Did God err in making Adam ruler over Eve?

[PLC1]

Christianity's insistence on seeing Adam and Eve as individual people instead of mankind or the Jewish nation creates all kinds of grief for them. Theist don't seem to care though as their faith does not allow them to think with logic, reason or morality. If it did, they would soon leave their religions.

They are in their religion mostly just to appease their tribal natures and the fellowship it gives. That would be ok if not for the fact that they follow an immoral God.

Regards
DL

The Adam and Eve story, like the universal flood story and a whole lot of Biblical stories can't be taken as actual, historical events. The Garden of Eden is both a creation myth, and an allegory of a first sexual encounter.

Which doesn't prove the non existence of god, or gods. It just shows that the Bible can't be taken literally.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

The Adam and Eve story, like the universal flood story and a whole lot of Biblical stories can't be taken as actual, historical events. The Garden of Eden is both a creation myth, and an allegory of a first sexual encounter.

Which doesn't prove the non existence of god, or gods. It just shows that the Bible can't be taken literally.

I agree, but think of it more as a right of passage story with little to nothing of sexual content.

I take that position because of the fact that the older and perhaps better text had some more eastern philosophy in it with the kundalini/shakra and older kabballa/yoga type of thinking.

I only have this one link to that thinking. It is long but quite informative if you have time for it.

I think that the church wanted to dumb it's sheeple down and tried to bury it all. The dunber the sheeple, the more the church likes it. Our governments are trying to do the same thing and the stats are showing that the bastard are winning.

If you don't have the time for it, you might find the description of God interesting which begins at about the 10 min. mark. The other stuff I spoke of is mostly closer to the 3/4 and end.

Regards
DL

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I suppose we should admire the Roman Catholic Church for embracing the modern world in having a cross dresser as its leader

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I suppose we should admire the Roman Catholic Church for embracing the modern world in having a cross dresser as its leader

Thanks for this.

I would have thought that embracing contraception would be a better indicator of embracing our modern world. That or giving women equality within the church.

Regards
DL

 

[PLC1]

I agree, but think of it more as a right of passage story with little to nothing of sexual content.

I take that position because of the fact that the older and perhaps better text had some more eastern philosophy in it with the kundalini/shakra and older kabballa/yoga type of thinking.

I only have this one link to that thinking. It is long but quite informative if you have time for it.

I think that the church wanted to dumb it's sheeple down and tried to bury it all. The dunber the sheeple, the more the church likes it. Our governments are trying to do the same thing and the stats are showing that the bastard are winning.

If you don't have the time for it, you might find the description of God interesting which begins at about the 10 min. mark. The other stuff I spoke of is mostly closer to the 3/4 and end.

Regards
DL

Was sex the "forbidden fruit"? Think about it: You kids start having sex, and I'll boot you out of the house. You'll have to make it on your own. Fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. They couldn't "be fruitful and multiply" until they had partaken of the forbidden fruit.

Sounds a lot like a first sexual encounter, much more than an actual story of talking snakes and magical apples.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Was sex the "forbidden fruit"? Think about it: You kids start having sex, and I'll boot you out of the house. You'll have to make it on your own. Fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. They couldn't "be fruitful and multiply" until they had partaken of the forbidden fruit.

Sounds a lot like a first sexual encounter, much more than an actual story of talking snakes and magical apples.

The forbidden fruit, was not a fruit. A tree of knowledge gives knowledge of sex. It does not give permission to indulge in it.

If it did, then the knowledge of murder, which it also gives, might be to also give permission to murder.

If you set a precedent of permission to do what the knowledge gives to one issue, you have to give that same precedent to all of the knowledge.

No?

Regards
DL

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I'm growing an orchard of knowledge trees

I expect to get a good price on my commodities as knowledge is a bull market right now

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I'm growing an orchard of knowledge trees

I expect to get a good price on my commodities as knowledge is a bull market right now

We have tons of knowledge but are short on wisdom. If you can plant a knowledge tree, I hope you can also plant a wisdom or even a tree that give a moral sense that is better than what theist of today have.

Regards
DL

 

[PLC1]

The forbidden fruit, was not a fruit. A tree of knowledge gives knowledge of sex. It does not give permission to indulge in it.

If it did, then the knowledge of murder, which it also gives, might be to also give permission to murder.

If you set a precedent of permission to do what the knowledge gives to one issue, you have to give that same precedent to all of the knowledge.

No?

Regards
DL

Adam and Eve didn't have permission to have sex. Sex was forbidden. Once they broke the rule, then they knew what sex was all about. Before that, they were naive virgins.

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Adam and Eve didn't have permission to have sex. Sex was forbidden. Once they broke the rule, then they knew what sex was all about. Before that, they were naive virgins.

I agree but those who read the bible literally might not as God told A & E to reproduce way back in Gen 1.

Then again, literalists are not too bright or moral as they believe in real talking serpents and donkeys and think a genocidal son murdering God is a good God.

Regards
DL

 

[PLC1]

I agree but those who read the bible literally might not as God told A & E to reproduce way back in Gen 1.

Then again, literalists are not too bright or moral as they believe in real talking serpents and donkeys and think a genocidal son murdering God is a good God.

Regards
DL

God knew that they could not reproduce without having sex, so they would have to break one rule or the other.
Since they were running around naked in a paradise, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion which one they would break.

but, none of that is to be taken literally. The Adam and Eve story is an allegorical tale, no more and no less.

 

[Openmind]

Adam and Eve didn't have permission to have sex. Sex was forbidden. Once they broke the rule, then they knew what sex was all about. Before that, they were naive virgins.

Wouldn't that be a really stupid move from an all knowing entity such as God? Why would he give sexual drive to his creatures if he never met for that sexual drive to be used? Why would he make procreation dependent on sexual encounters between one male and one female if he didn't mean to have procreation?

Why would he build ALL animal species with the ability to procreate but "forbid" the human kind from procreating?

So dumb! No GOD would make that kind of miscalculation!

 

[PLC1]

Wouldn't that be a really stupid move from an all knowing entity such as God? Why would he give sexual drive to his creatures if he never met for that sexual drive to be used? Why would he make procreation dependent on sexual encounters between one male and one female if he didn't mean to have procreation?

Why would he build ALL animal species with the ability to procreate but "forbid" the human kind from procreating?

So dumb! No GOD would make that kind of miscalculation!

Because, as I said earlier, the Adam and Eve story is an allegorical tale, both explaining how humans got here to people who had no idea of the modern science of evolution or genetics, and (perhaps - my bit of speculation) an allegory of a first sexual encounter.

In the allegory, an authority figure (god? dad?) who had been taking care of the children (Adam and Eve) forbade them from having sex. Sex, not an apple, was the "forbidden fruit." When they broke the rule, they were kicked out of the house and had to fend for themselves. In their disobedience, they both learned something and were able to reproduce.

No doubt they built a house of their own, plowed their own fields, and came home to visit from time to time. Who knows?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Wouldn't that be a really stupid move from an all knowing entity such as God? Why would he give sexual drive to his creatures if he never met for that sexual drive to be used? Why would he make procreation dependent on sexual encounters between one male and one female if he didn't mean to have procreation?

Why would he build ALL animal species with the ability to procreate but "forbid" the human kind from procreating?

So dumb! No GOD would make that kind of miscalculation!

Well he gave them free will knowing exactly how that would get used

It’s obvious that god wanted loads of bad shit to happen because he could stop it if he wanted and he dished out free will to ensure it happened

What a smart move eh? In one fell swoop he ensures lots of bad shit and gets himself a get out of jail free card

Genius

Evil genius

They should cast him in the next Bond movie

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

God knew that they could not reproduce without having sex, so they would have to break one rule or the other.
Since they were running around naked in a paradise, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion which one they would break.

but, none of that is to be taken literally. The Adam and Eve story is an allegorical tale, no more and no less.

True. Therein lies it's beauty, which literalists never see.

Too bad for them.

Regards
DL