- Joined
- Jul 23, 2022
Genesis 2:27 disproves the hermaphrodite theory. Also, hermaphrodites aren't even transsexuals. They're intersex.
How much should we blame Eve for eating the apple? - She is technically responsible for furries and trannies.
- Thread starter HodgePodgeRogerDodger
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2021
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2016
Are you saying real life is Berserk and that God is a cabal of 5 bastards and heaven probably doesn't exist?
- Joined
- May 7, 2019
I see your shitpost and raise you some sperging.
"Eve" eating the "apple" is why we can even have this conversation, so I'm not entirely sure why anyone would blame "her" for it. It's a story meant to teach you something that is missed by those without eyes to see or ears to hear (which is why the very same book warns you of not doing that over and over and over and over).
For fun, try reading it with the following ideas in mind. See what you think:
The serpent - The great trove of unconscious knowledge innate in mankind. The root of inspiration.
Eve - The intuitive/"within" nature of mankind. The right brain.
Adam - The logical/"without" nature of mankind. The left brain.
Eating of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil - Mankind becoming conscious beyond all other living creatures. Moving into a state of being which rendered us capable of making our own choices. That which separated us from the animals.
God - The proverbial garden bed from which consciousness (and thus life) springs forth.
Do note: I didn't say this was the entirety of the message. It's just a start.
If you try to read things from the perspective of someone seeking allegory or myth, you'll get much more mileage out of the Bible (and pretty much any other religious text). Do note that when I say "myth" (because I'm sure this post is already going to piss some people off as it is), I am not using the term like it's typically distorted. Myth is truth embedded in stories or sayings that can withstand the passage of time. It's not easy to write about the inner truth of mankind and have it last through several language/culture shifts spanning centuries. It's not meant to be taken literally.
"Eve" eating the "apple" is why we can even have this conversation, so I'm not entirely sure why anyone would blame "her" for it. It's a story meant to teach you something that is missed by those without eyes to see or ears to hear (which is why the very same book warns you of not doing that over and over and over and over).
For fun, try reading it with the following ideas in mind. See what you think:
The serpent - The great trove of unconscious knowledge innate in mankind. The root of inspiration.
Eve - The intuitive/"within" nature of mankind. The right brain.
Adam - The logical/"without" nature of mankind. The left brain.
Eating of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil - Mankind becoming conscious beyond all other living creatures. Moving into a state of being which rendered us capable of making our own choices. That which separated us from the animals.
God - The proverbial garden bed from which consciousness (and thus life) springs forth.
Do note: I didn't say this was the entirety of the message. It's just a start.
If you try to read things from the perspective of someone seeking allegory or myth, you'll get much more mileage out of the Bible (and pretty much any other religious text). Do note that when I say "myth" (because I'm sure this post is already going to piss some people off as it is), I am not using the term like it's typically distorted. Myth is truth embedded in stories or sayings that can withstand the passage of time. It's not easy to write about the inner truth of mankind and have it last through several language/culture shifts spanning centuries. It's not meant to be taken literally.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
I don't know. What I DO know is that bitch owes us a rib...
Pangolin
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2021
I'm not trying to blame God or anything, but I just don't know what He was expecting. I wouldn't let my creation get within 500 meters of a lying snake, but maybe that's why I'm not God.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Well that's what God gets for not building a damn fence around his special tree and letting an evil snake chill in his garden
- Joined
- May 7, 2019
I understand the sentiment, though I question what life would be like living in a utopia wanting for nothing. Surely that would get a bit boring after a while, I'd think. It's actually why I'm not entirely sure the commonly held perception of Heaven has been thought through by most.
Serpents elsewhere in the Bible represent "good" things, or work on the "good guys" side. I really don't think the serpent itself is meant to be seen as "evil". Aaron throwing down his rod and it turning into a serpent is another fine example and allegory. In fact, looking elsewhere in the Bible, you can reinforce the notion that the serpent is symbolic of exactly what I previously suggested: unconscious/hidden knowledge. Other religions carry the very same idea, as well.
Overall, it does make a great case study in morality, I suppose. There are people out there who do see the serpent as freeing us from a sort of prison constructed by the divine. Most would see them as heretical, of course, but in either case? There's a morality play and deeply believed justification in the reasoning. Good vs evil is a fascinating topic in certain ways.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2022
adam would have done the same fucking thing if the snake had caught him alone, that's the fucking point of the story. It's not "har har women stupid" it's "people generally have bad judgement about things when caught alone and promised everything they don't have"
Surely, though our suffering is terrible, we are better off than if we had never been born at all.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2018
So much misogyny in the thread smh.
The lesson of the garden isn't that we should blame women when they fuck up, its that women are children who cannot be held responsible for their own actions.
If a child offers you some weird unidentified fruit they found *somewhere* but won't say where, would you eat it? No.
Adam should have done the same, that's the lesson. You don't put children in charge and you don't trust them with meaningful decisions.
The lesson of the garden isn't that we should blame women when they fuck up, its that women are children who cannot be held responsible for their own actions.
If a child offers you some weird unidentified fruit they found *somewhere* but won't say where, would you eat it? No.
Adam should have done the same, that's the lesson. You don't put children in charge and you don't trust them with meaningful decisions.
I understand that you watched Whatifalthist, or read that awful Homo Deus; but this is completely nonsensical and useless. Man's Disobedience has absolutely nothing do with the acquisition of higher-order thinking.
3 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.
Genesis 2:3-5
This has nothing to do with unconscious freudian knowledge. Rather, morality.
Adam and Eve are not characterized: I'm not sure where you got this from.
1. The Knowledge of Good and Evil pertains to the ability to choose between good and evil: Scripture mentions nothing about mere choice. 2. Adam and Eve died because of their sin: it was not a good thing. 3. Re-read Genesis 2-3, this interpretation falls apart as soon as you realize that Moses depicts Satan as evil, and Man's Fall as tragic. Which contradicts your proposed allegorical message.
There is no evidence that we should not interpret the events of Genesis as literal, factual events. Moreover, the entirety of the Church is congruent in the stance that Adam and Eve were real people. From the Church Fathers, to Apostles etc.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2020
Johan Schmidt
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2020
- Joined
- May 7, 2019
I actually have no idea what either of those are. There is no need for being so accusatory and self-assured, fren.
Where in the world did you get freudian anything out of what I said? That man set humanity backwards with most of his bullshit, and I have no love of it whatsoever. In fact, I would wonder how Jung would have been served without Freud's poopoo peepee philosophy weighting him down. Anyone trying to peddle guilt as an ideology or philosophy is doing it wrong.
Again, your argument strikes me as presumptive. I'm not sure why you didn't just create your own hot take without using mine for "context" given how much of what you're directing towards me thus far seems to have been pulled from thin air.
Scuse me, what? Adam is a loaded term from the get go and tied to several other faiths/meanings if you trace the word back through time. That's ignoring the rest of the biblical references to man and woman as symbols representing different aspects of humanity's psyche, of course. The New Testament is much more clear with it, but it's still present in the Old as well. It's allegory.
Just like having the (mainly) Greek process of earth/water/air/fire/spirit encoded into biblical texts.
Just like Jesus's life having several references to the zodiac, including where it used to "start" (Virgo) and "end" (Leo) in ancient times.
Just like Jesus referencing the coming age of Aquarius which we are now moving into.
Just like Jesus being crucified on a cross and being dead for 3 days/nights before resurrecting references the Sun's winter journey. It moves through the Southern Cross constellation on the Winter Solstice, "dying" for 3 days/nights (as seen in the Northern Hemisphere) before returning northwards once again to renew life.
All of which were accounted for nearly-immediately in God stating the stars are for signs, at that.
Just like the stories of the ark of the covenant and Solomon's (which in itself is an encoded word hiding celestial bodies in it) temple describing portions of what you've got (or should have) going on inside your head physically and spiritually.
Just like Jesus being referenced as "the Amen" in Revelation.
If you wanted to write a book that would last thousands of years yet still contain a proper(ish) message, do you really think you'd write it out in a literal fashion? It's allegory. Nearly the entire book is allegory. They are very important lessons and instructions encoded in such a way to last the passage of time for as long as possible. Jesus Himself calls people out for this "taking it literally" stuff repeatedly. I'd urge anyone to avoid becoming another Nicodemus and end up stuck going through this shit all over again because you got so caught up in the trappings of steeples, pulpits, and the words of priests/preachers.
Exactly so, yes.
Sorry, I heard someone on YouTube say that Genesis 2-3 were true because Homo Erectus ate rotten fruit laced with LSD. And that's why humans are thinking, complex creatures.
Historical-critical interpretation of Scripture breaks the Bible. Yes, not all stories are not meant to be taken literally. But, there is no evidence to suggest that we should think that Genesis 2-3 was just an allegory.
I won't go on too much, because we are probably unable to reach a profitable conclusion. Thank you for being respectable.