My Interpretation of the Adam and Eve Story [Archive]

David Sklansky

10-31-2006, 09:42 PM

Well its not actually my interpretation anymore. Rather it is an interpretation that I thought about as a kid and one that I would suggest to theists who try to avoid looking silly.

Anyway I used to wonder whether the point where Adam and Eve realized they were naked could be symbolic for the point in time where humans evolved consciousness. The type beyond animal consciousness where one thinks of the future, expects to die, realizes that others are conscious etc.

And at that point God decides its time to step in.

Has this thesis ever been put forth before. I'm guessing Jews would find it easier to swallow then Christians because my theory doesn't address the original sin stuff. But I suppose you could squeeze it in somewhere.

Borodog

10-31-2006, 09:46 PM

David,

I have never seen a non-theist so obsessed with theism.

What gives, really?

51cards

10-31-2006, 10:11 PM

This belongs in BBV because Sklansky wrote Dragons of Eden for Sagan as a wee tot. Good work.

Prodigy54321

10-31-2006, 10:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Has this thesis ever been put forth before. I'm guessing Jews would find it easier to swallow then Christians because my theory doesn't address the original sin stuff. But I suppose you could squeeze it in somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol christianity Mad Libs

bunny

10-31-2006, 10:16 PM

I had a similar interpretation - we achieve consciousness, aquire the ability to sin and death becomes something significant, all at once.

Original sin has always seemed like theological squirming to me, not a consequence of a benevolent god, so I never worried about not giving an account for it.

EDIT: I talked about it with three priests, all of whom assured me it was wrong. Not sure if it was ever considered seriously by any church.

RED FACE

10-31-2006, 10:39 PM

Have you considered some of the things that happen within the text before the realization of nakedness which may reflect a degree of man's consciousness?

1) Man made in God's image
2) received instruction - fruitful and multiply.
3) rule over every living thing.
4) received command regarding tree of knowledge of good and evil including consequence of death for disobedience.
5) Adam and Eve meet and enter the precursor to a marriage relationship.
6) woman gets deceived and sins and man joins in sin.

It would seem that these things have man conscious in a full sense but yet without an awareness of "morality". The text even mentions earlier that they were naked and not ashamed. The word shame goes not to awareness of a fact but to awareness of impropriety.

carlo

10-31-2006, 10:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well its not actually my interpretation anymore. Rather it is an interpretation that I thought about as a kid and one that I would suggest to theists who try to avoid looking silly.

Anyway I used to wonder whether the point where Adam and Eve realized they were naked could be symbolic for the point in time where humans evolved consciousness. The type beyond animal consciousness where one thinks of the future, expects to die, realizes that others are conscious etc.

And at that point God decides its time to step in.

Has this thesis ever been put forth before. I'm guessing Jews would find it easier to swallow then Christians because my theory doesn't address the original sin stuff. But I suppose you could squeeze it in somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3But 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. 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without going furthur into this it is apparent that
Genesis speaks directly of "death" and the "opening of the eyes" certainly proclaims a new perception(read consciousness) to Adam and Eve.

I'd say that a Christian reader and not necessarily a scholar copuld safely conclude that the above began at this time.

FortunaMaximus

10-31-2006, 10:50 PM

Sounds familiar. And it isn't 'till you're a little older you learn to treat people with contempt. Then you outgrow that. It's pretty standard to realize these things with how awesomely simplistic dogmatic Christianity can get.

Anyway, realized something similar at around the same age, only it was Noah's Ark. Two of each animal? Was wondering about retardation, and never really found Christianity a viable option. To grow up to realize the tale has an element of truth looking at the average person's intellect...

Whatever keeps the masses happy. It doesn't remove the question, but there are more difficult ways to pose it. This just ain't one of them.

Lestat

10-31-2006, 11:34 PM

Yes. This must be what was meant.

Lucky thing the theory of evolution was put forth to clear that up for us.

FortunaMaximus

10-31-2006, 11:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. This must be what was meant.

Lucky thing the theory of evolution was put forth to clear that up for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really. Rather thought it was the fact we are able to come up with better theories, with the more information we have to work with. I mean, I'm pretty sure parables were regarded as high-faultin' logic in the early centuries.

Lestat

11-01-2006, 12:13 AM

My point was, hindsight will eventually allow us to make the entire bible symbolic if necessary...

Impossible for the entire human race to have descended from Noah and his family? Oops! Well ok, then that was just symbolic for what was *really* meant.

FortunaMaximus

11-01-2006, 12:21 AM

Yeah, no argument with that.

John21

11-01-2006, 12:34 AM

That idea is prevalent in several of the Rites affiliated with Freemasonry, like the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite.

The basic theme is that the serpent promised Adam and Eve that their eyes would 'be opened' if they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Hebrew word 'eyes' can be translated 'knowledge.' The other aspect is that the word is not plural, but singular i.e. the All-Seeing Eye in Freemasonry. What is opened is the eye of the soul - which eventually gets defined as consciousness.

carlo

11-01-2006, 01:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3But 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. 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

[/ QUOTE ]

And to clarify, this is the biblical statement as to the "beginning of death" in relation to Adam and Eve and thusly mankind.

revots33

11-01-2006, 01:15 AM

I always took Adam and Eve as nothing more than an allegory demonstrating the human sin of pride. The moral, to me at least, is that all human suffering is caused by us thinking we don't need god. Or thinking we can be as great as god ourselves. Realizing they were naked is symbolic of man's loss of innocence after they decided they no longer needed god (ate from the tree of knowledge).

Even as a practicing Catholic I always found the idea of original sin to be silly. What offense against god could a 1-day old infant have possibly committed?

andyfox

11-01-2006, 01:43 AM

I think that, like you, he is obsessed with fuzzy thinking. What bigger targets are there than Religion and Government?

FortunaMaximus

11-01-2006, 01:55 AM

Probably the floor to ceiling Winnie the Pooh at Sears I recall when I was a toddler.

Something to be said for teddy bears.

metsandfinsfan

11-01-2006, 02:15 AM

This is what has always bothered me most about the creation story

If a 6 day infant disobeys you, do you punish him?
No. Why?
Because he does not know the capacity to know right from wrong and good from evil. He cannot reason yet.

Before Adam and Eve, ate from the tree of knowledge, they were like that 6 day old infant. They did not know right from wrong or good from evil. They could not reason yet.

So why did God punish them for eating from the tree? The serpent told them to. Since they cannot reason, was it wrong for them to listen to the serpent and not to God? How did they know who to listen to?

It makes no sense for a loving God to punish them for this. And for one of the punishments to be to make childbirth painful is ridiculous

Lestat

11-01-2006, 02:19 AM

Who said Adam and Eve couldn't reason?

FortunaMaximus

11-01-2006, 02:19 AM

You assume he's a loving God.

Perhaps he's distant and merciless to let man judge himself for himself, and after he finds love within himself, any pain becomes bearable.

And then you die and have to contend with another plane of existence. I doubt it suddenly gets easier, but if you approach the life you know with a solid moral foundation and do more good than evil, I'd imagine you have an edge coming into Purgatory.

Pain don't hurt.

metsandfinsfan

11-01-2006, 02:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Who said Adam and Eve couldn't reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

isnt that what the tree of knowledge did? Isn't it the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and before that they were like the animals, but after eating from it they were like god and could reason.

FortunaMaximus

11-01-2006, 02:27 AM

So, what, then, was so special about the tree?

metsandfinsfan

11-01-2006, 02:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So, what, then, was so special about the tree?

[/ QUOTE ]

i am confused by the question

before they ate from the tree, they were like animals and could not reason.

after they ate from the tree, they were like god and could reason.

FortunaMaximus

11-01-2006, 02:46 AM

Why that particular tree in the Garden? That particular apple? What made the moment of self-awareness? I mean, I like apples. They taste great, especially in the fall...

Perhaps the tree was a random mutation? That it somehow incurred the properties of self-awareness, at that moment in h. sap history?

We reasoned, then we shared, remembered, and escribed, first in stone, then papyrus.

How far we've come in millennia, and those yet are still baby steps.

Lestat

11-01-2006, 02:52 AM

God must have given them reason in order so that they could follow His instructions. You wouldn't give a warthog those instructions and expect it to understand them, would you?

What I'm saying is that at the very least were expected to know right from wrong. The 6 month old baby in your expample isn't. That's why you put the drano and poisons out of reach, instead of telling the 6 month old, "Don't eat that!".

metsandfinsfan

11-01-2006, 03:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
God must have given them reason in order so that they could follow His instructions.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is not what it says

[ QUOTE ]
You wouldn't give a warthog those instructions and expect it to understand them, would you?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I wouldnt. Which is what i dont understand about the creation story

Mickey Brausch

11-01-2006, 04:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Has this thesis ever been put forth before?

[/ QUOTE ]Ah, now he asks high falootin' philosofers. I ain't movin' a finger.

Alex-db

11-01-2006, 07:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
My point was, hindsight will eventually allow us to make the entire bible symbolic if necessary...

Impossible for the entire human race to have descended from Noah and his family? Oops! Well ok, then that was just symbolic for what was *really* meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the simplest reasons I'm very, very, comfortable with atheism.

I thought the pattern of change from literal to symbolic biblical stories as real evidence arises would be clearly apparant to any rational observer.

It genuinely amazes me that this is not always the case, and that this does not lead them to question their beliefs.

FortunaMaximus

11-01-2006, 07:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Has this thesis ever been put forth before?

[/ QUOTE ]Ah, now he asks high falootin' philosofers. I ain't movin' a finger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. Why would you? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

malorum

11-01-2006, 10:05 AM

Ummm, Oh Dear.

I'm pretty sure this interpretation was not the intention of the author, redactor or even the implied author, but you can make up any interpretations you wish.

The secular side of me suggests that your interpretation is on a par with neo-kabalistic postulation, both sound rather silly to me.

A secular analysis would look at the literary or even historical context, a theological analysis such as yours can take many directions. I don't see why yours is less or more silly than the literalist interpretation.
Having studied the text in some detail I suspect a literal interpretation providing literary support for theological political considerations were closer to the implied authors or redactor intent than any philosphical speculation.

As for me I of course believe God wrote it and gave it to Moses. So it must be simply history

Borodog

11-01-2006, 10:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think that, like you, he is obsessed with fuzzy thinking. What bigger targets are there than Religion and Government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Touche.

revots33

11-01-2006, 11:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
isnt that what the tree of knowledge did? Isn't it the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and before that they were like the animals, but after eating from it they were like god and could reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

"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 3:5

This is an obvious warning against human pride IMO. It is not simply talking about the ability to reason (which Adam and Eve already had). It is talking about man's arrogance in wanting to be as gods themselves. That is the root of original sin and why earth is not a paradise for all of us.

andyfox

11-01-2006, 12:59 PM

I don't see how anyone can read the first couple of dozen pages of the Old Testament and come to any conclusion other than that Yahweh is a mean-spirited, vindictive, angry God. But it makes sense that a people living in a harsh, unremitting environment would come up with a harsh, unremitting god.

metsandfinsfan

11-01-2006, 01:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"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 3:5

[/ QUOTE ]

So from reading this, i think they do not know good from evil. They did not know they were naked. They were like animals, knowing nothing.

So again I ask, if they did not know good from evil, was it wrong for them to listen to the serpent over God? And why were they punished for it

revots33

11-01-2006, 02:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So from reading this, i think they do not know good from evil. They did not know they were naked. They were like animals, knowing nothing.

So again I ask, if they did not know good from evil, was it wrong for them to listen to the serpent over God? And why were they punished for it

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I interpret this passage slightly differently. Before they ate from the tree they had no pride, no desire to be anything more than they were, and trusted god completely. After they ate, they suddenly knew they were naked and ran to cover themselves up. Without pride there would be no embarassment about their nakedness.

As for "listening to the serpent" - it's symbolic. What man listened to was his own arrogance telling him he could be like god, and that was his downfall.

The consequences of disobedience and the perils of human pride are the 2 lessons, as I've always interpreted the story. There is nothing in the story that makes me think Adam and Eve were like mindless animals before they ate. However, they were totally obedient and trusting in god, until they ate.

metsandfinsfan

11-01-2006, 03:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So from reading this, i think they do not know good from evil. They did not know they were naked. They were like animals, knowing nothing.

So again I ask, if they did not know good from evil, was it wrong for them to listen to the serpent over God? And why were they punished for it

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I interpret this passage slightly differently. Before they ate from the tree they had no pride, no desire to be anything more than they were, and trusted god completely. After they ate, they suddenly knew they were naked and ran to cover themselves up. Without pride there would be no embarassment about their nakedness.

As for "listening to the serpent" - it's symbolic. What man listened to was his own arrogance telling him he could be like god, and that was his downfall.

The consequences of disobedience and the perils of human pride are the 2 lessons, as I've always interpreted the story. There is nothing in the story that makes me think Adam and Eve were like mindless animals before they ate. However, they were totally obedient and trusting in god, until they ate.

[/ QUOTE ]

if they were totally obedient and trusting in god, they would not have eaten. They could not have.

Also, nudist colonies basically prove that they would not be ashamed of being naked, which again goes more to discredit this creation story.

The serpent being symbolic .... after eve eats from the tree, God punishes the serpent by saying that for now on, serpents will crawl on their belly (apparantly they walked around before this?), so if you believe the creation story, there was an actual serpent, so it was not just symbolic

carlo

11-01-2006, 04:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
so if you believe the creation story, there was an actual serpent, so it was not just symbolic

[/ QUOTE ]

There was a snake-just wasn't your snake. I suppose you could call it an aboriginal snake. Can you possibly imagine that your surrondings/life were absolutely not in existance then?

IronUnkind

11-01-2006, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see how anyone can read the first couple of dozen pages of the Old Testament and come to any conclusion other than that Yahweh is a mean-spirited, vindictive, angry God.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's part of the reason why it's best not to stop at page 24.

revots33

11-01-2006, 04:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
if they were totally obedient and trusting in god, they would not have eaten. They could not have.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before they ate from the tree = totally obedient and trusting
After they ate =no longer totally obedient and trusting
This change is the whole point of the story.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, nudist colonies basically prove that they would not be ashamed of being naked, which again goes more to discredit this creation story.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if the people who wrote this story thousands of years ago were as comfortable with public nudity as the nudists you mention.

And one important side lesson to the Adam and Eve story: it's all woman's fault (Gen 3:12)

Sephus

11-01-2006, 05:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Before they ate from the tree = totally obedient and trusting
After they ate =no longer totally obedient and trusting
This change is the whole point of the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

they made the decision to eat (act of disobedience demonstrating mistrust in god) before eating, therefore they were not totally obedient and trusting before eating.

revots33

11-01-2006, 05:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
they made the decision to eat (act of disobedience demonstrating mistrust in god) before eating, therefore they were not totally obedient and trusting before eating.

[/ QUOTE ]

True but I think we're splitting hairs here. I guess I could say, "they were totally obedient until the point they DECIDED to eat the apple", but the point is the same. The intended lesson for humans is, why did they disobey god? Because they wanted to be as gods themselves, as promised by the serpent.

Mickey Brausch

11-01-2006, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Nudist colonies basically prove that they would not be ashamed of being naked.

[/ QUOTE ] But only among other naked people.

Sephus

11-01-2006, 06:05 PM

vhawk01

11-01-2006, 06:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
they made the decision to eat (act of disobedience demonstrating mistrust in god) before eating, therefore they were not totally obedient and trusting before eating.

[/ QUOTE ]

True but I think we're splitting hairs here. I guess I could say, "they were totally obedient until the point they DECIDED to eat the apple", but the point is the same. The intended lesson for humans is, why did they disobey god? Because they wanted to be as gods themselves, as promised by the serpent.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, thats just pushing it back further. If they were without sin and were perfect, how could they have decided to disobey God? I know the theists will say its free will, but simply saying free will isn't good enough. How does the description of Adam and Eve before the apple imply or leave room for them to have free will?

All I can think of is an allegory to A Few Good Men....if your orders are always followed, why was the apple in any danger?

revots33

11-01-2006, 06:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How does the description of Adam and Eve before the apple imply or leave room for them to have free will?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well god did go through the trouble of instructing them not to eat the fruit from that tree... why would he bother if they didn't have free will to possibly disobey him?

Again, I think most of the confusion comes from trying to analyze the story in a literal sense, as in, "when exactly did they decide to eat the apple?", or "at what point did they become sinners?" It's really just a fable with a simple message: "Pride cometh before the fall". All our suffering and all the world's evil comes from our prideful disobedience.

It seems to me it's really just a variation on the myth of Pandora's Box. (http://www2.colum.edu/centers/bpa/epicenter/pandora/themyth.html)

RJT

11-01-2006, 09:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
David,

I have never seen a non-theist so obsessed with theism.

What gives, really?

[/ QUOTE ]

I can’t imagine any person of David’s caliber not trying to tackle the God question. That is what I find so astonishing about geniuses and the fact that most are atheists. Not that they are atheists. But, that they are resigned to being atheist. That the question is “unanswerable”.

What loftier goal is there than to attempt to answer the God question?

FortunaMaximus

11-01-2006, 09:11 PM

Assuming the capabilities and being able to make perfect moral determinations in lieu of absolute proof of God, perhaps?

Over/under on that might even be a minus figure.

MidGe

11-01-2006, 10:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't see how anyone can read the first couple of dozen pages of the Old Testament and come to any conclusion other than that Yahweh is a mean-spirited, vindictive, angry God.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's part of the reason why it's best not to stop at page 24.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh! It gets heaps worse after page 24.

andyfox

11-01-2006, 11:30 PM

Such incidents as turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt because she looked at something and killing the first born of every Egyptian because of what their government did don't seem to indicate He changed very much over the years.

metsandfinsfan

11-02-2006, 12:27 AM

metsandfinsfan

11-02-2006, 12:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if the people who wrote this story thousands of years ago were as comfortable with public nudity as the nudists you mention.

[/ QUOTE ]

revots: This statement by you is false. The reason people are uncomfortable with it is society. Small Children are comfortable getting naked, until someone tells them it is wrong. Topless and nude beaches have been the norm in Europe. The only reason people are embarrassed about being nude is because they are taught to.

FortunaMaximus

11-02-2006, 12:32 AM

Yeah, well, I wouldn't recemmond walking around naked in some parts of the world.

I mean, it's frigid, ok? You'll save on Viagra though, since it'll be a [censored] icicle. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

revots33

11-02-2006, 12:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Small Children are comfortable getting naked, until someone tells them it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly my point.

Before eating from the tree - innocent, childlike, unconcerned with their nakedness
After eating - no longer innocent, embarrassed of their naked bodies

Nakedness is just the device the author used to convey their newfound knowledge and loss of innocence. It could have just as easily been something else, but I think it works to get the author's point across.

MidGe

11-02-2006, 01:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Nakedness is just the device the author used to convey their newfound knowledge and loss of innocence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would the author use such an inept device.

Nakedness and shame go hand in hand??? Really?

Are you ashamed to be naked in front of your partner/wife/husband?
Are you ashamed to be naked in front of your children or parents? In front of a doctor?

How do you turn your shame on or off, given the different situations? You mean, you are ashamed in front of your wife? Don't worry, size is not all that matter. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

If you have a problem with all or even some of them, you have a real problem, imo. Therapy may help you!

The other thing I do not get at all is the poster linking of shame to be naked, with pride??? What are you, an Adonis or a Venus, or think you are. lol.

Sephus

11-02-2006, 01:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you ashamed to be naked in front of your partner/wife/husband?
Are you ashamed to be naked in front of your children or parents? In front of a doctor?

How do you turn your shame on or off, given the different situations? You mean, you are ashamed in front of your wife? Don't worry, size is not all that matter. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

If you have a problem with all or even some of them, you have a real problem, imo. Therapy may help you!

[/ QUOTE ]

i would be embarrassed if my mom saw me naked. i need therapy for this?

metsandfinsfan

11-02-2006, 01:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Small Children are comfortable getting naked, until someone tells them it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly my point.

Before eating from the tree - innocent, childlike, unconcerned with their nakedness

[/ QUOTE ]

somewhat agree

[ QUOTE ]
After eating - no longer innocent, embarrassed of their naked bodies

[/ QUOTE ]

again, why would they be embarrassed of their naked bodies?? That is not a natural reaction. People like being nude. Society teaches them to be embarrassed

[ QUOTE ]
Nakedness is just the device the author used to convey their newfound knowledge and loss of innocence. It could have just as easily been something else, but I think it works to get the author's point across.

[/ QUOTE ]

The use of the author implies it is a manmade story, which i agree helps to disprove the creation story

metsandfinsfan

11-02-2006, 01:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i would be embarrassed if my mom saw me naked. i need therapy for this?

[/ QUOTE ]

again, you would be embarrassed because society taught you to. Your mom saw you naked when you were a child. Were you embarrassed then? No because you would not be embarrassed naturally. As you get older, and society teaches you that your mom should not see you naked, you become embarrassed

MidGe

11-02-2006, 05:31 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you ashamed to be naked in front of your partner/wife/husband?
Are you ashamed to be naked in front of your children or parents? In front of a doctor?

How do you turn your shame on or off, given the different situations? You mean, you are ashamed in front of your wife? Don't worry, size is not all that matter. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

If you have a problem with all or even some of them, you have a real problem, imo. Therapy may help you!

[/ QUOTE ]

i would be embarrassed if my mom saw me naked. i need therapy for this?

[/ QUOTE ]

It may lighten up your life. I am assuming that your mother has no prurient interest in you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Nielsio

11-02-2006, 08:46 AM

Fleeing Eden
An analysis of the power of the Genesis myth
-Stefan Molyneux
http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/fleeing_eden.mp3

revots33

11-02-2006, 10:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
again, why would they be embarrassed of their naked bodies??

[/ QUOTE ]

Because eating from the tree taught them.

[ QUOTE ]
The other thing I do not get at all is the poster linking of shame to be naked, with pride??? What are you, an Adonis or a Venus, or think you are. lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, pride is the reason they ate the fruit against god's wishes (because they wanted to be "as gods themselves"). Shame in their nakedness is simply a visible result of their newfound knowledge. Remember god asks them, "who told you you were naked?" - the nakedness isn't even the issue, it's the knowledge they gained from the forbidden fruit that god is pissed off about...

metsandfinsfan

11-02-2006, 12:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
again, why would they be embarrassed of their naked bodies??

[/ QUOTE ]

Because eating from the tree taught them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but again, this is ridiculous. In many cultures, being nude is natural. The only reason anyone is embarrassed is because our society teaches us to feel that way. Eating from a tree of knowledge of good and evil would not teach us that.

revots33

11-02-2006, 01:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but again, this is ridiculous. In many cultures, being nude is natural. The only reason anyone is embarrassed is because our society teaches us to feel that way. Eating from a tree of knowledge of good and evil would not teach us that.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are going around in circles. The sudden awareness that they were not clothed is a storytelling device to show their newfound knowledge. You'll have to ask the author why he choose that metaphor.

metsandfinsfan

11-02-2006, 02:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but again, this is ridiculous. In many cultures, being nude is natural. The only reason anyone is embarrassed is because our society teaches us to feel that way. Eating from a tree of knowledge of good and evil would not teach us that.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are going around in circles. The sudden awareness that they were not clothed is a storytelling device to show their newfound knowledge. You'll have to ask the author why he choose that metaphor.

[/ QUOTE ]

The author chose that device because it is a manmade story and at the author felt it was unnatural to be nude. God would not feel that way. That was the whole point of this discussion

Shadowrun

11-02-2006, 03:19 PM