s no mention of original sin). Paul’s belief that God created Adam, then Eve, that Eve was deceived, they both disobeyed God by eating from the tree and were condemned to death is explicit. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” [1 Timothy 2:13-14] (see also Romans 5:12-14 and 18-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 and 45).

The history of Christianity is replete with “church fathers” who have consistently (and viciously) cashed in on Paul’s allegation that women are ultimately responsible for the presence of sin and evil in the world. Examples of this are abundant:

Tertullian (160?-220?): "Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil's doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly. It was your fault that the Son of God had to die; you should always go in mourning and rags."

Ambrose (339-97): "Adam was deceived by Eve, not Eve by Adam…. It is right that he whom that woman induced to sin should assume the role of guide lest he fall again through feminine instability."

Augustine (354-430): "Woman was merely man's helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God."

Pope Gregory I (540-604): "Woman is slow in understanding and her unstable and naive mind renders her by way of natural weakness to the necessity of a strong hand in her husband. Her 'use' is two fold; animal sex and motherhood."

John Damascene (645-750): "Woman is a sick she-ass ... a hideous tapeworm ... the advance post of hell."

Thomas Aquinas (1225-74): "Woman is [a] defective and misbegotten male."

Malleus Maleficarum (1486): "When a woman thinks alone, she thinks evil.”

Martin Luther (1483-1546): "Women should stay at home, keep house and bear children. If a woman dies from childbearing, let her die. That is all she is here for."

John Wesley (1703-91): "Wife: Be content to be insignificant. What loss would it be to God or man had you never been born."

The point of all this is to note that a literal understanding of the Genesis story puts us on questionable moral (and rational) ground; it requires the invention of concepts (not mentioned in the story itself) which are nonetheless necessary to explain a doctrine of original sin, while also providing the means by which the subjection of women has been legitimated.

-------------------------------------------

Let us assume the story is allegorical. An allegory for what?

- The emergence of the human capacity to think for one’s self?
- The development of our species from non-moral to moral beings?
- Rebelliousness and its consequences?
(each of these has been suggested in this thread)

It doesn’t seem to matter which is the primary focus, the lesson is always the same; thinking for one’s self, awareness of good and evil, not deferring to authority – these are all undesirable, “sinful,” the essence of human badness from which we need to be “saved” lest we suffer the torment of eternal damnation. The wages of sin is death.

Several people have likened the story to a parent providing instruction to a child (God is like the parent, Adam and Eve are like children). Of course, when children are disobedient or think themselves smarter than their parents, parents get annoyed. At the same time, though, parents (at least decent parents) desire that their children should eventually be smarter than they are, outgrow the need for constant instruction, etc. What would we think of a parent who, upon learning of a child’s first act of disobedience, cursed the child, kicked them out and condemned them to death or eternal torment?

If the story is an allegory, its message is antithetical to any reasonable standard of human conduct; that we should replace the cultivation of our rational capacities and our moral sentiments with mere deference to authority. Don’t ask why, just obey. It is a lousy parent who desires this for their children, and a tyrant creator who desires it for his creation.

------------------------------

So, whether the story is taken literally or allegorically, the result is the same, unquestioning obedience or else... It is no small coincidence that these themes emerge simultaneously with and are promulgated by the Patriarchs of the faith. Patriarchy (and hierarchy, more generally) is utterly dependent on portraying deference to authority as a virtue. Men are virtuous by deferring to God, women are virtuous by deferring to men, etc. No hierarchically structured society or institution can sustain itself if its members are thinking for themselves or failing to show proper deference to authority. If an authority says that something is good or bad, and a subordinate asks why, the answer is invariably intolerant (see God’s rant when Job asks, quite understandably, why he has been made to suffer).

--- Why was Eve tricked? ---

Well, consider who has benefitted over time from the perpetuation of this story; Christian men. Without original sin, people don’t have a default setting of “damnation.” And without that, there’s no need for salvation. Few would feel compelled to become Christian if it alleviated no fear and came with no reward. Every evangelist has capitalized on this tactic of inventing fear and then subsequently providing the means by which it can be alleviated. Moreover, without Eve “taking the fall,” there’s far less of a divine sanction on the subjection of women.

BOP

ps - can't remember who asked, but yes, a talking snake is also a little suspicious. and since so many people have mentioned the children of Adam and Eve, it might be worth wondering how they managed to find spouses...

If I could give you 50 stars and flags I would. OMG....you are awesome....and I'm assuming a woman. Thank you for all you wrote.
If my posts are antagonistic, I apologize. You just nailed much of what I've found and feel.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: troubleshooter

okay, let's apply it to adam and eve then...
who just came into existence one day with a being much greater than they are proclaiming to be their creator, their God.
someday in our distant future, we are liable to create a sentient being, maybe in our likeness... will we be their God? will we be ever so benevolent and loving to them, or is it more likely that we will have created them really for a rather selfish purpose?
I am only saying this because there are spiritual being out there who aren't THE GOD, but they did play a part in our creation and well, many do believe that there is nothing above them... they truly believe that they are God and just like we would expect our sentient robots to obey our every command, some seem to think that we should obey theirs.
so weather or not adam and eve had the ability to judge and foresee the consequences of their actions and weather or not the one who was claiming to be their god was THE GOD, I believe it was in their best interest to have that ability.
And, before the biblical versions of adam and eve, there were earlier versions.

Sumerian version has more than one God involved...




If there is a philosophy of Enki, it manifests and explains itself in early Mesopotamian and Egyptian thought, where the true creator of the universe was manifest within nature, and that nature enveloped both the Anunnaki, and the humans. Nature, as the Great Mother, was still supreme, despite any patriarchal scheme to the contrary. Admittedly, Enki’s claim of his birthright, the one being based on a matrilineal succession -- essentially the mitochondria DNA link, which is wholly passed through the female line -- was in Enki’s best interests. But Enki was also the maternal grandfather who came to the aid of Inanna when things went badly during her Descent into the Underworld.

With the arrival of Enlil, however, who in his best interests must demean the matriarchal line of succession, and thus nature itself -- everything changed. The Great Mother was dethroned and replaced by a supreme male (as opposed to a male consort for the Queen). The idea of cooperation -- as exemplified by the council of Anunnaki making cooperative decisions -- was quickly replaced by competition, and harmony was forsaken in favor of subservience. The supreme god became abstract, and any physical connection with human or nature was lost -- and thus the link between nature and human also destroyed. When Enlil hit town, there was a whole new deal put into effect.

According to Laurence Gardner [1], “The dominant tenet of the new thought was based wholly on the utmost fear of Enlil, who was known to have instigated the great Flood [or else acquiesced in not warning the humans, or making any attempt to save them], and to have facilitated the invasion and destruction of civilized Sumer. Here was a deity who spared no mercy for those who did not comply with his dictatorial authority.

“Abraham had experienced the vengeful Enlil first hand at the fall of Ur, and he was not about to take any chances with his own survival. He was even prepared to sacrifice the life of his young son, Isaac, to appease the implacable God (Genesis 32:9).” “The oriental scholar Henri Frankfort summarized the situation by making the point that... ‘Those who served Jehovah must forego the richness, the fulfillment, and the consolation of a life which moves in tune with the great rhythms of the earth and sky.”

Bramley [3] has noted that, “We therefore find Ea [Enki] as the reputed culprit who tried to teach early man (Adam) the way to spiritual freedom. This suggests that Ea intended his creation, Homo sapiens, to be suited for Earth labor, but at some point he changed his mind about using spiritual enslavement as a means.”

From a Biblical perspective, it was Enki who (with the critical assistance of his half-sister, Ninki, aka Nin-khursag) created Adam and Eve. It was Enlil, on the other hand, who created “Edin”. Enki was the serpent in the garden, who urged Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (which was infinitely beneficial to their spiritual growth). It was Enlil, who drove them out of Edin, while Enki was there to clothe them. It is worth noting that Zecharia Sitchin [2] claims that the biblical word for “snake” is nahash, which comes from the root word NHSH, and which means “to decipher, to find out.” In other words, Enki, the God of Wisdom.

www.halexandria.org...



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join