Ever wondered why

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: SkeptiSchism
Reading the Bible is very very difficult read.

I've always found it to be pretty straightforward. Somebody tells me I should "be more like Jesus," and then I read very plainly and specifically where Jesus and his followers made their living primarily by using "miracles" and casting out demons to cure the sick, I say, "Sorcery? Sounds good to me!"

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

No their sin was choosing education

That's assuming that eating from the tree of knowledge gave them knowledge... what if it deprived them of knowledge? Here is a literal translation of the occurence:

And Jehovah God saith to the woman, 'What is this thou hast done?' and the woman saith, 'The serpent hath caused me to forget -- and I do eat.' (Genesis 3:13 YLT)

and in the flickering light from Lilith's projector they realised they were making a shame of themselves, so they covered up. There is nothing suggesting the Etz ha Chayim has anything to do with sex. Unless you are a bored student of Crowleyan sex majick that is

Separation, shame, fear, anxiety, and going to find clothing - It sounds exactly like post-coital tristesse. Especially since "to know" in early Genesis was a reference to sexual conception

Adam knew his wife
Cain knew his wife
Adam again knew his wife

a reply to: cooperton

I didn't wear cloths for weeks when I made love for the first time. Thinking of cloths after sex sounds odd. If we are to read the full story, Adam had had plenty sexual experience before he ordered Eve to be built as his perfect match. Knowledge is knowledge, not the casual shag. You don't learn anything from screwing around except to give it up after a while and stay single for a while until it starts again. Admit that sex is not something you need a manual for, or any knowledge at all.

originally posted by: Abednego
That why Jesus says he is the son of MAN (meaning the androgynous man).

Well, not only that, but during that period of time and place it was a filthy insult to call somebody a "son of a woman," which would be a much harsher equivalent of SOB. So it's kind of odd that is what Jesus calls John the Baptist.

a reply to: DpatC

In Plato's Cratylus there is a discussion about how "names" can be disguised and these disguises include the adding or subtracting of a letter or two and it is also mentioned that "barbarians" engaged in this practice so it is not unreasonable to apply this idea to the Old Testament. The Hebrew word for "rib" is "tsela" while the Hebrew word for "shadow" is "tsel" so based on Cratylus it could be said that the "rib" was a disguised name for "shadow". Suppose the Bible really is allegory and "man" represents the real world and "woman" represents the false world? When Adam and Eve first learned of "good" and "evil" their first response was to "cover" themselves and "hide". Could this represent the invention of allegory in which "evil" represents hidden knowledge? In Plato's Allegory of the Cave, the false view of the world is represented by "shadows" on a wall. Could Plato have really been describing the nature of religious allegory?

When Mohammad first received a "revelation" from God, he supposedly cried to his wife "cover me". This hardly seems like manly behavior, but if Mohammad was employing the allegory of the Old Testament, then using a "woman" to provide a cover seems understandable.

So if a cover is female and the knowledge hidden underneath is male, then allegory is created by a "marriage". This then means that a marriage of two men would represent only the truth and thus "homosexuality" is a "sin" because it hides nothing.

We also know that the name "Christ" means "anointed" and this anointing is done with "ointment". In Hebrew the word for "oil" or "ointment" is "shemen" while the word for "name" is "shem". In the Song of Solomon (which assigns various metaphors to a "man" and a "woman") there is the remark "...thy name is an ointment…” so we might interpret this as meaning "ointment" is a disguised word for "name". This metaphoric relationship then appears to be confirmed when the word "christening" is used to describe the naming of something.

Dealing with the Bible as man made allegory is the only way to make real sense out of it.

a reply to: cooperton

The Bible didn't say rib, it said cell.

Tree of knowledge? Really? You don't gain fuel passing through a fuel filter. What is this hippy fantasy of forbidden wisdom drugs.. The tree of discernment of function and disfunction. Not a get Smart apple..

originally posted by: AdKiller
a reply to: cooperton

The Bible didn't say rib, it said cell.

Tree of knowledge? Really? You don't gain fuel passing through a fuel filter. What is this hippy fantasy of forbidden wisdom drugs.. The tree of discernment of function and disfunction. Not a get Smart apple..

Indeed. The word is Heb. /tsela/ -- same word as Lat. Cella and Eng. Cell. It's main semantics draws around 'a chamber' the connections to the side or the Eve's rib are circumstantial.

originally posted by: AdKiller
a reply to: cooperton

The Bible didn't say rib, it said cell.

Do you know if that cell was totipotent, pluripotent, or multipotent. If it were totipotent, would that mean that in theory that I could create any form of life not just Adam or Eve. Actually no what life I can create from a totipotent cell would be dependant on what kind of sperm I fused with the egg. I believe that's currently illegal to do, laws were different back in the day. Seriously If the Bible or any religious text's start talking about cells than my next question would be what kind of cells? As That will shine a completely different LIGHT on what your reading - just saying