Soldado De Aztlan Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 So I read the Bible occasionally, but never have finished it in its entirety. One thing that always throws a wrench in my gears is the Snake in the Garden of Eden. According to Christian ethos it's the manifestation of Satan who tempted Eve. Of course this is considered a great evil boon to humanity giving into the wiles of temptation. However, with my non-Christian upbringing. I always interpret it differently. First I will start with this part: Genesis 1:26 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creepeth upon the earth. This is always explained to me as The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. I don't really argue against this, but it just seems odd to refer to yourself in the plural sense. It's like claiming man has a Super Ego, Ego, and Subconscious self. Therefore a man must refer to himself in the plural sense. Moving on: Genesis 1:29-30 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat; and it was so. So Adam and Eve appear to be vegetarians or fruigivors. This is before they eat the forbidden fruit. So I move to the next part of identifying this forbidden fruit as: Genesis 2:9 9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of good and evil. So there are two trees in the garden: Genesis 2:16-17 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. 17 But the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Well if that tree contains the knowledge of good, and evil?...Then how are they suppose to know that eating it is supposed to be bad. Of course it's explained to me as Adam, and Eve knew good without knowing evil. Because God said it was good...but this doesn't negate the fact they have no knowledge of good and evil. So it is unreasonable for us to expect them to define these two things. For the simple fact they are indeed innocent. So next: Genesis 3:1-5 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. So this is the claim that's been made. After God realizes they are of the fruit: Genesis 3:22 22 And the Lord God said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever So again not only God refer to himself in the plural form, but openly admits that they are now like them. Not only did they not die, but they could've been exactly like God if they also ate of the Tree of Life. Sp they're both cursed and driven out of The Garden of Eden. How are they supposed to know what they were doing was wrong? Before the attainment of the knowledge of good and evil? They would be doing things out of innocence. Not only that but the serpents words are validated by God. So how the serpent evil? Wouldn't the serpent be good for being truthful, and having them learn what good and evil is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.2 Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 I can only give you the official catholic teachings. Hope this helps: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/before-sin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soldado De Aztlan Posted August 2, 2017 Author Share Posted August 2, 2017 Ok first, you totally triggered my OCD with that link. The word suffer doesn't mean today what it did back then. Example: Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. Many people nowadays interpret this passage as being enduring, or subjugated to persecution/pain. While the original meaning is "to allow." http://etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Suffer Which completely changes the context of the passage. So an example is "I will not suffer it" translated as "I will not allow this (wrongdoing)." As a non-Christian with my views of Natural Law. When I look at Darwinism (despite its moral flaws) I see that nothing can be more perfect than seeking greater perfection. Stillness is death. If a body of water is still? It becomes stagnant, and things die within it. If it flows? Then it can bring life to many. Seeking greater perfection can can be seen in many aspects of life. If I am a painter. Do stop after I've learned to draw a circle? No. If I'm a martial artists. Do stop training to improve my technique? No. If I'm a builder. Do I stop finding better ways to construct a house? No. Also, standardized Christian responses disappoint me. Many of which is imposing the belief that perfection was back then. Instead of the here and now. Also this whole aversion to experiencing pain troubles me. How much sweeter is joy after experiencing sorrow? How much greater the feeling accomplishment after many tribulations? Without conflict there is no growth. Without the other opposing me there is nothing to overcome. What kind of life is that to avoid all hardship in search of paradise? I don't know and maybe I don't want to know. Ultimately this doesn't answer my curiosity on the serpent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgggb Posted August 7, 2017 Share Posted August 7, 2017 On 8/2/2017 at 3:09 PM, Soldado De Aztlan said: our He could just be using the royal we. Still, this seems relevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n25an Posted August 13, 2017 Share Posted August 13, 2017 I have a couple of questions... that might illuminate the scriptures... What is the purpose of religion? To control the masses What is the most important thing to pass down via scriptures? cultural or societal queues What are biblical stories? fables... What do fables teach? basic truths... Do religions desire the support of native governments? Yes... Why? Support equals acceptance... lack of support equals persecution... So a religions scripture or holy writing would support the ideas of the government and society that it lives in... Now lets look at the religious text... what basic idea was the fable or religious story meant to teach...??? You could judge this all by your touchstone but you have to put that aside and just see what its saying... forget about all the details and lets look at the key concept... god wants to keep man innocent... eating like animals... happy... not knowing difference between good and evil what would be good...??? knowing what benefits yourself what is evil... ??? change, progress, growth, what does the garden represent...??? a safe place to thrive... what does the devil represent... ??? an agent of change... progress... growth now the question if the devil represent an agent of change... why is he evil... ???? well some say the book of job is the oldest book in the bible... and it is one of the few books where we get a good idea of how the devil operates... his job is to observer and provide remmendations to god to advance the durability of humans atleast based on the book of job so using that as a guide... based on that logic... one could say that the devil went beyond his parameters... he did not observer and recommend to god... he took an interest in adam and eve and decided he wanted to be an agent of change and not just an observer of change... he became evil... he became an agent... and not an observer of change... he passed his place... so he had to be punished just like prometheus had to be punished... now why was adam and eve punished... because they looked to someone beside god to teach them... and why were they put out of the garden... because they would eventually represent a threat... what is the moral of this story... ignorance is bliss... ambition is a threat... enjoy your lot... and on the darker side... don't pass your place... you just might lose the little you have... Now consider societies of old... would this story's moral be an essential tenet... something that the reigning government want passed on? Yep... Now why is god plural... consider that in old societies... there were always pantheons... and christianity is based on older religions... the we could be a throwback to the idea of a pantheon of gods... remember new religions absorb the best of old religions like new movies incorporate the best of old movies... christianity did not grow up in a vacuum... it competed for an audience... and christianity is based on judaism... judaism grew up in the middle east and much of the key text... and concepts are transplants... from other cultures... why... it competed for an audience... that is how I understand it... for what its worth... that is my understanding of it... I hope my interpretation helps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsbrads Posted September 1, 2017 Share Posted September 1, 2017 Adam and Eve understood right and wrong. Good and evil are emotional elements of right and wrong. the serpent didn't like being commanded by Adam and Eve. He decided to destroy the entire creation for being second to someone else (typical Leftist). Note: They did not abide God's command to eat of all the trees in the garden or they would have been busy eating ordinary apples, peaches, etc., eaten of the tree of Life. Idle hands do the devil's work. Adam was there the whole time watching how Eve would behave. He wasn't emotionally tied to the outcome until he realized he already lost his wife. Jordan Peterson does a more evolutionary analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnostic Bishop Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 On 02/08/2017 at 3:09 PM, Soldado De Aztlan said: This is always explained to me as The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. I don't really argue against this, but it just seems odd to refer to yourself in the plural sense. You will argue against that idiocy if you listen to the first 10 minutes, or even start at the 10 minute mark of this link. Most of the ancient God were androgynous and so was the Jewish God. The whole link is enlightening if you have the time. On 02/08/2017 at 3:09 PM, Soldado De Aztlan said: So Adam and Eve appear to be vegetarians or fruigivors. This is before they eat the forbidden fruit. So I move to the next part of identifying this forbidden fruit as: Irrelevant as the whole story and bible represents what goes on in your head and mind. Adam is the male aspect of God and Eve the female aspect of God. We are also to see ourselves as androgynous creatures. We are created in God's image. Or better said, we create our God's in our image and those who do not see both male and female natures within us are not seeing the right image. Apologies. This link ended out of place. On 02/08/2017 at 3:09 PM, Soldado De Aztlan said: Well if that tree contains the knowledge of good, and evil?...Then how are they suppose to know that eating it is supposed to be bad. Your logic is sound and you are recognizing that this allegorical myth cannot be read literally. This link will help you understand what the myth is realy trying to tell us ans will show some of the real wisdom of the ancients. Any who say that the ancients were just ignorant and stupid are showing how uneducated they are. Regards DL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsbrads Posted October 4, 2017 Share Posted October 4, 2017 God told Adam not to eat, Adam told Eve not to eat, Eve had the information that she shouldn't eat, but she was able to generate the desire to violate a rule she believed to be correct (not good). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnostic Bishop Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 On 04/10/2017 at 4:17 AM, Jsbrads said: God told Adam not to eat, Adam told Eve not to eat, Eve had the information that she shouldn't eat, but she was able to generate the desire to violate a rule she believed to be correct (not good). ?? Should she have styed too stupid to even know she was naked? Was the moral sense man gained not worth telling God where to go? Regards DL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsbrads Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Had man (and woman) been obedient for a day, God would have guided them further. Also, there is nothing with being naked from an intellectual basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnostic Bishop Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 14 hours ago, Jsbrads said: Had man (and woman) been obedient for a day, God would have guided them further. Also, there is nothing with being naked from an intellectual basis. We do not know how long A & E remained stupid. God gave them leave in Gen 1 to reproduce but their stupidity that had them not know they were naked last more than one day. Unless you think Gen 3 was in the close time frame to Gen 1, which is not what scriptures indicate. I agree with your last but if you go around too stupid to know you are naked, some will certainly try to teach you good manners. Why do you think God dressed A & E when there was no one there to see them? Regards DL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsbrads Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Tradition is that A&E were very young (very short time frame) no experience, great intelligence. The premise is that they were in Eden, how much time passed did not matter as they were not challenged in any way other than this one command. the premise is that there was no one else to see them but God. There was certainly no one more intelligent or aware than they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnostic Bishop Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 10 hours ago, Jsbrads said: Tradition is that A&E were very young (very short time frame) no experience, great intelligence. The premise is that they were in Eden, how much time passed did not matter as they were not challenged in any way other than this one command. the premise is that there was no one else to see them but God. There was certainly no one more intelligent or aware than they. Young yet God told them to reproduce, his first command to them, and they did not. All knowledge is subject to good and evil and to say they had great intelligence without the knowledge of good and evil is ridiculous. You ignore scriptures that say their eyes/mentality was opened only after they ate. Look up the meaning of the Jewish word adam and recognize that that word means society or tribe. To believe a myth that includes a talking serpent to be reality, is you goinmg into intellectual dissonance. Come back to reality. If all you are going to do is try to lie to us, then------ Regards DL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsbrads Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 Point by point in reverse order: If you want to discuss a biblical story within the context of the story, then you have to accept the premise of the story if not the literality of every concept. I don't know how you are parsing the word Adam as Society or Tribe, Adam is also a congugation of two concepts A (Alpha) and Dam (blood), superego and id, spirituality and physicality (a mixture, a synthesis, and competition). I am not ignoring their eyes were opened, I am parsing that as their intellect has undergone a evolution. Prior that had one type of intelligence, and after they had acquired and additional type of intelligence. Is it possible for someone to have a purely intellectual understanding of correct and incorrect without emotionally comprehending the moral value of it? Imagine a sort of Autism, where a person can be rather intelligent in some ways but completely incapable understanding the impact they have on other's feelings, but they can calculate the exact monetary value of every action they engage in or choose not to engage in. Within the context of the Biblical story, Adam wasn't born, but carved from earth and breathed life, presumably created as an adult (in many respects Cain was the first human (born of a mother and father) I am not debating this detail with you, merely citing the story). Eve was also created, from man and presume created as an adult too. You are free to parse it as you wish, but they were in garden as adults, alone, without parents, without a prehistory. I am not against postpubescent teens marrying and making babies. Then they made atleast two babies in a relatively short time, and a third perhaps after a short pause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnostic Bishop Posted October 11, 2017 Share Posted October 11, 2017 Jsbrads Gen1:27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, It is difficult to try to discuss a myth when taking some as allegory and some as literal and not being able to agree on basics. "Eve was also created, from man" If Eve was no created the same way Adam was, who was God telling him to reproduce with? Apologies. I can discuss a literal view or an allegorical view. I cannot flip from one view to the other coherently. Hebrew has no capitals and go by context. The fact that the plural word them is used indicates that adam as mankind is the proper translation. Further, in terms of time and population if we think of adam as just one man, we would have difficulties later when Cain is to build a city for just a few of a single mans line. It may not matter but here is a link that defines adam. http://margmowczko.com/human-man-woman-genesis-2/ I am not sure just where you want to go from here. Regards DL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsbrads Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Adam may have been Hermaphroditic, hence woman was not a separate creation, but the creation of woman was an act of separation of his two aspects, consistent with the description. not a bad link, tho rather silly over simplified and bad use of Hebrew language to call Adam a peoples. not sure if you had any other points other than these two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnostic Bishop Posted November 10, 2017 Share Posted November 10, 2017 On 15/10/2017 at 6:31 AM, Jsbrads said: Adam may have been Hermaphroditic, hence woman was not a separate creation, but the creation of woman was an act of separation of his two aspects, consistent with the description. not a bad link, tho rather silly over simplified and bad use of Hebrew language to call Adam a peoples. not sure if you had any other points other than these two. Only that it is all fiction and a Jewish coming of age yarn. Jews rightly say it as man's elevation while the more stupid Christians saw it as our fall. Regards DL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsbrads Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Then don't read it. While Christians and Jews do see this very differently and the christians do call it a Fall I would not say that many Jews consider it an elevation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnostic Bishop Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 11 hours ago, Jsbrads said: Then don't read it. While Christians and Jews do see this very differently and the christians do call it a Fall I would not say that many Jews consider it an elevation Then you are just not looking. http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/20/comparative-theodicy/ ‘Instead of the Fall of man (in the sense of humanity as a whole), Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants’. Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Is that not what A & E did? Gen 3:2 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: Is that a fall or an elevation to you? Regards DL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsbrads Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Man expanded his capacity, but he didn't do it by overcoming his nature. He expanded his capacity by failing to overcome his nature, so he lost truth, peace and prosperity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnostic Bishop Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 On 16/11/2017 at 1:49 AM, Jsbrads said: Man expanded his capacity, but he didn't do it by overcoming his nature. He expanded his capacity by failing to overcome his nature, so he lost truth, peace and prosperity. If the majority of us are religious, and stats show we are, the religious affiliation is what is preventing us from overcoming our natures. Right? Regards DL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsbrads Posted December 11, 2017 Share Posted December 11, 2017 No, our natures exist within us whether we acknowledge it like religious people do, or ignore it like most atheists, libertarians or all communists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts