|
|
Post by The_L on Mar 28, 2010 6:42:04 GMT -5
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
--Paul of Tarsus, apostle, saint, and male chauvinist
The Garden of Eden story:
Satan: Go on, eat it. You totally won't die.
Eve: (Well, maybe Adam was mistaken, or I'm remembering the instructions wrong. This doesn't look like a bad fruit at all!) Mmm, yummy fruit! *munchmunch* Hey Adam, try some of this cool fruit I just found!
Adam: This fruit looks...familiar...*munchmunch* Oh shit, I just ate the forbidden fruit.
Eve: Forbidden? OMG, the snake never said it was forbidden!
Adam: God said that the first rule of Eden is you don't eat from the tree! And the second rule is you DON'T. EAT. FROM THE FUCKING TREE. We're totally screwed now.
God: Adam, I told you not to eat from the fucking tree. You're outta here!
(Yes, in my mind, Adam sounds like a total dick and Eve sounds like a ditz. I'm not sure why.)
The traditional Christian reconciliation of the Garden of Eden story with Paul's little diatribe:
Eve was told by Adam about the forbidden fruit. No one had ever told a lie at this point. Eve was deceived into thinking Adam had mistaken which tree was forbidden, ate the fruit, and therefore was not really at fault--just really, really gullible. Adam, on the other hand, had been told by God himself not to eat the forbidden fruit, and therefore was actually to blame for the whole Fall thing. This is clearly what Paul means, as other passages involving the Eden's story refer to "Adam's sin" and "Adam's fall," not "Eve's sin" or even "the sin of Adam and Eve."
Anyone else think this sounds a little...off?
|
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Mar 28, 2010 11:12:35 GMT -5
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." --Paul of Tarsus, apostle, saint, and male chauvinist The Garden of Eden story:Satan: Go on, eat it. You totally won't die. Eve: ( Well, maybe Adam was mistaken, or I'm remembering the instructions wrong. This doesn't look like a bad fruit at all!) Mmm, yummy fruit! *munchmunch* Hey Adam, try some of this cool fruit I just found! Adam: This fruit looks...familiar...*munchmunch* Oh shit, I just ate the forbidden fruit. Eve: Forbidden? OMG, the snake never said it was forbidden! Adam: God said that the first rule of Eden is you don't eat from the tree! And the second rule is you DON'T. EAT. FROM THE FUCKING TREE. We're totally screwed now. God: Adam, I told you not to eat from the fucking tree. You're outta here! (Yes, in my mind, Adam sounds like a total dick and Eve sounds like a ditz. I'm not sure why.) The traditional Christian reconciliation of the Garden of Eden story with Paul's little diatribe:Eve was told by Adam about the forbidden fruit. No one had ever told a lie at this point. Eve was deceived into thinking Adam had mistaken which tree was forbidden, ate the fruit, and therefore was not really at fault--just really, really gullible. Adam, on the other hand, had been told by God himself not to eat the forbidden fruit, and therefore was actually to blame for the whole Fall thing. This is clearly what Paul means, as other passages involving the Eden's story refer to "Adam's sin" and "Adam's fall," not "Eve's sin" or even "the sin of Adam and Eve." Anyone else think this sounds a little...off? "but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" & " Adam, on the other hand, had been told by God himself not to eat the forbidden fruit, and therefore was actually to blame for the whole Fall thing" - those two certainly sound contradictory to me. So whose fault was it according to Paul? (not that I really care - but just for philosophical grins and giggles) I thought the snake told her it was the fruit of knowledge and temped her with the forbidden knowledge not the fruit itself. Come to think of it - this could explain away a lot of the truly screwy unscientific things many of the fundamentalists believe - if knowledge and facts are the enemy, then philosopher zombie carpenters who are morally perfect saving the world by dying because the supreme being who knows everything can't forgive all of humanity on the planet without a sacrifice, makes perfect sense.  |
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 28, 2010 11:33:39 GMT -5
Frankly, the entire story doesn't make much sense. How could Adam and Eve be held responsible for their actions if before eating the fruit they had no knowledge of good an evil? God told them not to, but how were they supposed to know that obeying God was good, and not bad? I can't see how either of them could be held morally responsible for their actions, much less future generations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Mar 28, 2010 13:31:42 GMT -5
Isn't the full name of the fruit the "Fruit of Knowledge of Good & Evil," or is that just some bullshit that was made up ex post facto?
Anyway, the story doesn't make any damn sense. I don't see how people can state such contradictions as "they didn't know right from wrong, but they knew disobeying God was wrong." And the bastard could have at least warned them about talking to snakes. Seriously. That just seems like something you should teach your kids from an early age.
In any case, I've always envisioned Adam & Eve as both being completely fucking retarded. And Eve as being smoking hot, but that's another subject altogether.
I hope Adam pissed on the tree before they left.
|
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Mar 28, 2010 14:24:06 GMT -5
I hope Adam pissed on the tree before they left. Or pulled a George Washington. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Mar 28, 2010 14:38:32 GMT -5
Had to replace all of his teeth with wood because they rotted out?
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Mar 28, 2010 15:34:10 GMT -5
I prefer Paul and Steve.
|
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Mar 29, 2010 0:37:45 GMT -5
Frankly, the entire story doesn't make much sense. How could Adam and Eve be held responsible for their actions if before eating the fruit they had no knowledge of good an evil? God told them not to, but how were they supposed to know that obeying God was good, and not bad? I can't see how either of them could be held morally responsible for their actions, much less future generations. because even not knowing they they were created with a Pavlovian response to god's voice to obey everything he said...The snake was just a passable mimic and "F"ed up god's experimental terrarium by introducing outside stimuli....yeah, that's the ticket. |
|
|
|
Post by jinxxed on Mar 29, 2010 15:15:03 GMT -5
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." --Paul of Tarsus, apostle, saint, and male chauvinist The Garden of Eden story:Satan: Go on, eat it. You totally won't die. Eve: ( Well, maybe Adam was mistaken, or I'm remembering the instructions wrong. This doesn't look like a bad fruit at all!) Mmm, yummy fruit! *munchmunch* Hey Adam, try some of this cool fruit I just found! Adam: This fruit looks...familiar...*munchmunch* Oh shit, I just ate the forbidden fruit. Eve: Forbidden? OMG, the snake never said it was forbidden! Adam: God said that the first rule of Eden is you don't eat from the tree! And the second rule is you DON'T. EAT. FROM THE FUCKING TREE. We're totally screwed now. God: Adam, I told you not to eat from the fucking tree. You're outta here! (Yes, in my mind, Adam sounds like a total dick and Eve sounds like a ditz. I'm not sure why.) The traditional Christian reconciliation of the Garden of Eden story with Paul's little diatribe:Eve was told by Adam about the forbidden fruit. No one had ever told a lie at this point. Eve was deceived into thinking Adam had mistaken which tree was forbidden, ate the fruit, and therefore was not really at fault--just really, really gullible. Adam, on the other hand, had been told by God himself not to eat the forbidden fruit, and therefore was actually to blame for the whole Fall thing. This is clearly what Paul means, as other passages involving the Eden's story refer to "Adam's sin" and "Adam's fall," not "Eve's sin" or even "the sin of Adam and Eve." Anyone else think this sounds a little...off? Modern day Christianity among evangelicals (where men are still head of the household and the wife should appreciate that he is) should be called Paulism. If we ignored Paul, a man who much like Mohammed never met with God (Jesus in the instance of Paul) and only saw visions of things they then wrote down, then Christianity would be a-ok by me. It wouldn't be against abortion, it would not be against any forms of womens rights, it would not be against homosexual marriage or homosexuality at all (all inventions by Paulites proclaiming to follow the words of Christ). Paul was added while Jesus's actua own words were removed to create a dictatorship where man could rule by fear of hell. It's quite pathetic that people buy into the words of a schizo dreamweaver in this day and age (goes for both Paulites and Muslims). |
|
|
|
Post by Freydis The Valkyrie on Mar 29, 2010 17:39:53 GMT -5
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." --Paul of Tarsus, apostle, saint, and male chauvinist The Garden of Eden story:Satan: Go on, eat it. You totally won't die. Eve: ( Well, maybe Adam was mistaken, or I'm remembering the instructions wrong. This doesn't look like a bad fruit at all!) Mmm, yummy fruit! *munchmunch* Hey Adam, try some of this cool fruit I just found! Adam: This fruit looks...familiar...*munchmunch* Oh shit, I just ate the forbidden fruit. Eve: Forbidden? OMG, the snake never said it was forbidden! Adam: God said that the first rule of Eden is you don't eat from the tree! And the second rule is you DON'T. EAT. FROM THE FUCKING TREE. We're totally screwed now. God: Adam, I told you not to eat from the fucking tree. You're outta here! (Yes, in my mind, Adam sounds like a total dick and Eve sounds like a ditz. I'm not sure why.) The traditional Christian reconciliation of the Garden of Eden story with Paul's little diatribe:Eve was told by Adam about the forbidden fruit. No one had ever told a lie at this point. Eve was deceived into thinking Adam had mistaken which tree was forbidden, ate the fruit, and therefore was not really at fault--just really, really gullible. Adam, on the other hand, had been told by God himself not to eat the forbidden fruit, and therefore was actually to blame for the whole Fall thing. This is clearly what Paul means, as other passages involving the Eden's story refer to "Adam's sin" and "Adam's fall," not "Eve's sin" or even "the sin of Adam and Eve." Anyone else think this sounds a little...off? Modern day Christianity among evangelicals (where men are still head of the household and the wife should appreciate that he is) should be called Paulism. If we ignored Paul, a man who much like Mohammed never met with God (Jesus in the instance of Paul) and only saw visions of things they then wrote down, then Christianity would be a-ok by me. It wouldn't be against abortion, it would not be against any forms of womens rights, it would not be against homosexual marriage or homosexuality at all (all inventions by Paulites proclaiming to follow the words of Christ). Paul was added while Jesus's actua own words were removed to create a dictatorship where man could rule by fear of hell. It's quite pathetic that people buy into the words of a schizo dreamweaver in this day and age (goes for both Paulites and Muslims). I agree completely. If you read that one article I posted, here: "When Christianity Is UnAmerican" you'll see that it's Paul that corrupted Jesus' original message. Jesus, according to the article, sought to free his people from the lawyerising practices of the pharisees. Paul, on the other hand was all to eager to clap the shackles back on, because he was a pharisee of a sort. |
|
|
|
Post by jinxxed on Mar 29, 2010 17:57:13 GMT -5
Modern day Christianity among evangelicals (where men are still head of the household and the wife should appreciate that he is) should be called Paulism. If we ignored Paul, a man who much like Mohammed never met with God (Jesus in the instance of Paul) and only saw visions of things they then wrote down, then Christianity would be a-ok by me. It wouldn't be against abortion, it would not be against any forms of womens rights, it would not be against homosexual marriage or homosexuality at all (all inventions by Paulites proclaiming to follow the words of Christ). Paul was added while Jesus's actua own words were removed to create a dictatorship where man could rule by fear of hell. It's quite pathetic that people buy into the words of a schizo dreamweaver in this day and age (goes for both Paulites and Muslims). I agree completely. If you read that one article I posted, here: "When Christianity Is UnAmerican" you'll see that it's Paul that corrupted Jesus' original message. Jesus, according to the article, sought to free his people from the lawyerising practices of the pharisees. Paul, on the other hand was all to eager to clap the shackles back on, because he was a pharisee of a sort. I'm a Jew who was raised a Catholic so and i have read most things that adhere to both Religions. It's not as easy as just Paul diverting things, there are other things changed in the Bible that were removed and rewritten as well as including at the time. There are rules written in that seems to have no place in those verses, it just look like they misplaced them. There are rules that contradict the message that Jesus speaks of, there are rules that Jesus portrays as good. All in all, if you disregard EVERYTHING but what Jesus is told to have said, it's not a bad philosophy, it's kinda like the Golden Rule which is pretty much all you need. That said, we are a society of laws, evolved from a sense of empathy for our fellow man. Look at other species societies and we are just like them, sure, they have more direct justice against crimes but all in all, our sense of right and wrong are pretty much inherent from our path of evolution. That means that things like homosexual marriage or abortion are inherent rights of freedom in any free society and one that doesn't have those freedoms (freedom of thought and freedom of your own self) is inherently a non free society. You can't proclaim to have a free country when you restrict rights (and yes, marriage is a right according to the supreme court, i don't have the case number in my head but i'll look it up if i have to) or suspend the right for women for their own bodies. |
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Mar 29, 2010 18:37:31 GMT -5
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." --Paul of Tarsus, apostle, saint, and male chauvinist The Garden of Eden story:Satan: Go on, eat it. You totally won't die. Eve: ( Well, maybe Adam was mistaken, or I'm remembering the instructions wrong. This doesn't look like a bad fruit at all!) Mmm, yummy fruit! *munchmunch* Hey Adam, try some of this cool fruit I just found! Adam: This fruit looks...familiar...*munchmunch* Oh shit, I just ate the forbidden fruit. Eve: Forbidden? OMG, the snake never said it was forbidden! Adam: God said that the first rule of Eden is you don't eat from the tree! And the second rule is you DON'T. EAT. FROM THE FUCKING TREE. We're totally screwed now. God: Adam, I told you not to eat from the fucking tree. You're outta here! (Yes, in my mind, Adam sounds like a total dick and Eve sounds like a ditz. I'm not sure why.) The traditional Christian reconciliation of the Garden of Eden story with Paul's little diatribe:Eve was told by Adam about the forbidden fruit. No one had ever told a lie at this point. Eve was deceived into thinking Adam had mistaken which tree was forbidden, ate the fruit, and therefore was not really at fault--just really, really gullible. Adam, on the other hand, had been told by God himself not to eat the forbidden fruit, and therefore was actually to blame for the whole Fall thing. This is clearly what Paul means, as other passages involving the Eden's story refer to "Adam's sin" and "Adam's fall," not "Eve's sin" or even "the sin of Adam and Eve." Anyone else think this sounds a little...off? Modern day Christianity among evangelicals (where men are still head of the household and the wife should appreciate that he is) should be called Paulism. If we ignored Paul, a man who much like Mohammed never met with God (Jesus in the instance of Paul) and only saw visions of things they then wrote down, then Christianity would be a-ok by me. It wouldn't be against abortion, it would not be against any forms of womens rights, it would not be against homosexual marriage or homosexuality at all (all inventions by Paulites proclaiming to follow the words of Christ). Paul was added while Jesus's actua own words were removed to create a dictatorship where man could rule by fear of hell. It's quite pathetic that people buy into the words of a schizo dreamweaver in this day and age (goes for both Paulites and Muslims). I don't know if JC's original message was all that nice. If you don't hate your Mum and Dad for the cause, you're not a true believer. Pol Pot was also a big fan of this kind of thinking. That includes all the stuff on stoning disobedient sons to death, killing homosexuals and burning bulls. It's better to cut your family jewels off that risk the temptations of women, lovely! Excuse me but I think that all of Xtianity wiffs of misogyny and batshit insanity. Just like all of Judaism and all of Islam! |
|
|
|
Post by jinxxed on Mar 29, 2010 18:55:55 GMT -5
Modern day Christianity among evangelicals (where men are still head of the household and the wife should appreciate that he is) should be called Paulism. If we ignored Paul, a man who much like Mohammed never met with God (Jesus in the instance of Paul) and only saw visions of things they then wrote down, then Christianity would be a-ok by me. It wouldn't be against abortion, it would not be against any forms of womens rights, it would not be against homosexual marriage or homosexuality at all (all inventions by Paulites proclaiming to follow the words of Christ). Paul was added while Jesus's actua own words were removed to create a dictatorship where man could rule by fear of hell. It's quite pathetic that people buy into the words of a schizo dreamweaver in this day and age (goes for both Paulites and Muslims). I don't know if JC's original message was all that nice. If you don't hate your Mum and Dad for the cause, you're not a true believer. Pol Pot was also a big fan of this kind of thinking. That includes all the stuff on stoning disobedient sons to death, killing homosexuals and burning bulls. It's better to cut your family jewels off that risk the temptations of women, lovely! Excuse me but I think that all of Xtianity wiffs of misogyny and batshit insanity. Just like all of Judaism and all of Islam! At the risk of sounding like an apologist, i DID explain that others put forth what is in the Bible and Jesus's words are not there. I hate generalisations and so i can't say that ALL of it is misogyny, in fact, there is quite a lot in all three that is the opposite of that. I don't think you can base your lifes philosophy (if there is such a thing) on only one thing, there are lessons learned from all scriptures and there are a lot of good in all of them, the problem arises when you take all of it as law and think that not only you but everyone else should adhere to those laws. As a personal thing, religiousness or spirituality might not be a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Mar 29, 2010 19:02:22 GMT -5
Yeah, except a lot of people don't keep it to themselves. They feel the need to share their imaginary friend with everyone else and try to get people to believe in said imaginary friend.
PROTIP: If I don't ask about your deity, I don't care and would rather not hear about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jinxxed on Mar 29, 2010 19:10:47 GMT -5
Yeah, except a lot of people don't keep it to themselves. They feel the need to share their imaginary friend with everyone else and try to get people to believe in said imaginary friend. PROTIP: If I don't ask about your deity, I don't care and would rather not hear about it. That's what i like about Judaism, Jews are forbidden to protelyze (sp?). I don't care much if someone bothers me with that though, i'll just say no thank you and they go away, it's not a big thing and it doesn't really matter much to me. What DOES matter is when instances such as School Boards get to remove science or facts from school books and replace it with drivel or add to some things where there are no questions like gravity (gravity is just Jesus pushing you down) or Evolution... Well that and the fact that in the US, a gay, Muslim, Hindu or Atheist would be an unthinkable president, of ALL of those, the Atheist is the MOST unthinkable. Religion is a personal matter, in a secular society there should NEVER be any religion involved in anything run by the government and PROTECTION of those who cannot protect themselves (that basically means that home schooling or religious schools are out of the question if they don't follow a strict government mandated curriculum). Anyways, when someone asks WWJD i always feel like responding "how the fuck would we know, no one has read any word he wrote" |
|
