Adam and Eve, the Fall and Responsibility...

[Aine of the Fae]

Ok, this question was brought up on another forum that I belong to and I thought I'd toss it into the ring here to see what anyone else thought of it:

Ok, let's assume, for the sake of this thread, that God really did create the Heavens and the Earth in one week and that during that week he created Adam and Eve. He placed them in the garden of Eden and told them they could have everything they wanted except for the fruit of two trees, The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life. Along comes mean, nasty serpent dude who then convinces Eve to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, henceforth known as TKGE. As punishment, God removes the serpent's legs and makes him slither the Earth on his belly. He also banishes Adam and Eve from the garden and what follows is generations of sin and depravity on the part of the Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve.

Question: How could Adam and Eve be held responsible for an action that they did not truly know the consequences of? According to the Bible there was no death before the Fall, so God saying "or you will surely die..." would have had little meaning to them. Also, they had yet to eat from the TKGE, therefore they didn't know right from wrong. They didn't know what thhey were doing was bad, so why were they punished and why were the following generations punished?

Ok, now discuss.

[Mab]

Interesting question. First, I suppose we should really investigate the original language of the texts, but as I don't have my trusty study Bible handy, or my old pastor with the fluent knowledge of Hebrew......let's just go with the idea that perhaps the term "death" doesn't really translate as we assume it does. Suppose is has a different meaning in the original Hebrew? Suppose God didn't threaten with physical death, or even spiritual death, but with separation from Him.

Second, Adam & Eve, IMO, certainly understood that God said "DON'T--upon punishment by Me". Eve was tricked. OK, so---yeah, that does play into the whole "women are weaker" thing, but it's true. She was tricked by the serpent....she was co-erced, seduced, mislead...a victim of false advertising (and many of us know what that's like). However, Adam was not. Adam (supposedly the stronger of the two) knew exactly what he was doing & made a conscious decision b/t the woman & God. According to my belief & how I was raised (and this just makes sense to me, too), Adam & Eve were not punished just b/c Eve at the apple & tempted Adam with it, but b/c Adam made the willful & flagrant decision to defy God's decree & eat the apple, thus choosing the woman over his Lord.

*shrug*........just one theory, of course. No way to tell what really happened, now is there? (Unless somebody has a time machine they aren't telling me about!)

[Klucky]

*shrugs* Abuse of power?

-Klucky

[Shanti]

Its not logical at all and makes no scense to me what so ever!!! I think it would be along the lines of punishing the inocent. As they yet to have had expirence in the very things the were warned of, they would of probably have had the minds of young children. For children are born with a clean slate and knowing anything is learned through example and trial and error. To punish a child severly for just going through a learning prosess of what no means and the why and hows is cruel. The first time a child makes a mistake, the child has no conseption as to what or why he/she was wrong.

Gosh how can you conceive 'hot' until you expirance it?

Iam rambling here....It makes no sence at all.

My 2cents.

[Shanti]

*shrugs* Abuse of power?

-Klucky
:thumbsup: That'll work!!!

[Klucky]

:thumbsup: That'll work!!!

:lol: Hell, I'd probably do such things if I could "just because I can". But then I'd laugh and bring them back in.

-Klucky

[samiaminsane]

Its not logical at all and makes no scense to me what so ever!!! I think it would be along the lines of punishing the inocent. As they yet to have had expirence in the very things the were warned of, they would of probably have had the minds of young children. For children are born with a clean slate and knowing anything is learned through example and trial and error. To punish a child severly for just going through a learning prosess of what no means and the why and hows is cruel. The first time a child makes a mistake, the child has no conseption as to what or why he/she was wrong.

Oh, no , you make perfect sense, and found a way to describe what I couldn't seem to find the words to explain with. I second the opinion.

[Aine of the Fae]

Interesting question. First, I suppose we should really investigate the original language of the texts, but as I don't have my trusty study Bible handy, or my old pastor with the fluent knowledge of Hebrew......let's just go with the idea that perhaps the term "death" doesn't really translate as we assume it does. Suppose is has a different meaning in the original Hebrew? Suppose God didn't threaten with physical death, or even spiritual death, but with separation from Him.

Second, Adam & Eve, IMO, certainly understood that God said "DON'T--upon punishment by Me". Eve was tricked. OK, so---yeah, that does play into the whole "women are weaker" thing, but it's true. She was tricked by the serpent....she was co-erced, seduced, mislead...a victim of false advertising (and many of us know what that's like). However, Adam was not. Adam (supposedly the stronger of the two) knew exactly what he was doing & made a conscious decision b/t the woman & God. According to my belief & how I was raised (and this just makes sense to me, too), Adam & Eve were not punished just b/c Eve at the apple & tempted Adam with it, but b/c Adam made the willful & flagrant decision to defy God's decree & eat the apple, thus choosing the woman over his Lord.

*shrug*........just one theory, of course. No way to tell what really happened, now is there? (Unless somebody has a time machine they aren't telling me about!)

Well, I just so happen to have several trusty Bibles handy :D (One on my computer, one on my desk and a bookshelf FULL of Bibles my grandmother gave me when she retired from the ministry) And one of my Bibles has the Hebrew words referenced (the computer one) And the word used for die is mûth מוּת Which means, literally, dead, physically dead. Not seperated from God but breathless, no heartbeat dead.

However, that's not the question. The question is how could Adam and Eve be held at all responsible if they didn't know Good from Evil. That would mean they HAD NO FREE WILL!!!

[Aine of the Fae]

Its not logical at all and makes no scense to me what so ever!!! I think it would be along the lines of punishing the inocent. As they yet to have had expirence in the very things the were warned of, they would of probably have had the minds of young children. For children are born with a clean slate and knowing anything is learned through example and trial and error. To punish a child severly for just going through a learning prosess of what no means and the why and hows is cruel. The first time a child makes a mistake, the child has no conseption as to what or why he/she was wrong.

Gosh how can you conceive 'hot' until you expirance it?

Iam rambling here....It makes no sence at all.

My 2cents.

Exactly!

[Aine of the Fae]

*shrugs* Abuse of power?

-Klucky

If that's the case, then we certainly know where people got it from...

[Morr]

its a test.
God tests Adam & Eve - its as simple as that.

Do you listen to me & trust in what i tell you? or do you not?
and you know what? if you dont, fine - but be ready to face the consequences.

the Rabbi always used to tell us in Bible Classes that God is like a parent setting boundries for his kids - Adam & Eve. The kids know that their parents have more experience & knowlege and try to preven harm from coming their kids' way. But the kids have the ultimate choice wether to listen to their parents or not. If not - they get punished/face the consequences.

thats as far as i know regarding the interpertation of this story. and I know it in Hebrew - it has the same meaning as in english.

[Aine of the Fae]

:lol: Hell, I'd probably do such things if I could "just because I can". But then I'd laugh and bring them back in.

-Klucky

Klucky!!! You are so bad!!! Are you sure you're a chicken and not a snake???

[Klucky]

If that's the case, then we certainly know where people got it from...

Ooohh, good one! :)

-Klucky

[Klucky]

Klucky!!! You are so bad!!! Are you sure you're a chicken and not a snake???

Can't tells ya. It's a secret. :evilway:

-Klucky

[Klucky]

its a test.
God tests Adam & Eve - its as simple as that.

Do you listen to me & trust in what i tell you? or do you not?
and you know what? if you dont, fine - but be ready to face the consequences.

the Rabbi always used to tell us in Bible Classes that God is like a parent setting boundries for his kids - Adam & Eve. The kids know that their parents have more experience & knowlege and try to preven harm from coming their kids' way. But the kids have the ultimate choice wether to listen to their parents or not. If not - they get punished/face the consequences.

thats as far as i know regarding the interpertation of this story. and I know it in Hebrew - it has the same meaning as in english.

That's a good theory, but it still doesn't make sense to me. If they still didn't know right from wrong, how would they know defying someone was bad?

-Klucky

[Aine of the Fae]

its a test.
God tests Adam & Eve - its as simple as that.

Do you listen to me & trust in what i tell you? or do you not?
and you know what? if you dont, fine - but be ready to face the consequences.

the Rabbi always used to tell us in Bible Classes that God is like a parent setting boundries for his kids - Adam & Eve. The kids know that their parents have more experience & knowlege and try to preven harm from coming their kids' way. But the kids have the ultimate choice wether to listen to their parents or not. If not - they get punished/face the consequences.

thats as far as i know regarding the interpertation of this story. and I know it in Hebrew - it has the same meaning as in english.

But what kind of God, what kind of parent tests the newly born? And for all intents and purposes, at least according to Genesis, Adam and Eve were newly born.

I don't give my child instructions to test him. I set limits for his own good, but certainly not to test him. And when he was little and first learning to walk and talk and learning about his environment I certainly didn't sentence him to a lifetime and generations of punishment when he stumbled.

[Shanti]

its a test.
God tests Adam & Eve - its as simple as that.

Do you listen to me & trust in what i tell you? or do you not?
and you know what? if you dont, fine - but be ready to face the consequences.

the Rabbi always used to tell us in Bible Classes that God is like a parent setting boundries for his kids - Adam & Eve. The kids know that their parents have more experience & knowlege and try to preven harm from coming their kids' way. But the kids have the ultimate choice wether to listen to their parents or not. If not - they get punished/face the consequences.

thats as far as i know regarding the interpertation of this story. and I know it in Hebrew - it has the same meaning as in english.
Its an awful cruel test in my opinion. To take an inocent child that does not yet understand due to lack of expirance and say..if you do this, I will through you outside to live is quite cruel. Kinda sounds like abusive parenting. Plus god is suppose to be all forgiving, full of love. When the child says, now I understand, I am sorry and wont do it again, wouldnt you let him/her back in the house?

[Shanti]

The tree's should of been put out of reach. Gosh you gotta child proof those bad things!!!

[Klucky]

Hmmm...but wait. Wasn't that one of the original reasons God existed? To be a tough daddy? *ponders*

-Klucky

[Aine of the Fae]

When my son was about 3 years old, I was in the kitchen fixing dinner. He toddled in a came a bit close to the stove and I told him to stay away, don't touch it because it's hot. He walked away and then a few seconds later came back and touched the stove, instantly bursting into tears because, yes, it was hot. No serious damage, it didn't even blister, just turned red. Did I punish him for not listening to me? No, the pain from a lesson learned was punishment enough.

So what painful lesson could Adam and Eve have received from disobeying God when they really had no Free Will and no frame of reference for punishment or disobedience? How about a guilty conscience? Knowing that what they had done was wrong? Have you ever felt so extremely guilty over something that it made you sick? How about the people who have killed themselves from guilt? Gone insane from it? Don't you think that's more than enough punishment? So why did God have to go overboard?

[Aine of the Fae]

Hmmm...but wait. Wasn't that one of the original reasons God existed? To be a tough daddy? *ponders*

-Klucky

There are no "reasons" for God's existance! He simply is. There is no beginning or end to God!!! And being a tough daddy is entirely different from being an abusive father.

[samiaminsane]

But what kind of God, what kind of parent tests the newly born? And for all intents and purposes, at least according to Genesis, Adam and Eve were newly born.

God is supposed to be all-forgiving, but he does this. He is supposed to love us NO MATTER WHAT, but turns Adam and Eve out of Paradise because of one thing they did wrong. I always wonder if God was really the Devil in the Bible, since it is always said that the Devil will trick you in any way possible.... I am not very knowledgeable with the Bible, but that is one thing that always makes me go 'hmmm'.

[Klucky]

There are no "reasons" for God's existance! He simply is. There is no beginning or end to God!!! And being a tough daddy is entirely different from being an abusive father.

True.

I know this kind of is off topic, but I wanted to share it. This statement just reminded me of it for some reason. *shrugs*

http://www.flashplayer.com/animation/life.html

-Klucky

[Shanti]

Good one Klucky....LMAO!

[Aine of the Fae]

God is supposed to be all-forgiving, but he does this. He is supposed to love us NO MATTER WHAT, but turns Adam and Eve out of Paradise because of one thing they did wrong. I always wonder if God was really the Devil in the Bible, since it is always said that the Devil will trick you in any way possible.... I am not very knowledgeable with the Bible, but that is one thing that always makes me go 'hmmm'.

Some gnostics believe that the God of the Old Testament was an evil God who trapped humanity in this false world and that Jesus came to free humanity from the clutches of said evil God.

[Klucky]

Some gnostics believe that the God of the Old Testament was an evil God who trapped humanity in this false world and that Jesus came to free humanity from the clutches of said evil God.

So the spawn of the evil was our only hope? I'm confused...

-Klucky

[Klucky]

Good one Klucky....LMAO!

Did you notice Earth was in that pile? :2G: I think it holds a lot of meaning. :)

-Klucky

[Aine of the Fae]

So the spawn of the evil was our only hope? I'm confused...

-Klucky

Yeah... never said the theology was perfect... But hey, kids aren't always like their parents... I know I'm not... and that's a really, really good thing...

[Klucky]

Yeah... never said the theology was perfect... But hey, kids aren't always like their parents... I know I'm not... and that's a really, really good thing...

:)

But in regards to that theory, if God could do whatever he pleases, how would he let his own son save humanity from him? Oh well. People are entitled to believe whatever they want, I guess.

-Klucky

[Aine of the Fae]

True.

I know this kind of is off topic, but I wanted to share it. This statement just reminded me of it for some reason. *shrugs*

http://www.flashplayer.com/animation/life.html

-Klucky

Good one!!

[mara]

The thing that it always boils down to is that God knew what would happen when he created Adam and Eve..When he created Satan he knew he would fall. The free will thing that everyone always uses to explain it doesn't answer the question for me..It doesn't make any sense and that is one of many reasons that I am no longer a Christian.

[Mab]

Well, I just so happen to have several trusty Bibles handy :D (One on my computer, one on my desk and a bookshelf FULL of Bibles my grandmother gave me when she retired from the ministry) And one of my Bibles has the Hebrew words referenced (the computer one) And the word used for die is mûth מוּת Which means, literally, dead, physically dead. Not seperated from God but breathless, no heartbeat dead.

However, that's not the question. The question is how could Adam and Eve be held at all responsible if they didn't know Good from Evil. That would mean they HAD NO FREE WILL!!!

well, I would say obviously they did have free will, as they chose to do the opposite of what they were told to do. My understanding has always been that, though they were newly born, the couple were newly formed with adult bodies & intellects.


and while we're all so wrapped up in how God is supposed to be all loving & all forgiving....aren't we forgetting the simple idea of Perfect Divine Justice, too? Maybe the punishments were more like "tough love" than abuse. I didn't have to have the experience of crashing a car at age 13 to know that when mom said "DO NOT DRIVE MY CAR" I wasn't supposed to drive her car.

I just don't believe that one must have experience to have knowledge, and in my opinion Adam & Eve knew better than to eat of the tree & they did it anyway. Is it not a lesson on responsibility for one's actions?

[Mab]

its a test.
God tests Adam & Eve - its as simple as that.

Do you listen to me & trust in what i tell you? or do you not?
and you know what? if you dont, fine - but be ready to face the consequences.

the Rabbi always used to tell us in Bible Classes that God is like a parent setting boundries for his kids - Adam & Eve. The kids know that their parents have more experience & knowlege and try to preven harm from coming their kids' way. But the kids have the ultimate choice wether to listen to their parents or not. If not - they get punished/face the consequences.

thats as far as i know regarding the interpertation of this story. and I know it in Hebrew - it has the same meaning as in english.

Excellent point.

(and I wasn't trying to state that the Hebrew was different than the English, just questioning, as I don't know Hebrew but a teeny bit myself, and jsut going on the idea that possibly it might have gotten screwed up in translation as many things did. Guess that was not the case this time.)

[Kitfox]

First of all, if God made humans with free will, then when did he tell them not to eat from the tree? Isn't that kind of impeding on it?

God: Okay, you guys are all set. You've got this lovely planet, some nice fruit trees, and some kick ass animals. Go have fun, kids!

A&E: Yeah!

God: Oh, yeah, wait. I know how I kinda gave you free will? Wellllllll, guess what, even though I gave you the power to make your own decisions, gave you the minds and brains to be curious about your environment, and basically gave Evil a big fat chance to make everything poopy, you can't eat from that pretty tree over there.

A&E: Darn.

God: Got it? Good, I'm gonna go take a vacation.


Yeah, and also depending on what translation you look at Bible-wise, it's not the TKGE, but just the ToK. This implies that they had no knowledge of all. If they had no knowledge, how could they know that disobeying is wrong?

It's kinda like a puppy dog. They don't know the chewing the furinture is wrong or peeing in the house is wrong, even if you say to the dog, "Peeing in the house is not allowed, so don't do it." The only way they know it's wrong is by actually being scolded.

Yeah, so that's my take on it. Sorry if it's a bit choppy, trying to answer real fast before I go eat some birthday cake!

[samiaminsane]

and while we're all so wrapped up in how God is supposed to be all loving & all forgiving....aren't we forgetting the simple idea of Perfect Divine Justice, too? Maybe the punishments were more like "tough love" than abuse. I didn't have to have the experience of crashing a car at age 13 to know that when mom said "DO NOT DRIVE MY CAR" I wasn't supposed to drive her car.

Yes, but even if you had stupidly decided to drive her car, only you would be punished.... not every one on the planet. Your mom wouldn't broadcast a nationwide statement that Aine drove her car even though she said not to, and now the entire population has it's driving priviledges revoked.

The best scenario I can think of was that God didn't do this to punish us, but because we were not ready for him/her.

[Aine of the Fae]

Yes, but even if you had stupidly decided to drive her car, only you would be punished.... not every one on the planet. Your mom wouldn't broadcast a nationwide statement that Aine drove her car even though she said not to, and now the entire population has it's driving priviledges revoked.

The best scenario I can think of was that God didn't do this to punish us, but because we were not ready for him/her.

But, if we aren't ready for God, isn't that God's fault? Who created us? So again, why does the entire world have to suffer for the mistake of one couple who may not have even known any better in the first place?

[samiaminsane]

But, if we aren't ready for God, isn't that God's fault? Who created us? So again, why does the entire world have to suffer for the mistake of one couple who may not have even known any better in the first place?

That's where I always get stuck, because if God created us in his own image, then God could not be perfect himself to create imperfect beings. *sigh* To delve more into "us not being ready for God", I meant that perhaps he thought we would be his intellectual equals, but we weren't and our brains are not able to think in the same ways that he can. I know that doesn't really answer your questions and I think I just created more of my own.

[Aine of the Fae]

That's where I always get stuck, because if God created us in his own image, then God could not be perfect himself to create imperfect beings. *sigh* To delve more into "us not being ready for God", I meant that perhaps he thought we would be his intellectual equals, but we weren't and our brains are not able to think in the same ways that he can. I know that doesn't really answer your questions and I think I just created more of my own.

*grins* More questions are good! I like more questions! I like to think, to ponder, to explore the possibilities! Without questions we'd never have answers!

[Mab]

Yes, but even if you had stupidly decided to drive her car, only you would be punished.... not every one on the planet. Your mom wouldn't broadcast a nationwide statement that Aine drove her car even though she said not to, and now the entire population has it's driving priviledges revoked.

The best scenario I can think of was that God didn't do this to punish us, but because we were not ready for him/her.

well, that's a disadvantage to being the first 2 ppl on Earth, right? :hrmm:

while it's nice for discussion, there's really no answer here. As we are all merely human (in comparison to a separate Divine), we cannot fully know or comprehend the mind of God. I won't further expound on my own beliefs, as I'm sure they would incur an insurmountable amount of criticism & we'd be off on a totally different subject.

Suffice it to say, I don't think we can understand fully.

[Aine of the Fae]

well, that's a disadvantage to being the first 2 ppl on Earth, right? :hrmm:

while it's nice for discussion, there's really no answer here. As we are all merely human (in comparison to a separate Divine), we cannot fully know or comprehend the mind of God. I won't further expound on my own beliefs, as I'm sure they would incur an insurmountable amount of criticism & we'd be off on a totally different subject.

Suffice it to say, I don't think we can understand fully.

It's fun to explore and to ask the questions, but yes, in the end, God is too complex for us to understand. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying!

[Ladyvi]

ok let me through a bit of a twist in there. in the torah. the original words of the old testament. lilith was made with adam. his first wife.

if adam and lilith was going along . im not too sure that the fall would have happened. lilith was smart enough to tell adam where to put himself when he tried to make lilith submit to his will. thus the first divorce. adam wanted a mate more 'suitable for him'.

something also to note. adam was made. lilith was made. eve was created.

[Aine of the Fae]

ok let me through a bit of a twist in there. in the torah. the original words of the old testament. lilith was made with adam. his first wife.

if adam and lilith was going along . im not too sure that the fall would have happened. lilith was smart enough to tell adam where to put himself when he tried to make lilith submit to his will. thus the first divorce. adam wanted a mate more 'suitable for him'.

something also to note. adam was made. lilith was made. eve was created.

Lilith is Jewish folklore, and may be the result of mistranslation rather that two wives for Adam. Honestly, I don't believe that Lilith ever truly existed as far as Adam and Eve goes.

And made and created are the same thing.

[{Tigress}]

I'm in the camp of those who believe Adam and Eve knew they shouldn't disobey God. Just because they had no concept of punishment doesn't mean they didn't realize they shouldn't disobey God. Your three year old KNEW not to disobey you and yet he chose to do so anyway, out of his free will. He KNEW he was doing wrong (or he wouldn't have backed away the first time you told him no), he just didn't understand WHY you said no. Same with Adam and Eve.

[Mab]

It's fun to explore and to ask the questions, but yes, in the end, God is too complex for us to understand. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying!

must be something about the name "Aine"...........I do the same thing, and as long as nobody's getting mad, I'm cool! Just as long as we all agree we're on a "Could God make a burrito so big even He Himself couldn't eat it?" journey! :veryweird

and Selene....that's exactly what I was trying to say, but I think I botched it. I totally concur.

[{Tigress}]

must be something about the name "Aine"...........I do the same thing, and as long as nobody's getting mad, I'm cool! Just as long as we all agree we're on a "Could God make a burrito so big even He Himself couldn't eat it?" journey! :veryweird

and Selene....that's exactly what I was trying to say, but I think I botched it. I totally concur.

You didn't botch it. :)

[samiaminsane]

"Could God make a burrito so big even He Himself couldn't eat it?"
Hey, that would be nice about now, my stomach is grumbling....
I think we will end up creating more questions than answers, but that's alright with me too. I also wonder about Noah, because if God first cast away Adam and Eve and then all but Noah, his wife, the animals, etc. were put to an end with the flood, then why didn't God give Noah the chance to "get back in the folds", for lack of a better term?

*remember that I am not Christian and am not bible-knowledgeable, this will probably become my disclaimer at the bottom of posts on here!*

[~*Ginger*~]

*ack, page two is stretched like page one*

Aine, I wasn't able to read the whole thread, because of the way it's stretched...

i'm gonna throw in here what I've heard, and learned.

Ok, first, (not that I'm pushing anything here ;) )
if you can get your hands on some Morman scriptures,
they do help in understanding, some things that are harder to understand, by having just the Bible.

While I was going to church, I remember a lesson they taught about this.

Ok, first you have to not, just look at the beginning, (as if you could) but the big picture, [B]the plan...

god knew before he even started all this how it would go.
and even though he told them 'not to touch', being human, it is natural that they would. *think children here*

From my understanding Adam, spent a bit more time with god, than Eve did.

they teach that Adam was first approached by the serpent and he would not take it, because he knew that everything would change.
He's perfectly happy, so he goes on his way....

Well being the wily critter the serpent is, he went to Eve next.
Well since Adam is over here doing his thing, and spending more time with god than Eve, she sits down and listens to some one paying her a bit of attention. (silver-tounged, no doubt)
it makes sense, to her.
time for a change.

Well the fruit is biten, can't change that.

Well now, Eve's not gonna be able to stay here now.
So what choice does he have?
There's no way she's gonna be able to go out there all by herself, and survive.
He's not wanting to sit here all by himself, been there, done that!
And he really doesn't want to have to sit on this side of the orchard, living it up, just to hear her over on the other side crying all alone.

So he decides to get his bite too.
Might as well, because their gonna be seperate, or together.
Might as well go as the pair they are....

*(please remember, this is me, paraphrasing in my own thoughts, and words, not their lesson plan, but you get the picture)*

they were meant to do what they did, the way they did it, even the serpent. ;)

this makes sense to me.

What better way to get the ball rolling, the way you want it to, than to tell someone not to do what you want them too?

In the end it'll all be like it's suppose to be.

They did have freewill.
He just gave them rules to go by if they wanted things to stay just the way they were.
It was time for a change.
And it hasn't stopped since...

Honestly, I don't think it was a bad thing to happen, really.
Quite good if you think about it, but much easier to see, if you/we/I turn around, and look at our children.

god was not wanting to hurt them, to kill them, for them to die.

He was wanting this world to evolve, and all the things in it, to grow.
And that couldn't happen, if Adam & Eve danced under the moon, forever innocent.

:)

[Mab]

Wow, Flora. That's incredibly well put, and I don't know about anybody else, but it makes sense to me.

[Ladyvi]

all folklore and myth come from truth.. i believe lilith existed.

oh another note .. created -- to bring into existence

made -- to artificially produce, put together of various ingredients.

there is a huge difference between the two.

[flar7]

where to start?

Well, Lilith has nothing to do with the question here, so will leave her out.

Not know right from wrong? of course they do. They just dont know good from evil. Those are totally different and exclusive concepts. Important ones too.

Why does Eve fall to the temptation to eat and not Adam? weakness? maybe. but maybe since she was created from Adam, she is one step more removed and hence less time with God and less ability to give in on that.

Fear of being kicked out of the garden? nope. They could have no idea of "outside" unless already told. The punishment as listed for eating is "death."

Kicked out of the garden. Not as punishment, so much as prevention. They ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So God says, and I am paraphrasing, "Let us (plural btw) remove/kick them from the garden lest they eat now of the tree of life and having knowledge of good and evil, be like us. Ta Da. immortal. god/gods/angels, whatever the plurality is he is talking to.

The punishment for them, was not being kicked out, but having to work for all their needs, suffering the emnity of serpents, woman having to give birth in pain, and a few other things I cant recall at the moment.

also some plurality mentioned in creating adam and eve and then more adam and eves. confusing. Is hard to follow that line but it explains who the heck the kid married after he fled from killing his brother and dwelt in the land of Nod.

Soon after, God begins cutting back the years of life alotted to men. heheh. By soon, I mean a few generations and such after Methuselah.

[LittlePerson]

I don't see the whole it happened mercifully and fated thing. I agree more with clucky. There are plenty of teachers who will punish an entire classroom because of two students acting up/out. I know I remember my own experiences with this and not thinking it was fair to myself and everyone else. Also, because it is still going on, I have a degree in education. And as far as I can guess it will continue. If god knew it would happen and for good reason, why eternal humankind punishment and sin?

[Aine of the Fae]

Glad to see you jump in Flora!

Now, I have to disagree with you. If God had it all planned out, then what's the point? If Adama and Eve were manipulated by tempting them with the tree, then what's the point?

I guess it boils down to this:

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful then he knows exactly every choice we are going to make, good or bad. He knows how it's going to end, so there is no point in making any choices at all.

Have any of you ever read the Conversations with God series by Neale Donald Walsch? It's an excellent series of books exploring God and the nature of the Universe. The way he explains God (or God explains God...) is that God is everything. God is the Universe. And in the beginning that's all there was, just God, alone. Well God basically had no reference point to know Himself, so She created the Universe and all that's in it to experience Himself. And then promptly forgot that She did so. We are all God, experiencing God and trying to remember that we are God.

Buddha, Christ and all the other greats are the ones who have gotten the closest to re-experiencing being God. We are all capable of that, we just forgot. On purpose. So that we could experience every facet of existence and get to know God. Us.

[Druchii]

I think God, Allah, Jehova, whatever has a flair for the dramatic and for the epic. Which is why for a long time I thought he / she was gay. I figure I can ask him when I die, IF I make it up there and if he is real. I personally think that being all knowing, he had it all planned out. Seriously, and wanted something to do with his creation. Sort of like a science project I guess. Who ever was the reason I am here didn't put me here to wonder about he / she /it, she put me here to look upon all else and learn and live. I don't think that what Adam and Eve did affected me. I think that it was a premeditaded bit on old Jehova to spice things up was all.

[~*Ginger*~]

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful then he knows exactly every choice we are going to make, good or bad. He knows how it's going to end, so there is no point in making any choices at all.



what's the point?
The point is that it is a lesson, an opportunity to grow, to become....

A place to start building knowledge, & experience, so that we may follow the plan.
the plan layed out to follow that was learned by him/them, (cause he was not alone in the creation) that they followed to be able to create this world. (cause there are more than one going on at this time, only different dimentions of this...)
A plan that is older than god...
He learned from his god & godesses. And followed their examples...
After proving that he was able to become...

We are to come here, by our own choice to the people that we choose to give us our traits. (family)
We see, hear, touch, smell, taste, experience, so that after we go thru all the past, & future lives, that eventually if we prove ourselves to be able to do so, we create our own worlds, our own Adam & Eve and then we give them their opportunity.

Then after our creations 'become' they will create their own worlds as well.

God was flesh before he learned to become, what he is now...
Just as we will.

The beginning as we know it is only a smigion of the info, just enough of a taste that after being here, and doing it here, we have the patterns of knowledge, & experience to follow to make our own flowers, tress, critters and folks.

It is a magic eternal circle...

And we knew all this before we passed thru the veil, and our sight was dimmed, so we relearn, re-remember, eventually after many life times.

(Ya know all of this is so much more than just the beginning...
and so very much more than just the end)

O

Besides a choice is so much better learned from, than a force upon no choice situation.

[Ben Trismegistus]

*jumps back in with both feet*

OK, here goes. I think the problem with the Adam and Eve story is the context.

Is the banishment from the Garden really a punishment? Think about it. The Garden means stasis -- no change, no knowledge, no children, no other people at all. Is that paradise? It's nothing - an eternity of sameness. Exile means all sorts of new experiences -- childbirth, learning, pain, love. If the Garden is stasis, then exile from the Garden means that life actually begins. For there is no life without death.

So, going from there, you have to question God's intentions. Why would he create the entire world, if he intended for Adam and Eve (who were meant to "hold dominion over all the earth and subdue it") to stay for all eternity in one tiny section of it? And if he didn't want Adam and Eve to taste the fruit of the Tree of Life, why put the Tree in the Garden? Why not put it somewhere else where they couldn't get to it? For a supposedly perfect God, that seems like poor planning, doesn't it?

So, extrapolating from there, in my opinion you can only draw the conclusion that God *intended* for Adam and Eve to eat the apple. He set it up so that eating the apple was a rite of passage through which Adam and Eve would discover the entire world around them. It *was* a test in a way, a test of human curiosity. That natural human curiosity makes it so that there was never a question that they would eventually want to know what happens if you eat the apple. Not eating the apple would be a failure of humanity -- a lack of free will and the power to take risks. Human history would not exist at all if they hadn't eaten the apple. Period.

So the apple was a key that opened up the whole of life to Adam and Eve, and thereby to the rest of humanity. And exile was not a punishment, but a prize.

[Ladyvi]

ben ... ~ smiles ~ .. bingo

[~*Ginger*~]

Exactly!

[Equinox]

Ben –

Yes, that makes sense, but it doesn’t fit with the rest of Christian theology. Aside from the fact that it makes god into a liar “you are not to eat of that tree” (when that is exactly what you are supposed to do), there are many other problems – such as god giving women hard childbirth as a result of something god planned, punishing everyone for the acts of two people, etc, etc.

More importantly, since Christian theology (and I think Jewish theology) later decided that the punishment for the fall was eternal torture in Hell, it is hard to see how eternal torture is some kind of “encouragement to growth”.

I think it is important here to remember that we call the books of the bible “books” for a reason – they used to be separate, and make more sense when evaluated and read separately. Thus Ben’s explaination makes a lot of sense – by itself. It doesn’t make much sense when someone tries to include the Genesis book with the other books we call the Bible, such as Paul’s letters.

[Ladyvi]

equinox ... i dont care how god made childbirth. its a matter of physics. up to that point however long they was in the garden they didnt have childbirth.

the physics part. woman dialates to 10 cm. baby's head is somewhat bigger than that. no matter how you slice it. rather god intended it or not . its going to hurt. as far as the other stuff. in all actuality it was mans interpretation of those words we are relying on . what if the interpretation is flawed and that wasnt what god intended to say.

i feel for christians cause they are lead to believe that birth means being born to sin thus making birth not a very happy time. i for one dont buy that piece of dogmatic tripe. and some of this was translated and interpreted by others to control that masses. 'look this is gods word, cant go against god can we ' imagine an oily smile at that point.

i agree with the books though. even so would like to see the missing books that got conveniently left out. the apocrypha has some interesting books. there is reputed to be 7 books of moses. the last two i think are forbidden to the public if i remember correctly.

[samiaminsane]

Originally posted by Equinox: Aside from the fact that it makes god into a liar “you are not to eat of that tree” (when that is exactly what you are supposed to do), there are many other problems – such as god giving women hard childbirth as a result of something god planned, punishing everyone for the acts of two people, etc, etc.

It doesn't necessarily make God into a liar. He told them not to eat from the tree, but they did. How are we to know he knew the outcome? Perhaps he was testing them, but was unsure of which way things would go. I hate that childbirth is seen as such a 'curse' upon us. It is one of the greatest miracles of this world.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Yes, that makes sense, but it doesn’t fit with the rest of Christian theology. Aside from the fact that it makes god into a liar “you are not to eat of that tree” (when that is exactly what you are supposed to do), there are many other problems – such as god giving women hard childbirth as a result of something god planned, punishing everyone for the acts of two people, etc, etc.
Well, then it's a good thing I don't hold with the rest of Christian theology. ;)

Personally, I think that the story is a metaphor anyway. I don't think that God *gave* women hard childbirth, etc. I think that pain is simply a part of life, and that if Adam & Eve (and therefore the rest of humanity) wanted to experience the positive aspects of life, they had to take the negatives as well. That's just the way it is.

As for God being a liar -- I think it was just part of the game. God had to see if humanity was willing to defy Him in order to see what else was out there.


More importantly, since Christian theology (and I think Jewish theology) later decided that the punishment for the fall was eternal torture in Hell, it is hard to see how eternal torture is some kind of “encouragement to growth”.
Hell was invented much later, as a means of getting Christian children to behave. For that matter, the whole concept of "the fall" and "original sin" was invented by the Christian Church. So those concepts have nothing at all to do with the intentions of the writers of the Old Testament.

And for that matter, can you find any Christian theology (outside of wackos) that states that Adam and Eve are burning in hell for all eternity for defying God?


I think it is important here to remember that we call the books of the bible “books” for a reason – they used to be separate, and make more sense when evaluated and read separately. Thus Ben’s explaination makes a lot of sense – by itself. It doesn’t make much sense when someone tries to include the Genesis book with the other books we call the Bible, such as Paul’s letters.
Well sure. But Paul was a loon. ;) (just kidding, not bashing)

I think that the ancient Jews had more of a talent for spinning a good story than the early Christians. You can find a lot of symbolic and metaphorical depth in the Old Testament. Some of it may not make much sense, but much of it is open to interpretation.

[Aine of the Fae]

The 'surely die' part has been resolved, for me at least, by an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi. God didn't say "you'll die an instantaneous death," just that they'd die. And they did. Granted it took a few years, however as soon as a person is born they start to die. The process is a long and drawn out one, and for all we know that process didn't occur in Adam and Eve.

[Mab]

all folklore and myth come from truth

hm........don't think I agree with that......

[Ladyvi]

yep .. paul had to be a loon in order to complete what he did. there is an old saying. 'the greatest oak was yesterday's nut that stood his ground.' the listing for the author is Anon. ~ shruggs~ but i like it. and this one you may want to concider.
'in the end, our society will not be defined by what we create, but by what we refuse to destoy' that was said by john c. sawhill.

[Mab]

Equinox...

I must disagree with the idea that Christian theology equates the fall from Grace to eternal damnation in hell. Hell is not earned by being born in sin b/c Adam & Eve screwed up. Hell is earned by turning away from Christ--refusing Salvation. *Granddaughter of a Baptist Minister here*. Children who die are not immediately escorted to hell simply b/c they were born. They are considered innocents until they reach an "age of accountability"--an age where it is possible for them to make the decision for themselves whether or not to accept Christ as the Messiah.

Oh, and one more small thing: That God knows all does not equate with having things planned. It's like--I can calculate all the possible outcomes of a situation I set up, so I know all the possible choices that can be made....I just have to sit back & watch to see which is played out....

[Ladyvi]

ok . on the folklore and myth thing.

lets take local folklore.. paul bunyan.. he did actually exist in physical record. did he do all those wonderous things. probably not . but he did do some pretty amazing stuff that got blown way out of proportion.

alexander the great's father was descended from hercules.

achilles half human half diety. well documented existence in the battle of troy.

john henry with the two hammers.. very well existed and most of the folklore on him was not made up.

all these beings are present in todays folklore and myth. as i said folklore and myth have a basis of truth to it. is it entirely true? . no some of it is elaborated extensively. but they did exist -- and they did do some interesting things.

[Equinox]

Aine wrote-

Hell is not earned by being born in sin b/c Adam & Eve screwed up. Hell is earned by turning away from Christ--refusing Salvation. *Granddaughter of a Baptist Minister here*. Children who die are not immediately escorted to hell simply b/c they were born.

The baby thing -Yep, that’s exactly correct – according to the Baptists and Presbyterians. It’s completely wrong according to the Catholics. According to the Catholic church, Children who die before being baptized aren’t saved, because they haven’t had their original sin removed, so they can't go right to heaven. Because the different Christianities we have today are different religions, there are many different answers for most of these questions.

Most of Christianity does say that Hell is due to Adam’s sin. Paul states many times that Christian theology does equate Adam’s fall with eternal torture in Hell, and most Christian go by his word, being that he wrote 7 of the books of the Bible. Most of Christianity sees Christ as offering a “get out of Hell, free” card, that can be either accepted or rejected.


For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 1Cor 15:22 see also Rom 3, Rom 5 and many other places in the writings of Paul.
Of course, some Christians disagree, as with any point of theology. Either way, we can always believe what we think is right.

As far as all myth starting in fact - many do, but some probably don't. Showing that some do doesn't prove that they *all* do, and I agree that many start in fact.

[Merlinawakend777]

they didnt have to know right from wrong, all they had to do was trust god in tellinb them, hey, i said no, i made you and if i say no, then listen up.

when they ate the fruit, they knew why he said np, acourding to the biblical text.

btw i am glad somone else mentioned the fruit of life.
because it seams like that partis being left out of the bibles of today.

people think they where kicked out of the garden as part of their punishment, but in all actuality, their punnishment was to suffer the knowledge of good and evil, to eventualy expirince death, and for woman to expirince the menstran cycle and the pain of birth, and the man to know what it is like to feel the pain work, by toiling the ground and such.
they where kicked out of the garden because there was still another fruit left for them to try, which would make them like elohim (gods)

[Merlinawakend777]

as far as the hell thing goes, what about the ews, the jews dont believe in what paul and john, and all those guys say about god,
i mean they are just people that followed christ and didnt even write down the words of christ tuill 60 years after his death, so why would anyone believe anything they say, then you have to think the romans are the ones who put the bible together right?
so again why believe it all, just read it objectively and thats it.

th4e jews didnt have much talk about hell,
only death,

as in physical death!

[Mab]

ok . on the folklore and myth thing.

lets take local folklore.. paul bunyan.. he did actually exist in physical record. did he do all those wonderous things. probably not . but he did do some pretty amazing stuff that got blown way out of proportion.

alexander the great's father was descended from hercules.

achilles half human half diety. well documented existence in the battle of troy.

john henry with the two hammers.. very well existed and most of the folklore on him was not made up.

all these beings are present in todays folklore and myth. as i said folklore and myth have a basis of truth to it. is it entirely true? . no some of it is elaborated extensively. but they did exist -- and they did do some interesting things.

Ok, but I still disagree. :tongueout

[Mab]

one small point....

"death" does not equal "hell". And from my experience with many Catholic churches, babies who die are not escorted to hell, either. Some older Catholics may believe that children who die before confirmation or even baptism go to Purgatory, but I've never heard anyone of any Christian belief tell me that an infant who dies after 3 minutes on this earth goes directly to hell.

[flar7]

most Catholics I know, treat that death of an infant before confirmation thing as if he "would" go to hell if the priest does not intervene.....which they normally do. Never forget, in Catholicism, you can be prayed in after the fact. Indulgences they were called.

While we are briefly there, some christian dogma (like Catholicism) states that there are no bastards in heaven. In medieval times this was felt to meant that if your father created you out of wedlock and didnt marry your mother.....you were damned. Now, since this verse is in the bible, I have a different view on it, but thought I would float that one here and see what you all thought.....?

[samiaminsane]

I actually went and looked up bastard at dictionary.com, and here's one of the many definitions:

1. A child born out of wedlock.
2. Something that is of irregular, inferior, or dubious origin.
3. Slang. A person, especially one who is held to be mean or disagreeable
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bastard

Since I cannot imagine a god who would cast aside innocent children just because their parents were not married, I'm going to go with what's behind door #2. I will say that (IMHO) that bastard in the Bible was not supposed to mean children out of wedlock, but people who lead false lives.

[Equinox]

Aine wrote:

one small point....

"death" does not equal "hell". And from my experience with many Catholic churches, babies who die are not escorted to hell, either. Some older Catholics may believe that children who die before confirmation or even baptism go to Purgatory


Yes, Aine, that is correct. I didn’t go into all the detail because I didn’t want to take everyone’s time. The official Catholic doctrine is that they go to Purgatory, which is like Hell, except that the can eventually get out, especially if Catholics pray for them. The existence of Purgatory is rejected my most protestants. Here is more on Purgatory if you are interested: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

[Aine of the Fae]

Yes, Catholics do believe that babies who die without priestly intervention do not go to heaven. It's a basic part of Catholic doctrine. Not all Catholics will openly admit to this belief, many aren't even sure they believe it, however the Pope believes it, and in the Catholic church, the Pope is as close to God as a person can get without actually being God.

Most Protestant churches rejected this doctrine during the reformation. It's just... wrong on a basic human level to thing that a child who had no choice but to come into this world would suffer for something it never did.

[WrathofCirce]

I was trying to think about this and all I could come up with is that I don't believe in Creation at all. I think the story is flawed and lacks any credibility. I was raised Roman Catholic and could never wrap my mind around the story of creation... so many contradictions, two different accounts, light and plants before the sun is created??? It's just so hard to find the logic. It kind of scares me that people hold onto it. No offense intended if you do. You must be seeing something I just don't.

Ben, you bring up several excellent points.

I've often wondered if the Garden of Eden is just symbolic of our playing god. Did we once live naturally but because we thought we could do better we built homes, invented machines to make our lives easier - all of which eventually leads to the destruction of nature, the need for money and the dawn of the urban rat race? ...thus being "banished" from the Garden of Eden?

Back to the question at hand.... I think Yahweh proves himself time and again to be a stern and unreasonable god. He often reminds me of one of those crazy, abusive husbands you see on "Lifetime...Television for Women." You know... if you don't line up the dry goods in the cubbard exactly the way I want, I'm gonna smite you!"

[Aine of the Fae]

I was trying to think about this and all I could come up with is that I don't believe in Creation at all. I think the story is flawed and lacks any credibility. I was raised Roman Catholic and could never wrap my mind around the story of creation... so many contradictions, two different accounts, light and plants before the sun is created??? It's just so hard to find the logic. It kind of scares me that people hold onto it. No offense intended if you do. You must be seeing something I just don't.

Ben, you bring up several excellent points.

I've often wondered if the Garden of Eden is just symbolic of our playing god. Did we once live naturally but because we thought we could do better we built homes, invented machines to make our lives easier - all of which eventually leads to the destruction of nature, the need for money and the dawn of the urban rat race? ...thus being "banished" from the Garden of Eden?

Back to the question at hand.... I think Yahweh proves himself time and again to be a stern and unreasonable god. He often reminds me of one of those crazy, abusive husbands you see on "Lifetime...Television for Women." You know... if you don't line up the dry goods in the cubbard exactly the way I want, I'm gonna smite you!"

I believe in a literal creation, although I don't believe that the Bible accurately describes. I don't believe it was only 10,000 to 40,000 years ago (dates vary dramatically) I believe it's a continual process, a joint effort between God and His creation. And I don't believe we are doing a very good job of continuing that creation in a manner that would make God happy. I don't believe we are doing a very good job of continuing that creation in a manner that makes humanity happy!!

YHWH as described in the Bible? Mean, cruel, vindictive, jealous. All too human in fact. I don't believe that's God. I believe that we view God in the terms that are most comfortable to us. And the God of the Bible is described in the terms most comfortable to a Patriarchal society whose goal was to expand in all directions. Successfully I might add. The Jewish people may not have large amounts of land and only one real small country of their own, but not many other cultures have survived, intact, as long as they have. Maybe there's something to appealing to God after all?

I believe that God is loving, kind, caring and flexible. Why do I believe this? Because I feel it, physically, in my heart, in my body.

[WrathofCirce]

See, there goes that faith thing again. I don't do faith. I need to be able to see it in a logical light. History, archeology, other sciences.... well that I can see and understand. The Bible doesn't allow for dinosaurs, cavemen, a round earth, an earth that revolves around the sun. Genesis alludes to there being more than one god. Genesis has the creator telling adam and eve to "replenish" the earth. If he just made it, that makes no sense. What I'm saying is that the very flawed Biblical account is all of the evidence of creation. Evolution can be proved and/or disproved, but people are so sensitive about the Bible being the absolute truth when it was passed down like a giant game of telephone for thousands of years before anyone actually wrote it down - and then it was written over and over again until finally compiled in the middle ages.
I often wonder... if only one god exists why people would have been worshipping other gods?

The first person in recorded history to say that there is only one god was Akhenaten - an 18th Dynasty Egyptian Pharaoh. He was known as the "Heretic King" because he went against the most traditional of beliefs. Now many archeologists believe it was purely for political reasons that he diverted from traditional polytheistic doctrine. I can see ancient depictions of Akhenaten, the Pharaohs before him, and the gods and goddesses they worshipped. Again, the Bible is really the only source for everything we "know" about that god/creator. Blind faith was never my bag, and I've got to go with what I can see, feel and touch.

I actually do believe in a Life Force that set evolution in motion. I believe this life force is ambivalent, however. I don't think it has the capacity to care if you ate an apple off a forbidden tree, cheated on a math test or killed your neighbor. I think a really big injustice that Christianity does is de-emphasize personal responsibility and accountability, as well as making women into second class citizens - when in truth, if the Creation story was true, and God is the creator, then wouldn't God be feminine?

[Aine of the Fae]

See, there goes that faith thing again. I don't do faith. I need to be able to see it in a logical light. History, archeology, other sciences.... well that I can see and understand. The Bible doesn't allow for dinosaurs, cavemen, a round earth, an earth that revolves around the sun. Genesis alludes to there being more than one god. Genesis has the creator telling adam and eve to "replenish" the earth. If he just made it, that makes no sense. What I'm saying is that the very flawed Biblical account is all of the evidence of creation. Evolution can be proved and/or disproved, but people are so sensitive about the Bible being the absolute truth when it was passed down like a giant game of telephone for thousands of years before anyone actually wrote it down - and then it was written over and over again until finally compiled in the middle ages.
I often wonder... if only one god exists why people would have been worshipping other gods?

The first person in recorded history to say that there is only one god was Akhenaten - an 18th Dynasty Egyptian Pharaoh. He was known as the "Heretic King" because he went against the most traditional of beliefs. Now many archeologists believe it was purely for political reasons that he diverted from traditional polytheistic doctrine. I can see ancient depictions of Akhenaten, the Pharaohs before him, and the gods and goddesses they worshipped. Again, the Bible is really the only source for everything we "know" about that god/creator. Blind faith was never my bag, and I've got to go with what I can see, feel and touch.

I actually do believe in a Life Force that set evolution in motion. I believe this life force is ambivalent, however. I don't think it has the capacity to care if you ate an apple off a forbidden tree, cheated on a math test or killed your neighbor. I think a really big injustice that Christianity does is de-emphasize personal responsibility and accountability, as well as making women into second class citizens - when in truth, if the Creation story was true, and God is the creator, then wouldn't God be feminine?


I tend to like faith, but I guess that's just me. You seem to have faith that those who are tellling you about History and geology and evolution are correct, when even the geologists, historians and evolutionists aren't absolutely certain they are correct.

The "one god" of Akhenaten was politically motivated, but also remember that the Egyptian's viewed their Pharaohs as gods. He wanted to be the only god, he wanted all that worship for himself.

What would you say if I can see and feel and touch that which I have faith in? I can see the wonder of God's creation, I can feel it, I can touch it, taste it, smell it. I know it's around me. The faith comes in believing it was created and not just a random act of chance.

Evolution cannot be proven. Too many holes. Seriously, they've been trying for years. And it's not just creation scientists who poke holes in evolution, it's atheistic scientists as well. I'll find my sources later, lost all my bookmarks when my computer crashed.

As for Christianity making women second-class citizens? Early Christianity did more to elevate the status of women than other religions of the time. Same with Judaism. It's been the dogmatic refusal to allow change that has kept women in the roles that they were given by Judaism and Christianity.

Don't believe me? Jewish law gave women more protection than any other culture up to that point. Women were given property rights and legal protections. Granted those were limited, but in comparison to their rights before that, the changes were huge.

Christianity went even further, with Christ being the first to allow women to hear his teachings right alongside the men. Not only that but for the first time women were allowed to participate in the discussions, women were allowed to share the gospel with others.

The limitations on women are from Paul, and they are culturally based. It is limited thinking that keeps those 'rules' going in spite of massive cultural change.

As far as limiting women? It was a fundamentalist church that was the first to allow women to be ministers in the U.S. The Pentacostal church is one of the most fundamentalist/conservative churches in existence today. They hold to the literal truth of the Bible more than any other church I've encountered. And yet they allowed women to be ministers as early as the 1800s. So much for supressing women.

People seem to forget that the Bible needs to be looked at from the cultural and socio-economic perspective in which it was written. Only then can you truly understand what was intended and can truly find what is and isn't valid for modern times.

If the world had continued the trend that was started in Chrisitan scripture? There would be total equality in the world. There would be no war, no fighting. Diversity would be cherished and honored.

Christ walked with the worst of the worst, the poor, the lepers, prostitutes and tax collectors. He honored women right alongside men, being the first to say that men and women are equal in the eyes of God. His harshest critiscisms were to his Jewish followers, to the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin, to his own Apostles. Would you like to know who he praised the most? The Pagans who came to him believing they could help, the Samaritan woman who honored him in spite of his Jewish background, the women, the children, those who showed the greatest faith with the least learning. Not the logical, not the book-quoters, but those who KNEW who he was and what he came to do.

It is a misconception that Christianity supresses women, and it's a misconception that has been encouraged by the church, by the male power structure. If Christ came today he would be just as fed up with the world as he was 2000 years ago. Probably more so because his words and teachings have been twisted so brutally.

[flar7]

man, you can drive a universe through the holes in evolution theory. But, I use a different view to understand creation and the bible. I think that he still is creating to this day. Using an artists approach, I understand more about the bible than I did while in church.

The only thing that bugged me, and still tickles me, is God's chosen people the hebrews. I just couldnt understand how he could love them with them appearing soooo dumb. Note, I said, APPEARING! The hebrews of that time musta been the hardest cynics of the earth, and quick to change sides. He gets them outta egypt with all them plagues, he leads them through a dessert and shows them where water and food can be found. He parts a friggin sea for them and when they get to his holy mountain, they give up after 40 days? He parted the ocean people!!

Later, he parts the jordan river for them to cross over with each person stopping to pick a stone out of the riverbed to build an altar on the far side, he leads them to their lands (which are occupied by others) and then instructs them how to destroy them. What do they do? Well, they kill the men, but the women are cute and the cattle are fat, "lets keep em!"

Its endless in the old testament. heheh, maybe he favors them because they are like that poor dumb mutt everyone likes.

[Aine of the Fae]

man, you can drive a universe through the holes in evolution theory. But, I use a different view to understand creation and the bible. I think that he still is creating to this day. Using an artists approach, I understand more about the bible than I did while in church.

The only thing that bugged me, and still tickles me, is God's chosen people the hebrews. I just couldnt understand how he could love them with them appearing soooo dumb. Note, I said, APPEARING! The hebrews of that time musta been the hardest cynics of the earth, and quick to change sides. He gets them outta egypt with all them plagues, he leads them through a dessert and shows them where water and food can be found. He parts a friggin sea for them and when they get to his holy mountain, they give up after 40 days? He parted the ocean people!!

Later, he parts the jordan river for them to cross over with each person stopping to pick a stone out of the riverbed to build an altar on the far side, he leads them to their lands (which are occupied by others) and then instructs them how to destroy them. What do they do? Well, they kill the men, but the women are cute and the cattle are fat, "lets keep em!"

Its endless in the old testament. heheh, maybe he favors them because they are like that poor dumb mutt everyone likes.

Glad I'm not the first to point out the holes in evolution theory :D And I agree that He is still creating.

Yeah, the Hebrews, as depicted in the Bible, seem a bit too stubborn for their own good. I keep thinking of the Pharisees telling Christ to "prove himself" with miracles. His response is that they've been shown miracles time and time again and it doesn't "prove" anything to them.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Glad I'm not the first to point out the holes in evolution theory :D And I agree that He is still creating.
OK, so you don't believe in evolution? Do you think that God created man fully formed at some point in the past?

[Aine of the Fae]

OK, so you don't believe in evolution? Do you think that God created man fully formed at some point in the past?

Honestly, I'm not sure what I believe as far as creation goes. I do know that evolution does not hold up to scrutiny though.

[Ben Trismegistus]

I do know that evolution does not hold up to scrutiny though.
Well, the vast majority of scientists and many educated people would disagree with you on that point.

[Calyx]

I think there's both. If you can't see evolution in progress, you just aren't looking.
It's quite obvious via fossil remains, etc. that evolution has happened. There are a number of people out there who call themselves uh.....damn.....I forgot! But it was a combination of creationalist and evolutionist. Anyone remember this term?

Now, do I believe we were amoebas in the primordial soup? No, I don't.
I do believe that we were created by the Divine. I also believe that we probably did not look *exactly* the same as we do now, that we have evolved ourselves. But NOT from a single-celled creature.

Just my 2 cents! :seehearsp

[Ladyvi]

i believe in evolution as far as adaptation purposes only. for one genus to change entirely to another genus . no . the equs if you open one of those early horses and open one up today . probably be the same innards. they evolved and changed due to adaptation and it happened slowly. they still havnt found the link from cromagman and modern man. they found remains of hybrids of the two but not the point where cromagman changed to modern man.

on evolution i fall on the fence on the three main theories. do i believe there was divine intervention? sure. but as the bible relays it ? no. darwanism i have prefaced my stand on that theory. genetic manipulation is the other theory. outside forces. a lot of compelling documentation on that theory as well.

[Djiril]

Later, he parts the jordan river for them to cross over with each person stopping to pick a stone out of the riverbed to build an altar on the far side, he leads them to their lands (which are occupied by others) and then instructs them how to destroy them. What do they do? Well, they kill the men, but the women are cute and the cattle are fat, "lets keep em!"

Or maybe they had other reasons for not wanting to kill all the mothers and their male babies! Wouldn't you question that order?

[WrathofCirce]

Honestly, I'm not sure what I believe as far as creation goes. I do know that evolution does not hold up to scrutiny though.

That's the thing with Evolution... just as with any other scientific theory it changes and grows as new discoveries are made. It can be proved or disproved. I didn't say that I completely believed in evolution... I can understand how it, as a theory, works, however. I do not see how creation works. The only conclusion I can come to is that it was not the entire world created, but a small area of the globe. Everyone has a creation myth. How does one prove or disprove legend? Why is the Jewish/Christian myth any more right than any other pantheon's myth? I personally believe that what you personally believe is right for you. I also believe that "God" is a Christian/Jewish deity. I don't think that the Bible applies to everyone. I think there are thousands of "deities" under the umbrella of a life giving force. I also believe that Yhwh or Jehovah or ect... is just one of those deities. He/It
just isn't one of my deities.

Just a thought....
In creation, light and dark is created before the sun is created. That's a way bigger hole than the missing link between Neanderthol man and homo sapien...which, they now know, walked the earth together

[WrathofCirce]

What would you say if I can see and feel and touch that which I have faith in? I can see the wonder of God's creation, I can feel it, I can touch it, taste it, smell it. I know it's around me. The faith comes in believing it was created and not just a random act of chance.

As for Christianity making women second-class citizens? Early Christianity did more to elevate the status of women than other religions of the time. Same with Judaism. It's been the dogmatic refusal to allow change that has kept women in the roles that they were given by Judaism and Christianity.

Don't believe me? Jewish law gave women more protection than any other culture up to that point. Women were given property rights and legal protections. Granted those were limited, but in comparison to their rights before that, the changes were huge.

Christianity went even further, with Christ being the first to allow women to hear his teachings right alongside the men. Not only that but for the first time women were allowed to participate in the discussions, women were allowed to share the gospel with others.

The limitations on women are from Paul, and they are culturally based. It is limited thinking that keeps those 'rules' going in spite of massive cultural change.

As far as limiting women? It was a fundamentalist church that was the first to allow women to be ministers in the U.S. The Pentacostal church is one of the most fundamentalist/conservative churches in existence today. They hold to the literal truth of the Bible more than any other church I've encountered. And yet they allowed women to be ministers as early as the 1800s. So much for supressing women.

Christ walked with the worst of the worst, the poor, the lepers, prostitutes and tax collectors. He honored women right alongside men, being the first to say that men and women are equal in the eyes of God. His harshest critiscisms were to his Jewish followers, to the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin, to his own Apostles. Would you like to know who he praised the most? The Pagans who came to him believing they could help, the Samaritan woman who honored him in spite of his Jewish background, the women, the children, those who showed the greatest faith with the least learning. Not the logical, not the book-quoters, but those who KNEW who he was and what he came to do.

It is a misconception that Christianity supresses women, and it's a misconception that has been encouraged by the church, by the male power structure. If Christ came today he would be just as fed up with the world as he was 2000 years ago. Probably more so because his words and teachings have been twisted so brutally.

As long as men are looked upon as being "made in the image of God" women are second class citizens. In Ancient Egypt there were female Pharaohs and Queens often ruled beside their King. In most Ancient cultures the feminine deity was equal if not above the male deities. Christianity won't even give Mary that honor. Catholics are looked at as heathens because they honor her by more fundamentalist Christian sects. A woman will "never" according to Pope John Paul II be priests and will certainly never be Pope. So, not as bad still ain't good.

Oh, and I just said that "I don't believe" I'm not saying your beliefs are wrong for you. Yahweh ain't my man is all. I don't much like or respect him. I'm not too fond of Set or Loki either - just so you know I'm not just picking on Yahweh.

[flar7]

Or maybe they had other reasons for not wanting to kill all the mothers and their male babies! Wouldn't you question that order?
yes. the bible states why they didnt kill the women. as to the babies, its hard to get nekkid with a woman who's baby you just killed.


think about it in context. your god, and faith, call for total obedience, and not only that, but you have lived and seen proof that your god is unbeatable......so, you just gonna ignore what he asks and assume he wont punish ya?

[equinox2]

man, you can drive a universe through the holes in evolution theory. Flar 7

Glad I'm not the first to point out the holes in evolution theory Aine of the fae

Um, it sounds like some people have been listening to too many televangelists. The theory of evolution is extremely well supported by literally mountains of evidence. The theory of evolution is as well supported by testable data as the theory of gravity or the theory of atoms. I could get into all of the details, but that would take pages.

The best evidence is the fact that many different fields of science all point to the same evolutionary origin for our human species. These different fields include anatomy, geology, genetics, pathology, neurology, biology, botany, zoology and others. It is the agreement of so many different lines of evidence that makes evolution as firmly demonstrated as a finding of science can be. That’s why nearly all scientists support evolution, even in America where over 70% of the population is Christian.

But hey, for all of that, don’t take my word for it, look over the evidence for evolution yourself at www.talkorigins.org, and the views of both scientists and the public at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm.

Flar7 wrote:

the bible states why they didnt kill the women. as to the babies, its hard to get nekkid with a woman who's baby you just killed.

Hmm.. Well, there are a lot of stories in the Bible, and in many of them, God does have the women and babies killed. For instance, see Num 31:17:


Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

In other places in the Bible God orders everything alive in the captured city to be killed, including women, children, babies, and even livestock, or kills thousands of children himself to show that he is a macho kind of god. Some references at here: http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~leta/TREATISE/TJXSUM/tj5xbp12345.htm#2cruel

There are good things in the Bible too, but that doesn't mean the killings aren't in there.

[flar7]

um, you misquoted me, or misunderstood. read back.

I was pointing out a flaw in the hebrews by their disobedience in not doing God's will in killing them all.

And when evolution becomes a fact and not a theory, then it is leakproof. When they come up with the missing matter, when they find the link, when they can explain the begining without dissent, when they can do a dating process that isnt a joke (and carbon dating is, its inconsistancies makes me wonder why they use it) and when all the egghead or at least 75% are unanimous, then they might have something. Evolution THEORY does not affect my faith, for I know the truth of it as I said earlier. And the truth does not discount evolution at all, nor creation, nor does it reconcile the two.


think of every thing new learned daily. use the MIB analysis which matches my artists approach in many ways. maybe a silly movie, but a strong statement.

[Aine of the Fae]

um, you misquoted me, or misunderstood. read back.

I was pointing out a flaw in the hebrews by their disobedience in not doing God's will in killing them all.

And when evolution becomes a fact and not a theory, then it is leakproof. When they come up with the missing matter, when they find the link, when they can explain the begining without dissent, when they can do a dating process that isnt a joke (and carbon dating is, its inconsistancies makes me wonder why they use it) and when all the egghead or at least 75% are unanimous, then they might have something. Evolution THEORY does not affect my faith, for I know the truth of it as I said earlier. And the truth does not discount evolution at all, nor creation, nor does it reconcile the two.


think of every thing new learned daily. use the MIB analysis which matches my artists approach in many ways. maybe a silly movie, but a strong statement.

I was going to post a big response about the flaws in evolutionary theory, but flar7 pretty much summed it all up.

[flar7]

heh. if necessary, will give a glimpse into my twisted reasoning, but am lazy and if can get out of it, I will.

[Equinox]

Flar 7 wrote:


And when evolution becomes a fact and not a theory, then it is leakproof.

In science, nothing is "absolutely known" everything is a best guess, though some guesses are very well supported by evidence. No theory, even the theory of gravity, is ever "a fact". Evolution is as supported by evidence as the theory of gravity is today.



When they come up with the missing matter,

Um, that’s astronomy, not evolution or biology.



when they find the link,

That’s creationist claim # 200. Some gaps still exist, but thousands of "missing links" have been found. See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html for more.



when they can explain the begining without dissent,

Well, evolution defines descent from a common anscestor, so even if the first kind of life was a complete mystery, evolution after that could indeed be well supported by the evidence. Additionally, there is a lot of progress that has been made in understanding the first life. It now has an entire field of science, called "abiogensis". (Creationist Claim # CB050 and CB 090) See also ((in post of the month, I don't have time to find it)


when they can do a dating process that isnt a joke (and carbon dating is, its inconsistancies makes me wonder why they use it)

(#CD011) Carbon dating is accurate and has been shown to be accurate by counting tree rings (someone has actually counted tree rings from different, overlapping trees back more than 10,000 years, it’s called dendrochronology). Of course people have made mistakes using it, just like any other technique, including landing an airplane, etc. Creationists tell you about the few errors without telling you that it is used correctly nearly everyday.
More is at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html


and when all the egghead or at least 75% are unanimous, .
Simply not true. My earlier post had mentioned the link to http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm, which shows poll data - 95% of scientists do understand and agree with evolution. The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc. The common creationist claim that "many scientists don’t believe evolution" is probably in the big index of creationist claims too.

Of course, who knows that the claim index isn’t a biased source? Well, of course it is, but I’ve checked many of the claims, understanding both sides of the argument, and most of the time, the index has it right. Plus, we can always go be the data that shows that nearly all scientists, especially biologists and geologist (like rockprincess) support evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

Have a fun day!!

[flar7]

astronomy is evolution. Big Bang. Where's the missing matter? where's THE link? Fact not theory. Until then, go with what works for you. its the small things that are unknown that cause most problems. Like side effects. :)

It is the inability of science that created most philosophies, and many great philosophical debates.

[dragenfly]

But, if we aren't ready for God, isn't that God's fault? Who created us? So again, why does the entire world have to suffer for the mistake of one couple who may not have even known any better in the first place?

In my oppinion its kinda like they were fired. The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. (Genesis 2:15 I dont like quoting so this will be my first and last) Adam had a job to do his work to rule over the amimals and to take care of the garden he was given the gift of a woman (we are the best gift ever!) Eve and she broke the rules but when Adam fell for her deception they were cast out, FIRED. Their decendants pay their debt but I think that God saw he was punishing those who did no wrong (your point exactly) so God who's love is so great, sent his only Son to take the punishment for all our sins, so that we can have eternal life. In theory anyway... :hailmol:

[lunachic420]

I must admit, I have not waded through the entire thread...but here's an interesting theory...the story in the bible about Adam and the fall is not Adam's version of events at all, but the story told by the various tribes of folks living in the area at the time, bedouins for lack of various names, I'll call the the Leavers. The Leavers functioned under the belief that the gods decided who lived and who died. The gods said one day to the rabbit, "Today you shall survive and the wolf will be hungry." but the next day they said to the wolf, "Today the rabbit is yours, you shall eat and he shall perish to feed you." The Leavers never questioned the ability or the wisdom of the gods because all were taken care of in turn and all died for the nourishment and survival of another. Along came Adam and his Takers. They had started hoarding food. Hunting beyond thier needs, leaving nothing for others, forcing the Leavers to work for them for their survival. The Leavers said to themselves, "If this guy Adam has the knowledge of who shall live and who shall die, he must have taken it from the gods and they have forsaken us all in retribution." Hence the story, told by Leaver tribes in Mesopotamia became the story of the fall in the bible. Now, I know that this will likely not be a popualr theory...and to avoid alot of flack I have clearly labeled it a theory instead of trying to say, "This is the only way" There is more....much more...on this subject in three wonderful books by Daniel Quinn. Ishmael, The Story of B and My Ishmael. Check 'em out.

Blessed Be and Namaste!

[equinox2]

I think the Genesis stories are just that – stories.

Nevermind that the two stories (Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2) contradict each other. Using them as some kind of theological basis for morality leads to all kinds of silly things, like punishing people for some something their distant grandfather did, or the idea of torturing one person as punishment for the sins of someone else.

Some of the problems I mentioned are discussed here:

http://www.losingmyreligion.com/articlesf/absurdity.html

That page has this about God punishing his “children” for the sins of a distant ancestor:

Would you treat your own children that way? Would you condemn them to eternal torture, infinite revenge, never ending intense pain with no chance of pardon, for taking a cookie out of the cookie jar before dinner, after you had told them not to? And would you condemn your children's children, and all generations that will come after? What sort of justice is this? No natural person can condone this. :deviltail

Further, the proposed “solution” of Jesus’ death makes even less sense. After all, why would God sacrifice himself to himself in order to change a rule he made himself? Is he just full of himself? I guess I just don’t get it. I tried to make sense of it when I was Catholic, but had to give up. For people like me, for whom it just doesn't make sense, why wouldn't God allow me to become Christian after I died and saw "God's glory"? Then it'd be easy to see that god existed, and yet people like me are to be eternally punished for using our brains and honestly wondering what is true?

I guess I'll have Thomas Jefferson to keep me company:

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

And yet the Bible is clear that becoming Christian after death is not allowed. Oh well. The whole Bible thing works for some people, so I’m glad for them.

[Holly Ariadna]

Wait a minute... (I feel so ridiculous now but I wanna make this clear before I start thinking about the actual question) Wasn't it Adam that supposedly ate the apple? I mean, you say "Adam's apple" and not "Eve's apple"...

[Aine of the Fae]

Wait a minute... (I feel so ridiculous now but I wanna make this clear before I start thinking about the actual question) Wasn't it Adam that supposedly ate the apple? I mean, you say "Adam's apple" and not "Eve's apple"...


Nope. Eve ate the apple first and then offered it to Adam. Adam, however, is the one at fault in the whole thing because he did no properly convey God's commandment to Eve (so hah, all you women haters out there!!! :lol: )

[Equinox]

Aine of the Fae wrote


Adam, however, is the one at fault in the whole thing because he did no properly convey God's commandment to Eve

It's clear from Genesis 3:2 that she had been told, because she repeated back the command to the talking snake when he asked her why she didn't eat from that tree. Remember that the books of the Bible were written long ago, for an audience back then, not today. I'm not sure what the reason was back then. However, in the context of the ancient middle east, I think Adam was to blame because women weren't seen as fully competent - thus not fully culpable for bad actions.

I'm not sure what a Christian apologist would say today though. While that reason may have made sense then, it sure wouldn't fly today (and rightly so). I don't think it makes has to make sense though - there are lots of things in that story that don't make sense (like why would cain worry about people "out there" killing him, when the only people alive then were him and his family, etc, not to mention talking animals and flying swords).

[flar7]

...- there are lots of things in that story that don't make sense (like why would cain worry about people "out there" killing him, when the only people alive then were him and his family, etc, not to mention talking animals and flying swords).
Well, the story of genesis hints that he created more than one adam and eve. uses some pluralities after the first pair. Also the evil spirits and or Lilith that was created by Adam.... or if you prefer, Lilith as first created woman.... the myth goes both ways. interesting one too.

[dragenfly]

Its all confusing and the more I read into the Bible the more confused I get. Intead of getting answers I just have more questions!!! :ahhhh:

[flar7]

Its all confusing and the more I read into the Bible the more confused I get. Intead of getting answers I just have more questions!!! :ahhhh:

maybe thats a good thing about the bible?

[equinox2]

Dragonfly wrote:

Its all confusing and the more I read into the Bible the more confused I get. Intead of getting answers I just have more questions!!!

The Bible can certainly be confusing. I’ve read it cover to cover, and the most important thing to remember is that the books we now call the Bible are separate books, not chapters in one big book. It was only long after they were written that they were collected and bound between two covers. Each book contains a different religion, and the writers had different concerns and different points of view. So don’t try to make it all “fit” – that’s a sure way to stay confused. Instead, let each author speak for themselves – some of it you will find useful, some you won’t.

This is from my personal webpage, and discusses the different approaches to the Bible:

There are many ways to approach the Bible. Perhaps the most common way is by starting with the assumption that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and then reading it as though it were a consistent guide to life.
A second approach (often taken by those who started with the first approach and are starting to notice all the problems), is to read it to test the assumption just mentioned - and to consequently find all the places where one book contradicts another - either with a conflicting story of the same event, or by describing a different religion.
A third approach, and I think a more interesting one, is to start out without any assumptions, and instead listen to what each book or writer is trying to say. Sometimes they do say nasty things, but sometimes they say good things. Sometimes they describe a religion that has, say, a hell, while other times they describe a religion without a hell.
As you’ve probably read in my history, I started out with the first approach like so many people do, moved to the second until I was convinced that the separate writers must be allowed to speak for themselves, and now read the Bible using the 3rd approach.

More is here, along with links to show some of the differences I’m talking about:

http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~leta/TREATISE/TJXSUM/tj5xbbibprob.htm

Mostly, don’t think you HAVE to understand or even read the Bible. There are plenty of other sources of spiritual instruction in the world, and at least to me, I’ve found many of them to be more spiritually fulfilling than the Bible. :colorful:

[Aine of the Fae]

maybe thats a good thing about the bible?

That's my approach to life. The more answers I get, the more questions it opens up. I have to explore further and I become more centered in my beliefs. Occasionally the answers I get will throw me completely off center and I have to start all over again...

[Ben Trismegistus]

maybe thats a good thing about the bible?
Not if the Christian Church discourages questioning one's beliefs.

[Aine of the Fae]

Aine of the Fae wrote



It's clear from Genesis 3:2 that she had been told, because she repeated back the command to the talking snake when he asked her why she didn't eat from that tree. Remember that the books of the Bible were written long ago, for an audience back then, not today. I'm not sure what the reason was back then. However, in the context of the ancient middle east, I think Adam was to blame because women weren't seen as fully competent - thus not fully culpable for bad actions.

I'm not sure what a Christian apologist would say today though. While that reason may have made sense then, it sure wouldn't fly today (and rightly so). I don't think it makes has to make sense though - there are lots of things in that story that don't make sense (like why would cain worry about people "out there" killing him, when the only people alive then were him and his family, etc, not to mention talking animals and flying swords).

Equinox, you've hit on exactly why there is so much problem with Biblical fundamentalists now. They seemt o forget to take everything in the Bible in the proper context, looking at the culture and times in which it was written. They automatically assume that it was meant to be that way forever, that it's just simply how it is. They forget that for thousands of years the "books" of the Bible were not written down, but were transmitted orally, through story-telling.

One key thing that they forget about story-telling is that you don't learn the story word for word. Instead, you learn the key points of the story and pass those along, conveying the meaning and the moral lessons, not necessarily the specific details. Then along comes writing and somebody puts down the version that they learned. This may or may not be the original, and is in fact likely to be very different than the original.

When reading the Bible you must look at the deeper meaning, and often you have to look at sources outside of the Bible for the deeper meaning. This is a blasphemous thought for fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible should be the only source for any religious information.

However what fundamentalist Christians seem to forget, especially with their New Testament, is that the Bible was written to support the views of the church.

The Catholic church wrote the Bible! You get a bit of circular reasoning here. Think of it this way:

Q? Where does the church/the Pope derive it's authority?
A? The Bible
Q? Where did the Bible come from?
A? It's the divinely inspired Word of God
Q? Who was inspired to write the Bible?
A? The early church leaders

So in other words, the church came into being through a few years of tradition. And it doesn't take long for tradition to form. Afer those few years of tradition they decided to put those traditions down on paper. Boom, you have the modern Bible, more or less. Then after a few years they convince people that the Bible, which they wrote, justifies there existence.

I know I'm probably not stating this clearly, but it's a bit of a lightbulb I've had in the past few days and I'm still trying to work through it.

The Bible has many good lessons, but you cannot take it literally. If you do, you are just setting yourself up for a huge fall when something happens that brings the text into question. Like science. Although, the Bible is entirely at odds with science, if you can avoid the attempts to take it literally.

[flar7]

Not if the Christian Church discourages questioning one's beliefs.
which church? I have been to many, and never one that discouraged questions of any sort. They saw them as the true test of Faith.


as to the catholics writing the bible? nope. They had a hand in editing some of it and leaving many books and gospels out as heresy or whatnot, but there are still other versions of the bible out there.

[Mab]

which church? I have been to many, and never one that discouraged questions of any sort. They saw them as the true test of Faith.


as to the catholics writing the bible? nope. They had a hand in editing some of it and leaving many books and gospels out as heresy or whatnot, but there are still other versions of the bible out there.

Quite right. Every Christian Chruch I've been to (and I've attended several from different denominations including Catholic) have all encouraged questioning.

Again, agreed. The Catholics did not write the Bible. The Bible was written before the organized Catholic Church was in existance. The Catholic Church did some creative editing & some creative interpreting when teaching Scripture way back in the "all women are evile & the sole cause of the downfall of man--except Mary of course" years, and they do have a different Bible than Protestants, as the Catholics include the books of the Apocrypha & the Protestants generally do not. But, no, the Catholics did not write the Bible. The Scripture was originally written in Hebrew, Coine (I can't remember how to spell that, but it's pronounced Koy-Nay) Greek, and Aramaic. It was eventually translated into Latin, known as the Vulgate (Latin was the common "vulgar" language of the ppl), and then eventually into English by King James. Granted, IMO, it's the Divinely inspired word of God, but it's funnelled through humans, so the finished product is of course flawed.

[LittlePerson]

Yes, but as far as they trying to figure out the answers on one's one is another matter. While I was in an adult bible study, we were told the answers by our rector when our suggestions at seemed to not be what he was looking for. That is putting it in a nice way.

[dragenfly]

which church? I have been to many, and never one that discouraged questions of any sort. They saw them as the true test of Faith.

Yes, I agree, the one I have attented since I was 12 actually encourages questions.

[Phi]

hi I got to this a little bit late, I see. But I wonder if you have ever looked closely at the story.

From what I read, God never actually told Eve not to eat of the Knowledge tree.
He told Adam if he ate of it he would surely die.
There is no mention that God told Adam to tell Eve not to eat of the tree either.
The serpent did not tell Eve that Adam would not die if he ate, only that Eve wouldn't.

As a result , not of the serpent's lie (he didn't) but of the serpent (ancient symbol of magic& medicines) interference with YHWH's creatures, the serpent must crawl in the dust on his belly.
Adam is commanded to leave the garden, and to live ever afterward by the sweat of his brow until he dies. (YHWH never once says Eve must die. It does not even state that Eve is punished!)
Eve, on the other hand is actually rewarded with two great gifts:
1. the ability to bear children,
2. the love for a man.
Both gifts had a downside, birth would be painful and the man she loved had been banished.
But how could anyone call these punishments when throughout all the rest of the biblical stories, marriage and children were the very gifts a woman would pray for?

Eve's love for Adam caused her to follow him from the garden, and love caused her ultimate death.

Leads to a lot of questions, I know.
Was it okay then for Eve to have the knowledge of life/death/life(serpent knowledge(medicine woman knowledge), good and evil?
Eve the nurturer, would not likely use the knowledge to make weapons of war.
Why not Adam?
Adam would and did.

The original sin, then, might have been that knowing meant only for the nurturant female of the species was given to the aggressive male...Women still are known for intuition...retaining, perhaps, the deep knowledge that was her birthright.

There has long been speculation that Adam actually symbolized a tribe.
Perhaps Eve did also...gives the idea of the original Romeo & Juliet with a twist, huh?

[equinox2]

Aine of the Fae wrote:

So in other words, the church came into being through a few years of tradition. And it doesn't take long for tradition to form. Afer those few years of tradition they decided to put those traditions down on paper. Boom, you have the modern Bible, more or less. Then after a few years they convince people that the Bible, which they wrote, justifies there existence.

Aine wrote:
The Catholics did not write the Bible. The Bible was written before the organized Catholic Church was in existance.

These aren’t necessarily in conflict. Aine of the Fae, I agree with your post – it makes a lot of sense and fits with history. Aine – yours can fit too, depending on what we consider “organized”.

After Jesus’ death, a bunch of different Christian churches sprang up. These included the Ebionites, the Gnostics, the Roman Church, the Thomasines, and literally dozens more. All of these wrote and kept “sacred” scripture. Much later, when the Roman church won the competition for dominance, it was able to outlaw the other Christianities, and burn their scripture (clearly known due to Roman law records). Of course, the Roman church is going to pick the scripture that agrees with them to put in the Bible.

The decision of what to put in the Bible was a long, drawn out process, not something that was decided in one place (for instance, not at the council of Nicea) or by one person or even by a group of people all alive at the same time. However, because it was the Roman church members who were doing the deciding, whether we are talking about 150 CE or 250 CE, only books that fit with Roman church theology could possibly be chosen.

Yes, it is true that most of the books that ended up in the Bible were written before much of the organization of the Roman Catholic church was finished, and that the writing of the Bible did not take place under official Roman Catholic oversight. However, the Roman Catholic church did select those books which agreed with it, at least after some proper “editing”. It also excluded books based on the doctrine they proposed, even if they were otherwise OK. The Gospel of Peter is a good example of this – it was excluded because it could be seen to support some Gnostic doctrines.

But don’t take my word for it – check up on the early history of the Roman Catholic Church yourself. Here is a useful class on tape:

http://www.teach12.com/ttc/assets/coursedescriptions/6577.asp

As far as the "questioning" idea goes. My experience has been that a few questions are tolerated at first so as to appear open-minded. After all, in today's modern world, they have to allow some questions, unlike the Christian church from 500 CE to 1700 CE, when they could forcefully ban questions. However, only certain conclusions are allowed.

Of course, that's not true for ALL churches. UCC churches are pretty open to questions, but they are a tiny minority. Overall, I've found little acceptance of alternative views and of persistent questions, especially once you get past that first stage when they try to woo you by being really nice.

Just my experience. Take it or leave it.


Phi-
as I mention in your other thread, eve clearly knew it because in Gen 3:2 she repeats what god said before eating the fruit. I mention this in post #102 in this thread too.

[Mab]

Excellent points all, Equinox. Actually, just to clarify, I was referring to the officially organized & titled Roman Catholic Church--that entity that sort of tried to become an empire & control everything! lol

And, LittlePerson....yes, unfortunately in some cases that is how things go---you give an interpretation or an answer to a question & it's deemed "wrong", so the rector or priest or minister teaching the chatechism class gives you the "right" answer. It's one of the things that irritates me most about the way the more traditional Catholic churches (b/c those are the ones with which I have experience) educate their young parishoners (why does that look wrong no matter how I spell it?).

[LittlePerson]

This is::fofftopic Aine this was an episcopal church and they were more liberal than conservative. The rector there was for inclusion of gay clergy rather than against it like most conservative churches. That was one of the last newsletters I remember recieving from them before I left. And when I cried over my concern that I couldn not "save" my husband he prayed with me and said that he believed that G-d would take care of him after death and that he could be saved then. (sounds kind of like purgatory). But even so, my conservative baptist coworkers had scared the $*it out of me about trying to save everyone I loved that his words almost bounced right off me as kind as they were. That is when I really started to transition. I couldn't believe that a loving god could condemn his whole creation because they didn't believe in him or that babies are born sinful. I didn't like reading the readings for the sermon on sunday saying "the word of the Lord" after them and believing otherwise that his teachings were handed down word of mouth for 200 years before being recorded and by his deciples nonetheless and they'd have to be 200+ yrs old if they personally recorded them. And I had questions about the trinity, that if Jesus was G-d why did he pray to G-d, refer to him in third person, have to be baptised, and told people not to worship him but the father? My questions couldn't be answered because those things required blind faith and not interpretations of the bible to satisfy them. It was quite frustrating. There was also the question of forgiveness too and who has the power to forgive other than G-d and does the forgiveness save a murderer criminal and send him to heaven and person with a lack of belief who does good works gets condemned to hell and they never killed anyone but followed the commandments. Anyway, guess I had to get this out now. I apologize ahead of time for offending anyone.

[flar7]

heheh. here goes. many feel, and use some scripture to support the idea that the "rule of the beast" was the reign of the Catholic church, and that it is now about over, thus begining the 1000 years of peace before the end. This view favors the office of Pope being the anti-christ. This view is not popular with most christians because it means that the "rapture" has already happened......and they missed the bus. I have some interesting links on this somewhere and may see if I can find them. Heck, I may have them posted here somewhere already.

as to babies born in sin, only the Catholic church holds that orthodoxy, I was raised baptist and we never learned nor believed that children were born to sin. We were taught that 12 is the age of responsibility.

also read a nice site about adam being removed from eve for a time, I think he was kicked out first, and that he created "evil" spirits, as well as Lilith at that point. was listed as 130 days/years? of separation. Been a week since I read that. Never had heard that view of Lilith as being created by Adam.

[Aine of the Fae]

heheh. here goes. many feel, and use some scripture to support the idea that the "rule of the beast" was the reign of the Catholic church, and that it is now about over, thus begining the 1000 years of peace before the end. This view favors the office of Pope being the anti-christ. This view is not popular with most christians because it means that the "rapture" has already happened......and they missed the bus. I have some interesting links on this somewhere and may see if I can find them. Heck, I may have them posted here somewhere already.

as to babies born in sin, only the Catholic church holds that orthodoxy, I was raised baptist and we never learned nor believed that children were born to sin. We were taught that 12 is the age of responsibility.

also read a nice site about adam being removed from eve for a time, I think he was kicked out first, and that he created "evil" spirits, as well as Lilith at that point. was listed as 130 days/years? of separation. Been a week since I read that. Never had heard that view of Lilith as being created by Adam.


Actually there are other churches that teach babies are born in sin, the Methodist church is one of them. Although babies won't go to Hell, that doesn't happen until the "age of reason" which is about 12 or so...

[flar7]

depends on the methodist. they have sub divided, and not all follow the fundamentalist view of that. I did attend my local methodist church for some time here, but quit when they had a falling out of deacons and split. Then went to the community church, and then slowly weeded that out. I hate hypocrisy and what it brings out in me.

[Mab]

Actually I was raised Southern Baptist, and was raised that all are born into sin, but sin isn't what sends one to hell....the rejection of Christ as Saviour (please note--this is according to my raising) is what sends one to hell, so being born into sin wasn't the issue. And it was pretty generally held that 12 was the age of accountability, but it was sort of understood that one who was not presented with The Word by some "fluke" or other (like living in a cave, stuck in a 3rd world country w/o a missionairy --yeah, I know) was not automatically sentenced to hell either, but rather treated as an innocent babe.

But, that was just my raising.

oh, and Little Person.....sorry, I didn't mean that to come off quite so specific to your personal experience. Just more of an expounding on the idea that in some churches (of every denomination) blind faith that what the priest/rector/whatever gives as fact/truth is expected sometimes, and I myself am very uncomfortable with that. Some thing must be taken on faith, but I think we should all be encouraged to question--especially the flawed humans imparting the info. :-)

[flar7]

heh, I was "born" southern baptist, and while they didnt preach being born in sin, they scared the hell out of you about hell and what to do when you got to 12. I gave up on baptists church as soon as mom would let me. I then went to Assembly of God's for awhile....heh (to get a girl) and they were really cool. After the break up, and some doctrinal error that I couldnt get past dealing with speaking in tongues, I left them.

Later, I attended or did for awhile the local methodist and then moved on to the non denominational methodist "community church" A few stray churches between them as I grew up, and thats about it. So, the only churches I can think that I have not attended were Jehovah's Witness, Catholic, Epicahowever you spell its, and snake handlers. :devil: