Thanks, interesting though In islam both are equally blamed lucifer convinced them rather than eve.
I love finding out little things :D
Printable View
Thanks, interesting though In islam both are equally blamed lucifer convinced them rather than eve.
I love finding out little things :D
That is interesting. Though, I think important to note, that though Eve was the one Lucifer tempted, both Adam and Eve bit the fruit and so were equally at fault.
Atheists ROCKQuote:
Originally Posted by water lily
Qualify thy statements, and thou will appear in a better light...Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyollie
Maybe jollyollie was just trying to bring the thread back to its original topic
That is entirely possible. I was merely pointing out the value of statements which are accompanied with qualifying explanations.
I'm fascinated to learn that Eve isn't singled out in the Q'uran. That one detail has been a big deal in the history of Christianity. In the Western world, the oppression of women has often been justified by the claim that original sin (the belief that all humans are born with sin, because of the sin of Adam and Eve) is mostly Eve's fault, because she tempted Adam just as Satan tempted her. I once heard an analogy that Eve's temptation symbolized/inspired womankind's ongoing temptation of men to do evil things. Medieval monks even taught that the female body was an instrument of the devil. We're just a horrible lot, aren't we? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Nightshade
Anyhoo... Water Lily is right on with the main points. Basically, the story starts with God making the Earth, and on each of the six days he makes a different part, and then on the seventh he rests. Adam is lonely, and so God puts him to sleep and removes one of his ribs, and from it he creates Eve. They are happy and ignorant of their nakedness. Then Satan appears in the form of a serpent, and convinces Eve to take the fruit by telling her, "God said to care for Adam, didn't he? Isn't it your duty as a wife to provide for your husband?" So she gives it to Adam, not telling him where she got it. Upon eating it, they notice their nakedness and are ashamed, and so they cover themselves with fig leaves. Then God yells at them, and banishes them from the Garden of Eden to wander the Earth, where they have children, and Cain kills Abel, and so on... As far as I remember, no forgiveness in this story.
It's interesting to me to learn the Islamic version of the story. I think it's much more interesting! I heard once about some of the ancient Hebrew myths that didn't make it into the Old Testament, and I think that story (about angels bowing to Adam, and Lucifer's damnation) was one of them. Another was the one about Lillith, who isn't in the Bible, but "another woman" is mentioned... oh, somewhere in there. :p I'm a little rusty on the finer points.
I'm sorry Emily, but I'm feeling particularly pedantic tonight. There is no mention of fig leaves in the bible - they didn't appear until renaissance art. ;)
"I'm feeling particularly pedantic tonight. There is no mention of fig leaves in the bible - they didn't appear until renaissance art. "
"consuerunt folia ficus et fecerunt sibi perizomata "
I'll be a bit pedantic too. I don't know what was in the Hebrew, but the Latin above includes the phrase "folia ficus" which means "fig leaves"
It is from the Adam and Eve story in Jerome's translation of the Bible into Latin, dated about 405AD, that is nearly a thousand years before the renaissance.
I always wondered about those fig leaves.
But I have a question for the atheists: Would you prefer it if God did exist, but are convinced that he does not or that it is impossible? Or do you prefer it that he doesn't?
Hope that was clear.
Hmm, good question. Me, I prefer to think that the jury is out on that one. My belief is that there's no such thing as an afterlife, but when you think about it, that's a very depressing concept. And though I'm open to the possibility that I may be wrong and that there is a God, I accept (but don't exactly relish) my consequent lot in eternity. Still, I suppose I'll find out eventually--I doubt that personal preference will make any particular outcome any more likely.
Carl von Linné - the father of modern botany - suggested that the forbidden fruit was bananas. Because A) they're so sweet it's almost impossible to resist eating them, and B) their leaves are several feet long and cover a lot more than a fig leaf could. (I'm sure Freud might have something to say about the theory of Eve being unable to resist a banana...) :banana:Quote:
I always wondered about those fig leaves.
One question though: as far as I can see, most people in this thread (I haven't read every single post) seem to equate atheism and agnosticism. I've always understood it that atheism is the firm knowledge/belief that there is no such thing as a God, whereas agnosticism is saying that you cannot know whether there is a God or not - and thus labelled myself an agnostic, since it seems to me that outright atheism is simply substituting one belief for another. Is that a meaningful distinction?
To answer water lily: I wouldn't exactly be offended if I died and found out that there is a God. I've got a bunch of questions for Him/Her/Them/It. But whether I would prefer it... tricky question. Would I prefer it if the planet Jupiter existed or not? It really doesn't make much of a difference in how I live my life.
There is a distinction, but the two systems (agnosticism and atheism) not mutually exclusive. Atheism is indeed the belief that there is no God, while agnosticism is the belief that the presence of God can neither be proven NOR disproven. As most people will tell you, belief and proof are two vastly different things.
Well then according to robin, isn't everyone an agnostic. I don't beleive you can PROVE it one way or the other.
Sponville explained it really well in his book "Presentations de la philosophie", but I don't have the book with me and if I did, it's in french, which would present a problem to most of you. So I will attempt to put the complex idea to my own words.
For atheists, they can't presume to prove the inexistence of a god, because if there is a God then His intellect would so far outstrip their own that they would have no hope of comprehending him. Like a dog, trying to understand human philosophy. They can't know if there is something beyond them, because their intellects don't go "beyond them".
For believers, there is no physical proof, in the existence of a god.
It is the belief that makes the differences, so I would define atheism as the belief in the inexistence of a god, and agnosticism as more of a static state of indecision about the existence/inexistence of a god.
ps. beer good, interesting idea. But it begs the question, in the Garden of Eden, in this state of innocence did sex exist? or did it come in with all the bad stuff?
Well, there are those that don't count themselves among the agnostics, either because of the negative connotations they may attach to the term, because they believe that God's presence has been manifested in the real world, or because they view the religious text as proof enough of the existence of a God.