Adam and Eve Story

[cacian]

Is there an Adam and Eve in everyone of us or just the selected few?

[SkyCetacean]

Well it you take a biblical standpoint, there are two couples from which all humanity branches off from, Adam and Eve and Noah and his wife... Don't remember her name, if she had one.

[cacian]

Well it you take a biblical standpoint, there are two couples from which all humanity branches off from, Adam and Eve and Noah and his wife... Don't remember her name, if she had one.

I did not even know Noah had a wife.
I am now wondering that is a bit too straight for me.

[ZTay]

I think one can infer from what Paul says in Romans, that YES there is Adam in all of us:

Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Romans 5:12)


And he speaks of Adam's sin.

[cacian]

I think one can infer from what Paul says in Romans, that YES there is Adam in all of us:

Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned (Romans 5:12)


And he speaks of Adam's sin.

Adam's sin?
I thought it was Eve's one. She was the one who enticed Adam to take a bite from the forbidden apple.

[library]

Is there an Adam and Eve in everyone of us or just the selected few?
Well, looking at who Adam was, and who Eve was, there is not much to say except that, every man and woman has an Adam and Eve in them because, everyone has a point of weakness as far as "Self Denial" is concern in the face of temptation.

[cacian]

Well, looking at who Adam was, and who Eve was, there is not much to say except that, every man and woman has an Adam and Eve in them because, everyone has a point of weakness as far as "Self Denial" is concern in the face of temptation.

Ok.
So in other words are predestined to sin or prone? because there is a difference.
It is because of Adam and Eve that we are doomed to sin and not because it is within our nature to be tempted.
Self denial and temptations are the two extremes . One is forcing themselves not to sin hence denying themselves that 'guilty pleaure' and the other is letting because we by nature are tempted.

[ZTay]

Adam's sin?
I thought it was Eve's one. She was the one who enticed Adam to take a bite from the forbidden apple.

At Eve's transgression Eve was lost. But at Adam's, all was lost.

[cacian]

At Eve's transgression Eve was lost. But at Adam's, all was lost.

I am, not so sure I understand again.
Why all lost on Adam? Who is the fruit bearer?

[Dreamsqueen]

I think it was predestined that Eve and Adamd eat of the forbidden apple, in order that they live on earth instead of heaven and thus, life goes on and on as it destined

[cacian]

I think it was predestined that Eve and Adamd eat of the forbidden apple, in order that they live on earth instead of heaven and thus, life goes on and on as it destined

Predestined as in set up by god almighty?
Then why bother set the whole story up if one is going to live on earth anyway?
It seems to me that the point of Adam and Eve is tale tale just like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.
Here is an apple that reappears in the books being the bad apple.
After few deliberation I came to the conclusion that perhasp god had a reason to warn Eve about the apple tree.
The apple was after all not a very good one and I guess instead of deeming them dead from eating the poisonous apple god send me out for a walk on earth. That would be the one salvation god had ever bestowed upon his people. The rest is history.
It seems a rather tempeting explanation if we go by the fairy tale.

[Sydneysider]

Is there an Adam and Eve in everyone of us or just the selected few?


Multiple personality complex? There are doctors for this.

[cacian]

Multiple personality complex? There are doctors for this.

You don't say!! doctors!
Complexes are over medecines I think it takes more then a tablet to rearrange complex to simple.

[Sydneysider]

If only we had a tablet! ;-)

[togre]

I think it was predestined that Eve and Adamd eat of the forbidden apple, in order that they live on earth instead of heaven and thus, life goes on and on as it destined

There is no evidence inside of the Bible for this view. Indeed, 1) Adam and Eve were already living on earth at the time of the fall, 2) God's express command was to "not eat the fruit" 3) Adam and Eve, being created in God's image (this is a spiritual, not physical resemblence--they were holy and righteous) were able to choose what was good and right and 4) look at the effort God exerted to correct the results of this sin--his own Son, Jesus Christ, came to earth, suffered, died and rose to restore what was lost that day.


cacian, in response to some of your questions and thoughts,

1) Yes, Eve ate first, but rather than blame her (that wicked woman, etc, etc,) the Bible most often focuses on Adam. There are some reasons for that. First, he was as guilty as Eve of sin. Indeed, he was given the command directly and presumably told Eve. Second, while a real person, Adam, as the father of the human race, is also representative of the entire race. For example, his name, Adam, is a name, but also the word for man (in the somewhat generic sense) or mankind. The Bible in Romans 5 and elsewhere sets up the contract between the one man whose actions brought death to the entire race (Adam) and the one man whose actions brought life to the entire race (Jesus Christ).

2) Regarding and "Adam or Eve" in all of us...the Bible certainly says we resemble our ancestors spiritually. In fact, while the Bible says Adam was created "in God's image" this was destroyed when Adam sinned. In fact Genesis describes Adam and Eve's children as being born in "his image" that is, spiritually resembling Adam after he had sinned. It is common to call this sinful nature one's "old Adam." This is particularly common for Christians referring to themselves as having a "new man" or spirit restored to faith and love for God and yet retaining an "old Adam" or sinful nature that is hostile to God. While this teaching in found in the Bible, never is this sinful nature referred to as the "old Adam." Terms like "flesh," "sinful flesh" "old self" or "sinful nature" are used.

3) **Bonus Fun Fact** While often referred to as an "apple" in writings and the visual arts, the object eaten by Adam and Eve is referred to in the Bible only as "fruit" and is described as "good for food" and "pleasing to the eye." Whether it truly was an apple or indeed any fruit currently known is beyond our ability to determine.

[cacian]

1) Yes, Eve ate first, but rather than blame her (that wicked woman, etc, etc,) the Bible most often focuses on Adam.
OK. I am not being subjective towards Eve because I wanted to.
Here is the reason why.
Why does the bible only focuses on one? why not focus on the two?
Clearly they were both involved.
Two makes it just. One is not right.


There are some reasons for that. First, he was as guilty as Eve of sin. Indeed, he was given the command directly and presumably told Eve.
This is where I do not quite follow.
Why did god command only Adam? If the two were involved then wouldn't god tell both of them at the same time?This would mean that Eve would not blame Adam and say he did not pass on the message.

If I wished to inform people not to do something, I would ensure everyone is present.
This would be the right thing to do in my opinion.


Second, while a real person, Adam, as the father of the human race, is also representative of the entire race. For example, his name, Adam, is a name, but also the word for man (in the somewhat generic sense) or mankind. The Bible in Romans 5 and elsewhere sets up the contract between the one man whose actions brought death to the entire race (Adam) and the one man whose actions brought life to the entire race (Jesus Christ).

What about the mother of the human race. She is the bearer of children.
Surely the importance lies equally on the mother as much as the father if she is carry the pregnancy.
So the question here would be for me anyway:
Why Adam on his own?
It would have been more sensible for the bible to give responsibility to both in order to encourage parenthood and set an example of family.
If one is to blame the father and the mother gets away with it then the bible is not setting the example.
I consider both responsible because both stand inseperable in their doings.
2
) Regarding and "Adam or Eve" in all of us...the Bible certainly says we resemble our ancestors spiritually. In fact, while the Bible says Adam was created "in God's image" this was destroyed when Adam sinned.

Adam might have sinned but only after he had warned her off.
Eve however dismissed god's command and enticed both of them to bite into the apple.
In fact there are two different acts here.
Adam passed on the message to Eve not to eat from the apple tree.
That is act1.
Eve goes against Adam's warning. She tells him to bite into the apple. That is going agaisnt the words of god.
That is act 2.
If you compare act 1 to act 2 you will see that Adam did the right thing first hand and Eve did not.

Eve also presumed that Adam was telling the truth about god's command.
Her mistake was that she took Adam's word as face value and did not question its validity.
She did not check whether Adam was telling the truth or not.
To take Adam as the sinner and wash Eve's hand of it does not wash to me anyway.
She as far as I am concerned the child bearer first and foremost.


In fact Genesis describes Adam and Eve's children as being born in "his image" that is, spiritually resembling Adam after he had sinned. It is common to call this sinful nature one's "old Adam." This is particularly common for Christians referring to themselves as having a "new man" or spirit restored to faith and love for God and yet retaining an "old Adam" or sinful nature that is hostile to God. While this teaching in found in the Bible, never is this sinful nature referred to as the "old Adam." Terms like "flesh," "sinful flesh" "old self" or "sinful nature" are used.

I do not agree I think children are born off a woman that has sinned will be born to her image first. She bears the children she has direct bearing on them.


3) **Bonus Fun Fact** While often referred to as an "apple" in writings and the visual arts, the object eaten by Adam and Eve is referred to in the Bible only as "fruit" and is described as "good for food" and "pleasing to the eye." Whether it truly was an apple or indeed any fruit currently known is beyond our ability to determine.
Adam's apple?
Not so sure...I thought it was Eden's.

[Charles Darnay]

3) **Bonus Fun Fact** While often referred to as an "apple" in writings and the visual arts, the object eaten by Adam and Eve is referred to in the Bible only as "fruit" and is described as "good for food" and "pleasing to the eye." Whether it truly was an apple or indeed any fruit currently known is beyond our ability to determine.

Most believe it is a fig. There is a reference in the Torah that points to this (it was lost in translation in the Bible).

It was the Italian artists who transformed it into an apple for aesthetic reasons.

[togre]

cacian,

Just some brief follow up on specific points.

--The Bible does not "give Eve a pass." She is guilty for her sin. However when there is a reference to the act that brought sin into the world, most often the person mentioned is Adam, not Eve. The reasons for the Bible doing this were listed, whether or not you agree with them.

--Adam was given the command because it was given before Eve was created. It applied to him and her equally.

--Regarding Eve as mother vs. Adam as father--the Bible does say both were involved in the normal creation of their children. However the Bible is more comfortable with "father of mankind" imagery and argumentation than it is of "mother of mankind" imagery and argumentation.


--Finally, I have a very difficult time understand what you are trying to say. I mean this on the level of how the grammar of each sentence works as well as trying identify your points and train of thought. I don't mean this as an insult, but I find myself unable to communicate my ideas to you and unable to grasp your ideas in turn, because of this language barrier. It leads me to getting frustrated more quickly and avoiding any response most often.

[cacian]

cacian,

[QUOTE]Just some brief follow up on specific points.

--The Bible does not "give Eve a pass." She is guilty for her sin. However when there is a reference to the act that brought sin into the world, most often the person mentioned is Adam, not Eve. The reasons for the Bible doing this were listed, whether or not you agree with them.

--Adam was given the command because it was given before Eve was created. It applied to him and her equally.

--Regarding Eve as mother vs. Adam as father--the Bible does say both were involved in the normal creation of their children. However the Bible is more comfortable with "father of mankind" imagery and argumentation than it is of "mother of mankind" imagery and argumentation.


And that is where the issue lies with me.
A bible which is considered to be the words of god must be done just and rightely if it is to represent god.
To lay hands on one putting the blame on them alone because of the 'father mankind' issue is ignoring a very important biological fact here and that is the mother/woman who is bears the child and not the father.
The burden of Adam is wholly unjustifed. The whole story does not rhyme right. There are too many black wholes if you like.
In a court case where two people are involved in it would be seen as unjust if one is to take the blame and the other does not.
The bible is to set by example and in this very case it has failed to do just that.
--
Finally, I have a very difficult time understand what you are trying to say. I mean this on the level of how the grammar of each sentence works as well as trying identify your points and train of thought. I don't mean this as an insult, but I find myself unable to communicate my ideas to you and unable to grasp your ideas in turn, because of this language barrier. It leads me to getting frustrated more quickly and avoiding any response most often.

Hi togre firstly apologies for my grammar. I will try and make less mistakes.
I do understand your frustrations believe me. I get frustrated when I do not get passed the keyboard without spelling wrongly too.

[Calidore]

--Finally, I have a very difficult time understand what you are trying to say. I mean this on the level of how the grammar of each sentence works as well as trying identify your points and train of thought. I don't mean this as an insult, but I find myself unable to communicate my ideas to you and unable to grasp your ideas in turn, because of this language barrier. It leads me to getting frustrated more quickly and avoiding any response most often.

Just FYI, English is not Cacian's first language (French is, I think), so there really is a language barrier.

[togre]

To lay hands on one putting the blame on them alone because of the 'father mankind' issue is ignoring a very important biological fact here and that is the mother/woman is the fruit beare/the child pregnancy fact.
The burden of Adam is wholly unjustifed. The whole story does not rhyme right. There are too many black wholes if you like.
In a court case where two people are involved in it would be seen as unjust if one is to take the blame and the other does not.
The bible is to set by example and in this very case it has failed to do just that.


Ok, if I am understanding you correctly your saying "To blame only Adam and not Eve for eating the fruit is unjust." Is that correct?


I would respond by saying -- Adam and Eve both are guilty. Read Genesis 3:8-24. Both are questioned by God (and try to shift the blame), both are rebuked, both are cursed, both are expelled from the Garden of Eden. Both faced the more permanent consequences--both died physically, both died spiritually and both were headed to hell (this was changed only by God's mercy shown to both).

Also, both are properly called parents of the entire human race. The entire race is born with a sinful nature. In this way all humans resemble both their father, Adam, and mother, Eve.

The difference is in the Bible uses the account of their life. It is not surprising that Adam is the one referenced when a single person is mentioned in the context of sin entering into the world. It is not surprising because of 1) the headship role assigned to men in the Bible, 2) his name Adam, meaning man or mankind, make it natural for him and his life to be representative of the human race, and 3) he, his actions and results can be seen as very strong contrast to Jesus, his actions and their results.

Romans 5:12-19
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.


I guess it comes down to what you mean by "blame." In a legal sense, their blame is equal. Both as guilty, both deserving the same punishment. But given his role as the first created (and indeed with Eve being formed from his rib), his role as the one receiving the command and perhaps even his role as husband, the "blame" or notoriety is more squarely on Adam.

Think of a gang of robbers that are caught and all sentenced to the same time in jail. But one was a former police officer. It is natural that he receives more of the media attention, given who he is.

[togre]

Just FYI, English is not Cacian's first language (French is, I think), so there really is a language barrier.

I had assumed something like that. I guess I bring it up to explain some of my shortness and at times non-responsiveness to cacian's posts. Although I suppose if the difficulty in effectively communicating is frustrating to me, it must be even more so to cacian.

But frustration is no excuse--please forgive the rudeness I've shown recently.

[Cioran]

The Adam and Eve story, of course, is mythology.

I believe it's likely that the story represents an ancestral memory of the transition from the hunter-gatherer life style (the garden) to civilization (tilling the soil, etc.).

[cacian]

The Adam and Eve story, of course, is mythology.

I believe it's likely that the story represents an ancestral memory of the transition from the hunter-gatherer life style (the garden) to civilization (tilling the soil, etc.).

This an excellent analogy and makes perfect sense to me.
Great plot for a story.
The new age Adam and Eve

[Gladys]

Is there an Adam and Eve in everyone of us or just the selected few?

What better answer than that given in Milton's Paradise Lost (which I read last week ex Gutenburg)?


Of Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal tast
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of EDEN, till one greater Man
Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat,
Sing Heav'nly Muse...

Say first, for Heav'n hides nothing from thy view
Nor the deep Tract of Hell, say first what cause
Mov'd our Grand Parents in that happy State,
Favour'd of Heav'n so highly, to fall off
From their Creator, and transgress his Will
For one restraint, Lords of the World besides?
Who first seduc'd them to that fowl revolt?
Th' infernal Serpent; he it was, whose guile
Stird up with Envy and Revenge, deceiv'd
The Mother of Mankinde...

O Father, gracious was that word which clos'd
Thy sovran sentence, that Man should find grace;
For which both Heav'n and Earth shall high extoll
Thy praises, with th' innumerable sound
Of Hymns and sacred Songs, wherewith thy Throne
Encompass'd shall resound thee ever blest.
For should Man finally be lost, should Man
Thy creature late so lov'd, thy youngest Son
Fall circumvented thus by fraud, though joynd
With his own folly? that be from thee farr,
That farr be from thee, Father, who art Judge
Of all things made, and judgest onely right.
Or shall the Adversarie thus obtain
His end, and frustrate thine, shall he fulfill
His malice, and thy goodness bring to naught,
Or proud return though to his heavier doom,
Yet with revenge accomplish't and to Hell
Draw after him the whole Race of mankind,
By him corrupted? or wilt thou thy self
Abolish thy Creation, and unmake,
For him, what for thy glorie thou hast made?
So should thy goodness and thy greatness both
Be questiond and blaspheam'd without defence....

Say Heav'nly Powers, where shall we find such love,
Which of ye will be mortal to redeem
Mans mortal crime, and just th' unjust to save,
Dwels in all Heaven charitie so deare?

He ask'd, but all the Heav'nly Quire stood mute,
And silence was in Heav'n: on mans behalf
Patron or Intercessor none appeerd,
Much less that durst upon his own head draw
The deadly forfeiture, and ransom set.
And now without redemption all mankind
Must have bin lost, adjudg'd to Death and Hell
By doom severe, had not the Son of God,
In whom the fulness dwels of love divine,
His dearest mediation thus renewd.

[cacian]

My humble one written sometime ago as an alternative to the story:

apple chutney
__________________________________________________ ___________________________________________

I believe Eve was the gene
to provide Adam with mean
had the apple tree was keen
Eve would've picked something
seen
Adam would have made it clear
that taking others is not so dear
it has a price
it comes with tag
the warning flag
to ward off those who may play tricks
Eve would've listened and blinked
being told off could be tease
Adam was too expertise
to let Eve get off with ease
so the apple tree grew big
bearing fruits not making hoot
and Eve and Adam had it proved
making chutney was the truth


but this one is way too lenghty for me.
What did you make of it Gladys?

[Gladys]

Chutney brings back happy memories from way back - not from Eden but childhood memories of country holidays with my third-generation Australian, yet utterly German, grandparents. :)

You ask me to precis Milton!


Omnipotent God in heaven expelled Satan and his throng, who had presumed to rebel against divine authority. With heaven's population much depleted, God decides through his only begotten Son to create the universe, and empower Adam, the zenith of His creation, to rule the earth. Adam is created perfect and, like God, imbued with free will.

Escaping from hell fire, Satan takes opportunity to exert his influence on earth and does so by tempting the weaker Eve, created as helpmate for Adam, with an 'apple' from the one forbidden tree: the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Out of solidarity Adam eats rather than lose his superlative helpmate. Archangel Michael drives the couple from the garden to forever separate these recreant trespassers from the tree of immortality.

The taint of sin - an unwillingness to render never-ending praise and obedience to God - passes (whether by nature or nurture) down the generations to us today. Except so it seems for one man, seven generations from Adam and father of long-lived Methuselah:



To whom thus MICHAEL: ...

To overcome in Battel, and subdue
Nations, and bring home spoils with infinite
Man-slaughter, shall be held the highest pitch
Of human Glorie, and for Glorie done
Of triumph, to be styl'd great Conquerours,
Patrons of Mankind, Gods, and Sons of Gods,
Destroyers rightlier call'd and Plagues of men.
Thus Fame shall be achiev'd, renown on Earth,
And what most merits fame in silence hid.

But hee the seventh from thee, whom thou beheldst
The onely righteous in a World perverse,
And therefore hated, therefore so beset
With Foes for daring single to be just,
And utter odious Truth, that God would come
To judge them with his Saints: Him the most High
Rapt in a balmie Cloud with winged Steeds
Did, as thou sawst, receave, to walk with God
High in Salvation and the Climes of bliss,
Exempt from Death; to shew thee what reward
Awaits the good, the rest what punishment;
Which now direct thine eyes and soon behold.

To quote Romans 5:19,




For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

[Freudian Monkey]

The Adam and Eve story, of course, is mythology.

I believe it's likely that the story represents an ancestral memory of the transition from the hunter-gatherer life style (the garden) to civilization (tilling the soil, etc.).

This is a viable explanation. The question why people started to cultivate land is certainly something that prehistoric farmers wanted to portray in their tradition. The story certainly offers answers to many other similar ontological questions as well.

[Paulclem]

cacian,

--The Bible does not "give Eve a pass." She is guilty for her sin. However when there is a reference to the act that brought sin into the world, most often the person mentioned is Adam, not Eve. The reasons for the Bible doing this were listed, whether or not you agree with them.



The fact remains that theologians down history have blamed Eve and women have been labelled as the weaker sex.

I'm not a reader of the bible, but my impression of being brought up in a nominally Christian society is that Eve was the transgressor, and the fault lay with her. Are you saying that the bible is more fair in its assessment of male and female, but that this has been ignored by subsequent generations?

[cacian]

This is a viable explanation. The question why people started to cultivate land is certainly something that prehistoric farmers wanted to portray in their tradition. The story certainly offers answers to many other similar ontological questions as well.

Surely that would be down to common sense.
People need food so they would work the land.
Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying.
Apologies if I am.

[cacian]

The fact remains that theologians down history have blamed Eve and women have been labelled as the weaker sex.

I'm not a reader of the bible, but my impression of being brought up in a nominally Christian society is that Eve was the transgressor, and the fault lay with her. Are you saying that the bible is more fair in its assessment of male and female, but that this has been ignored by subsequent generations?

I suppose one could turn a blind eye and say temptation was at the heart of the matter.
Had the tree not been forbidden sin would not have occured.
It is within humans to go against the norms and what it is not allowed.
The more one says no to something the more one wants to challenge it.
And therefore I must take the load off both adam and eve and put the blame on the temptation being the cause of this incident.
Let it be a lesson to temptations and let's not dellude anyone into thinking they could not. Let's just say they could and see what happens.

[Freudian Monkey]

Surely that would be down to common sense.
People need food so they would work the land.
Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying.
Apologies if I am.

Yea, you misunderstood me. Myth's primal function in a society is to teach people why the world is the way it is and to offer them examples on how to live a good life. Myths often explain the origins of many "self-explanatory" processes, such as the division of various languages, the origin of diseases and death or where children come from. The origin of cultivation is definitely something that is present in myths of all farming cultures around the world. It's therefore very probable that the story of original sin might have something to do with the transition from hunter-gatherer culture to the cultivation of wheat and barley.

[cafolini]

Yea, you misunderstood me. Myth's primal function in a society is to teach people why the world is the way it is and to offer them examples on how to live a good life. Myths often explain the origins of many "self-explanatory" processes, such as the division of various languages, the origin of diseases and death or where children come from. The origin of cultivation is definitely something that is present in myths of all farming cultures around the world. It's therefore very probable that the story of original sin might have something to do with the transition from hunter-gatherer culture to the cultivation of wheat and barley.

Firstly, myth was never intended to teach or explain. It was produced for the purpose of having a basis, however false, for being and exitence. Secondly, myths are being produced today at a fastest speed than during hunter-gatherer or agrarian or any other age. So that doesn't apply but to Freudian Monkeys.
People that can't be taught, increase their capacity to suck a myth. They have no alternative. In an ultimate way, even those who can be taught can only learn to a certain point and then feel the comical aspect of sucking a myth.

I have a question for you. Have you ever seen the dino in a woman's womb? If you didn't, I think you cannot be a Freudian Monkey.

[Paulclem]

I suppose one could turn a blind eye and say temptation was at the heart of the matter.
Had the tree not been forbidden sin would not have occured.
It is within humans to go against the norms and what it is not allowed.
The more one says no to something the more one wants to challenge it.
And therefore I must take the load off both adam and eve and put the blame on the temptation being the cause of this incident.
Let it be a lesson to temptations and let's not dellude anyone into thinking they could not. Let's just say they could and see what happens.

I was talking of how historically Eve has been regarded and the negative effect on the status of women as the weaker and more tempted/ sinful sex. Togre was saying that the Bible claims Adam is more at fault, but that's not how it has been told through time.

Let it be a lesson to temptations and let's not dellude anyone into thinking they could not. Let's just say they could and see what happens

There's usually a good reason why something is regarded as a temptation and has rules bounding it. Lets not be hasty.

[Freudian Monkey]

Firstly, myth was never intended to teach or explain. It was produced for the purpose of having a basis, however false, for being and exitence. Secondly, myths are being produced today at a fastest speed than during hunter-gatherer or agrarian or any other age. So that doesn't apply but to Freudian Monkeys.
People that can't be taught, increase their capacity to suck a myth. They have no alternative. In an ultimate way, even those who can be taught can only learn to a certain point and then feel the comical aspect of sucking a myth.

I have a question for you. Have you ever seen the dino in a woman's womb? If you didn't, I think you cannot be a Freudian Monkey.

Calm down man, no need to get all nasty and personal over mythology.

So you seriously suggest that myths were not originally made for a purpose or a set of purposes - for instance to teach and explain ontological and ethical concepts? Not all myths are designed to teach or explain, but the ones in question, namely the origin myths, were most definitely designed for that exact purpose. You probably should learn more about the interpretation of myths before trying to debate about them. Northrop Frye's Secular Scripture and Joseph Campbell's The Masks of God series might be a good way to start. The other claims that you made in your post had nothing to do with my post.

Perhaps it's better that you don't reply to my comments anymore since I don't want to respond to such offensive posts, especially when you've continuously refused to reply to people's comments on other threads.

Case closed.

[cacian]

Firstly, myth was never intended to teach or explain. It was produced for the purpose of having a basis, however false, for being and exitence. Secondly, myths are being produced today at a fastest speed than during hunter-gatherer or agrarian or any other age. So that doesn't apply but to Freudian Monkeys.
People that can't be taught, increase their capacity to suck a myth. They have no alternative. In an ultimate way, even those who can be taught can only learn to a certain point and then feel the comical aspect of sucking a myth.

I have a question for you. Have you ever seen the dino in a woman's womb? If you didn't, I think you cannot be a Freudian Monkey.

What is a Freudian Monkey?

[cacian]

I was talking of how historically Eve has been regarded and the negative effect on the status of women as the weaker and more tempted/ sinful sex. Togre was saying that the Bible claims Adam is more at fault, but that's not how it has been told through time.
Hi Paul.
It is one to interpret it yourself and it is another for the bible to interpret it for us.

Let it be a lesson to temptations and let's not dellude anyone into thinking they could not. Let's just say they could and see what happens

There's usually a good reason why something is regarded as a temptation and has rules bounding it. Lets not be hasty.

What reasons and what rules?

[cafolini]

Calm down man, no need to get all nasty and personal over mythology.

So you seriously suggest that myths were not originally made for a purpose or a set of purposes - for instance to teach and explain ontological and ethical concepts? Not all myths are designed to teach or explain, but the ones in question, namely the origin myths, were most definitely designed for that exact purpose. You probably should learn more about the interpretation of myths before trying to debate about them. Northrop Frye's Secular Scripture and Joseph Campbell's The Masks of God series might be a good way to start. The other claims that you made in your post had nothing to do with my post.

Perhaps it's better that you don't reply to my comments anymore since I don't want to respond to such offensive posts, especially when you've continuously refused to reply to people's comments on other threads.

Case closed.

Your best post in this thread: case closed. Anticipating.

[Paulclem]

Hi Paul.
It is one to interpret it yourself and it is another for the bible to interpret it for us.


What reasons and what rules?

It is one to interpret it yourself and it is another for the bible to interpret it for us.

What I'm talking about is how others have interpreted the bible to the denigration of women as opposed to men. My point was that Togre states that Adam is mainly to blame for getting them both thrown out of the Garden of Eden, but that this isn't how it's been interpreted.


What reasons and what rules?

Rules to limit the effects of temptation in the case of murder, theft, greed, etc.

[cacian]

It is one to interpret it yourself and it is another for the bible to interpret it for us.

What I'm talking about is how others have interpreted the bible to the denigration of women as opposed to men. My point was that Togre states that Adam is mainly to blame for getting them both thrown out of the Garden of Eden, but that this isn't how it's been interpreted.


What reasons and what rules?

Rules to limit the effects of temptation in the case of murder, theft, greed, etc.

Hi Paul.
Sorry I do not follow what you mean.
Do you mean to say that temptation is needed?

[Gladys]

Reflecting on The Bible and Milton's Paradise Lost I offer some thoughts.

God created the universe good - at least ethically - and man with freedom to choose. In fabulous Eden, humankind besmirched this goodness by choosing unwisely - in respect of the forbidden fruit. Since Eden, the pattern has more or less repeated - except for that fruit. When tempted, men and women are liable to choose what is evil.

The Genesis account puts greater blame on the woman because its perspective is patriarchal - fairly common at the time of writing, in subsequent millennia and, some would add, even today. Of course, our task is to translate the ancient Hebrew so as to remove a cultural bias that has become less easy to appreciate in the 21st century. To some extent the apostle Paul does that in placing the blame on Adam:


Romans 5:12____Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

Expelled from Eden Eve's wonderful consolation, as Milton observed, lay in God's promise of a saviour through her, the mother of mankind:


Paradise Lost____
Whence Haile to thee,
EVE rightly call'd, Mother of all Mankind,
Mother of all things living, since by thee
Man is to live, and all things live for Man.

So, even in the times of Adam and Eve, The Fall gives rise an era of hope and of striving to do good. Who could wish for more? Enoch, the 7th generation from Adam, remains a fine example of this optimism:


Genesis 5:24____And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

[RetsixArp]

...created in God's image (this is a spiritual, not physical resemblence-- ...the Bible says Adam was created "in God's image" ...I read nothing that limits "God's image" to the spiritual; moreover, God states on several occasions thruout the O.T. that he has a face, backside, a heart; & I read nothing to hint these are metaphorical. I read "God's image" to mean all of God; not just the parts we'd prefer.

[cacian]

I read nothing that limits "God's image" to the spiritual; moreover, God states on several occasions thruout the O.T. that he has a face, backside, a heart; & I read nothing to hint these are metaphorical. I read "God's image" to mean all of God; not just the parts we'd prefer.

The most poignant thing about the bible is that it never met god, it is an impossibility as we know, and for it to be precise about gods'looks and Adam's one is beyond me.
How does one describe God physically let alone mentally if one has never met God?

[Paulclem]

Hi Paul.
Sorry I do not follow what you mean.
Do you mean to say that temptation is needed?

No - rules to stop temptation - temptation being stealing, murder etc etc

No worries.

[cacian]

No - rules to stop temptation - temptation being stealing, murder etc etc

No worries.

Hi Paul
I can't think of any rules that can stop temptation.
Tempation is rules.

[Paulclem]

Hi Paul
I can't think of any rules that can stop temptation.
Tempation is rules.

What about the law, and religious rules such as the 10 commandments. By temptation, I'm referring to all the laws and misdemeanors that people do - not a narrow definition.

Tempation is rules

You'll need to explain this.

[cacian]

[QUOTE=Paulclem;1178402]What about the law, and religious rules such as the 10 commandments. By temptation, I'm referring to all the laws and misdemeanors that people do - not a narrow definition.
Laws and comandement are set up by people who are mere mortals and prone to temptations themselves.
To command something is easy but to actually believe it actually does anything is another.
Do you have a favourite commandement yourself?
Going by what I have read there is nothing there I would not have worked out already for myself. I know what is good me and what is not.
I think a god that thinks simple of his own people must be a simple one himself.
The god I know is more then that and so are his poeple.


[COLOR="DarkRed"]Tempation is rules.

You'll need to explain this.
Well temptation is because of rules.
Let's take the Adam and Eve story and turn it on its head.
If God had not instructed Adam about the apple tree and not forbiden them the fruit would have the sin taken place?
The answer is logically no. No rule no temptation.
So a temptation is born out of forbidence and obedience.
The more your instruct others not to the more others will.
Such is human nature I would have thought god would have worked that out.
I have.

[Paulclem]

[QUOTE]
Laws and comandement are set up by people who are mere mortals and prone to temptations themselves.
To command something is easy but to actually believe it actually does anything is another.
Do you have a favourite commandement yourself?
Going by what I have read there is nothing there I would not have worked out already for myself. I know what is good me and what is not.
I think a god that thinks simple of his own people must be a simple one himself.
The god I know is more then that and so are his poeple.


Well temptation is because of rules.
Let's take the Adam and Eve story and turn it on its head.
If God had not instructed Adam about the apple tree and not forbiden them the fruit would have the sin taken place?
The answer is logically no. No rule no temptation.
So a temptation is born out of forbidence and obedience.
The more your instruct others not the more others the will.
Such is human nature I would have thought god would have worked that out.
I have.

Do you have a favourite commandement yourself?

Yes - don't kill anyone is my favourite.

The god I know is more then that and so are his poeple.

I'm a Buddhist, and so don't follow a God though not all the ideas around religion are untrue or of no use. Belief in God can be a positive thing.

Well temptation is because of rules.

You could see them as warnings that if you give in to temptations then trouble will follow.

If God had not instructed Adam about the apple tree and not forbiden them the fruit would have the sin taken place?

This has no relevance to everyday temptations as consequences in the everyday are real, and have real effects. What you propose concerns the mind of God and why he set it all up in the first place which is difficult to second guess.

[cacian]

Hi Paul
Belief in something including is definetely something.
I think we humans tend to spend too much time getting ourselves tied up with the unknown and insecurity often leads to needing to believe in something.
Temptations are trouble and warning make them worse.
Explaining why something is trouble is easier to handle then saying this is trouble.

This has no relevance to everyday temptations as consequences in the everyday are real, and have real effects. What you propose concerns the mind of God and why he set it all up in the first place which is difficult to second guess.
I think it is relevant in the sense that one can see how it is avoided.
I have my doubts that god had set it up at all.