Did God err in making Adam ruler over Eve?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Greatest I am
Did God err in making Adam ruler over Eve?

Scripture are clear. Sin and death entered this world through Adam, and he was thus to blame for original sin.

Yet God rewarded Adam with dominion over Eve even though Eve was not responsible for sin and death entering the world. Gen3:16 and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

This shows God continuing the policy of punishing the innocent instead of the guilty that is shown in scriptures. 1Peter 1:20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

God seems to be rewarding Adam for sin while punishing Eve for the events in Eden even though she was innocent of sin as she did not have any evil intent and was deceived by Satan, a force that she could not possibly resist thanks to God giving Satan the power to deceive the whole world after God put Satan in Eden with Eve.

If making man ruler over women that was an error, it would help explain the 5,000 years of war we have had to endure with undeserving men as rulers.

Gnostic Christianity, a Universalist belief system, believes in full equality for all souls. Christianity obviously does not believe in equality if it preaches that men are to perpetually enjoy ruling over women. Not to mention the inequality of gays.

Did God err in making Adam ruler over Eve and thus punishing the innocent instead of the guilty?

Regards
DL

Afro Cheese
no

Surtur
If you buy into their dogma God can never make a mistake.

socool8520
Yes, if we work under the assumption that it's God's will rather than the made up writings of a male dominant culture. I personally think it's the latter.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Greatest I am

God seems to be rewarding Adam for sin while punishing Eve for the events in Eden even though she was innocent of sin as she did not have any evil intent and was deceived by Satan, a force that she could not possibly resist thanks to God giving Satan the power to deceive the whole world after God put Satan in Eden with Eve. She wasn't innocent of sin if the sin was disobeying God. She did that knowingly. And call me crazy but the fact that she was deceived by a snake doesn't exactly spell leadership material to me.

socool8520
^ To be fair, with no previous concept of evil, how was she to know that the snake was trying to screw her over? Adam and Eve were both equally guilty of falling for deception, but Eve unjustly got the harsher punishment in this story imo.

MythLord
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
She wasn't innocent of sin if the sin was disobeying God. She did that knowingly. And call me crazy but the fact that she was deceived by a snake doesn't exactly spell leadership material to me.

And then Adam was decieved by a woman who was decieved by a snake. Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool that follows her?

mmm

Ursumeles
thumb up lol

Raisen
no.

women don't behave well without strict rules.

we are forgetting old lessons of human behavior

Flyattractor
Originally posted by MythLord
And then Adam was decieved by a woman who was decieved by a snake. Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool that follows her?

mmm

So basically what you are saying is tha the real lesson to be taken from this is that Women need to be Kept in their Place?

Gotchya!

MythLord
I'm saying the story shows that all humans are idiots, male or female. thumb up

Scribble
Women in the Bible do most of the really human things, and they always get punished for it. Think of poor Lot, turned to salt for daring to face the destruction of Sodom. If I were to become a Christian, I'd have to be the kind that sees the True God (The One) and the Creator God (Demiurge) as different entities, because the Old Testament God is a total prick and not someone I'd want to live in the name of.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by MythLord
And then Adam was decieved by a woman who was decieved by a snake. Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool that follows her?

mmm He wasn't deceived, he just blamed it on his wife when he got caught. Which is also not a good sign of leadership. But honestly, God made Adam the leader because men are better at it than women.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Scribble
Women in the Bible do most of the really human things, and they always get punished for it. Think of poor Lot, turned to salt for daring to face the destruction of Sodom. If I were to become a Christian, I'd have to be the kind that sees the True God (The One) and the Creator God (Demiurge) as different entities, because the Old Testament God is a total prick and not someone I'd want to live in the name of. That seems like such a simplistic way to interpret that story. It's meant to be a moral fable or whatever. So the point in God turning Lot's wife into salt for looking back is a testament against failing to make the proper decision quickly and with haste. Sometimes you don't have time to look back at what you're leaving and have to keep your vision steady forward.

socool8520
^ I assumed it was God getting all pissy about someone not following his rules. Different interpretations I guess.

Afro Cheese
You can read most of the Biblical stories that way. I just don't see much of a point in doing so.

Afro Cheese
The funny thing about the story is at the outset, God is determined to destroy the entire cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of what he's heard about these cities, and Abraham bargains/negotiates with him to spare the town even if only a small number of righteous people live there.

When God sends two angels to the city, the only example of a "righteous" man they find is Lot and his family. But even Lot is not portrayed as all that righteous. Just righteous enough to be saved. He's hesitant to act just like his wife, she just took it that one step further. But he also tried to negotiate with the mob of rapists by offering them his daughters.

But even in being saved, he then goes to live in a cave with his daughters, where they date rape him to continue the family lineage. A lineage built on incest. And I don't think his descendants are ever portrayed in a positive light after that.

socool8520
^ You can read most of the stories that way which is the point. God gets angry for you breaking the rules then he destroys you. There isn't much point in reading that which is why I rejected it.

Incest happened quite often in the old testament iirc.

Scribble
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
That seems like such a simplistic way to interpret that story. It's meant to be a moral fable or whatever. So the point in God turning Lot's wife into salt for looking back is a testament against failing to make the proper decision quickly and with haste. Sometimes you don't have time to look back at what you're leaving and have to keep your vision steady forward. It's a pretty simple story as it is, really, nothing that complex. Plus, with the Death of the Author, the original meaning can be discarded for a preferred one by the reader, and that's mine. If I'm leaving a site of such destruction, metaphorical or otherwise, I'd rather recognise the devastation first rather than completely turn my back on it.

I think a better story to get across what you said before would be Orpheus and Eurydice, personally. Much more tragic.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by socool8520
^ You can read most of the stories that way which is the point. God gets angry for you breaking the rules then he destroys you. There isn't much point in reading that which is why I rejected it.

Incest happened quite often in the old testament iirc. I feel like it's a glass half full vs glass half empty approach tbh.

Glass half full = there are symbolic truths and themes in the stories worth pondering
glass half empty = some of the specific values of the authors seem dated and in some cases so much so that they seem immoral by modern (secular) standards

With regard to incest... I don't know of any other examples off the top of my head tbh but its fair to say I haven't read most of the Bible. But I would be somewhat surprised to see it be portrayed as something positive. In the case of Lot and his daughters, I think it is portrayed as a fundamental failure of them to ultimately save themselves from the sort of sexual corruption and/or impropriety for which Sodom was destroyed in the first place.
Originally posted by Scribble
It's a pretty simple story as it is, really, nothing that complex. Plus, with the Death of the Author, the original meaning can be discarded for a preferred one by the reader, and that's mine. If I'm leaving a site of such destruction, metaphorical or otherwise, I'd rather recognise the devastation first rather than completely turn my back on it.With regard to simplicity, I would say that's arguable. The narrative is fairly simple. The message is not necessarily so.

An analogy I would make is the story of the tortoise and the hare. The narrative is extremely straightforward and simple. The message the story means to convey is more meaningful than that though. If you read the story thinking the point is that turtles can bean rabbits in a foot race, then I think it's safe to say you are missing something there.

As for Lot's wife, it's another example of God giving a very simple directive and his human subjects consistently failing to follow his very simple instructions. Had she looked back and he struck her down without warning, then perhaps it was just meaningless and petty. But that's not what happened. He was sparing Lot and his family from destruction, but only on the basis that they help themselves. Hence why Lot's sons in law were not spared: they didn't believe Lot and failed to heed God's warning. As did his wife. Dumb ***** couldn't follow one simple rule.

Rockydonovang
It takes gymnastics to argue the girl in this story wasn't unfairly treated in comparison to the man here.

Bentley
The logic behind Eve being ruled by Adam is (I believe) that she disobeyed Adam who gave her the rule that consisted in not-eating the forbidden fruit. Saying that she wasn't at fault against Adam is undermining the fact she downright doomed him and all his children by proxy while going directly against his wishes.

There are many better examples of the just suffering over nearly nothing in the Bible to try making Eve into one of those.

Lord Lucien
I've read Genesis and God gets it. Women need to know their place: under a man's boot heel. They're too weak and stupid to do anything themselves.

socool8520
Originally posted by Bentley
The logic behind Eve being ruled by Adam is (I believe) that she disobeyed Adam who gave her the rule that consisted in not-eating the forbidden fruit. Saying that she wasn't at fault against Adam is undermining the fact she downright doomed him and all his children by proxy while going directly against his wishes.

There are many better examples of the just suffering over nearly nothing in the Bible to try making Eve into one of those.

That's not logic. That's just blaming a woman. Adam knew as well as Eve that the fruit was forbidden. He chose to eat it anyway, so he should have received the same punishment. There is really no way to get around that.

Nobody argues that there aren't worse **** you stories in the Bible, but to act like this one is not unjust is wrong imo.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
It takes gymnastics to argue the girl in this story wasn't unfairly treated in comparison to the man here. Lol. I really don't get why. The real punishment was mortality. They both got that. Eve (women) got a painful childbirth etc and Adam (men) got to work shit jobs toiling in the fields. Life is tough and fleeting. Eve is no worse off than Adam. Why is Adam the ruler? Because men ruled. It's as simple as that. They were describing (symbolically) the way things truly were.

socool8520
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Lol. I really don't get why. The real punishment was mortality. They both got that. Eve (women) got a painful childbirth etc and Adam (men) got to work shit jobs toiling in the fields. Life is tough and fleeting. Eve is no worse off than Adam. Why is Adam the ruler? Because men ruled. It's as simple as that. They were describing (symbolically) the way things truly were.

Servitude and painful childbirth trump getting a job. Eve got the shaft here.

Scribble
Lilith is the Bible Best Girl tbh

Rockydonovang
Originally posted by Scribble
Lilith is the Bible Best Girl tbh
What a dame:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/evangelion/images/b/bc/Lilith_%28Rebuild%29.png/revision/latest?cb=20120320203313

Scribble
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
What a dame:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/evangelion/images/b/bc/Lilith_%28Rebuild%29.png/revision/latest?cb=20120320203313 You know it

socool8520
Lillith is canon though. lol

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by socool8520
Adam knew as well as Eve that the fruit was forbidden.

Which is to say, not at all. Before they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of the Difference Between Good and Evil, they did not know the difference between right or wrong, which means concepts like forbidden would be just as meaningless to them.

socool8520
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Which is to say, not at all. Before they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of the Difference Between Good and Evil, they did not know the difference between right or wrong, which means concepts like forbidden would be just as meaningless to them.

It's not a good or evil situation. It was the fact that they were told not to eat the fruit specifically by God but did it anyways. Whether they knew the consequences (to be fair, they didn't) is irrelevant.

Bentley
Originally posted by socool8520
That's not logic. That's just blaming a woman. Adam knew as well as Eve that the fruit was forbidden. He chose to eat it anyway, so he should have received the same punishment. There is really no way to get around that.

Nobody argues that there aren't worse **** you stories in the Bible, but to act like this one is not unjust is wrong imo.

But Eve technically did worse. She disobeyed God just like Adam but she also betrayed Adam. We can agree that binding her whole kin to servitude forever is a massive punishment, but (again, according to the story) Eve did something in additon to what Adam did.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by socool8520
It's not a good or evil situation. It was the fact that they were told not to eat the fruit specifically by God but did it anyways. Whether they knew the consequences (to be fair, they didn't) is irrelevant.

Yes, it is. Because if you know the difference between right and wrong, then you know the difference between good and evil. Prior to eating the fruit, they had no concept of either. So if you forbid them from doing something, that is a meaningless concept, because they do not even know what "wrong" is, let alone that by doing something "forbidden," they would be doing something wrong.

socool8520
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes, it is. Because if you know the difference between right and wrong, then you know the difference between good and evil. Prior to eating the fruit, they had no concept of either. So if you forbid them from doing something, that is a meaningless concept, because they do not even know what "wrong" is, let alone that by doing something "forbidden," they would be doing something wrong.

They did understand speech, so they understood when God said you can eat everything but this. Don't do that. Didn't Eve even say to the serpent that they were not to eat from the tree? That would be proof that she understood the concept of "Don't"

Whether they knew that it was right or wrong is still irrelevant.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by socool8520
They did understand speech, so they understood when God said you can eat everything but this. Don't do that. Didn't Eve even say to the serpent that they were not to eat from the tree? That would be proof that she understood the concept of "Don't"

Whether they knew that it was right or wrong is still irrelevant.

He did not say, "cannot," he said "do not." And without a concept of right or wrong, they cannot understand that transgressing a command is wrong, or even what wrong means.

socool8520
Really? Because I feel like the actual wording could be lost in translation. The point is he said don't. Doesn't matter if you know what will happen if you do, you know that he said don't. He gave an example of what could be done, and said what not to do. That should have been understood.

Scribble
I mean, he is God, you think he'd be able to get that point across.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Which is to say, not at all. Before they ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of the Difference Between Good and Evil, they did not know the difference between right or wrong, which means concepts like forbidden would be just as meaningless to them. The way that Jordan Peterson interprets it, the "knowledge of good and evil" goes hand in hand with knowledge of one's own vulnerability. Because once you know how vulnerable humans are, you know how to willingly hurt them if you want, or to willingly abstain from hurting them.

So Adam and Eve, who are the first people on earth, transcend that point of knowing good from evil. That is why they no longer live in the garden (wilderness). It's something like becoming self aware. Hence the part where they realized they were naked in front of god.

This is one of the stories in the Bible where mankind almost becomes God-like. It was because they already had developed their self awareness that God had to kick them out of the garden, "so that they should no eat of the book of life" (immortality). You might say, why didn't he let us become immortal gods like him? Because that's not what happened. This story would've made no sense to the people listening to it back then if the end result was that human beings were immortal and wise. Because that's just not life. They needed a reason for why we die. For why we toil in the fields. For why life is hard in general.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He did not say, "cannot," he said "do not." And without a concept of right or wrong, they cannot understand that transgressing a command is wrong, or even what wrong means. Bro... you're reaching..

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
The way that Jordan Peterson interprets it, the "knowledge of good and evil" goes hand in hand with knowledge of one's own vulnerability. Because once you know how vulnerable humans are, you know how to willingly hurt them if you want, or to willingly abstain from hurting them.

So Adam and Eve, who are the first people on earth, transcend that point of knowing good from evil. That is why they no longer live in the garden (wilderness). It's something like becoming self aware. Hence the part where they realized they were naked in front of god.
HOLY SHIT YOU WATCH PETERSON'S BIBLICAL LECTURE SERIES TOO?!

YEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSS

Afro Cheese
I listen to the podcast tbh.

Emperordmb

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by socool8520
Really? Because I feel like the actual wording could be lost in translation. The point is he said don't. Doesn't matter if you know what will happen if you do, you know that he said don't. He gave an example of what could be done, and said what not to do. That should have been understood.

In order to self-regulate their behavior, they have to understand right from wrong. Commanding them to not do a particular thing is a meaningless directive if they do not know that disobeying that command is wrong, and at that point, they did not even have a concept of wrong.

It is the logical equivalent of leaving a two-year-old unsupervised in a room with a knife, telling him not to touch it, and then being upset with him when he cuts himself. He does not know right from wrong, so he has no conceptual basis to understand, let alone follow your command. Absent that framework, he had to experience a consequence to even understand what you were telling him.

Is it fair then to punish him and his descendents for all time for a transgression he did not even understand he was making, because you made a ****ing pronouncement?

socool8520
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In order to self-regulate their behavior, they have to understand right from wrong. Commanding them to not do a particular thing is a meaningless directive if they do not know that disobeying that command is wrong, and at that point, they did not even have a concept of wrong.

It is the logical equivalent of leaving a two-year-old unsupervised in a room with a knife, telling him not to touch it, and then being upset with him when he cuts himself. He does not know right from wrong, so he has no conceptual basis to understand, let alone follow your command. Absent that framework, he had to experience a consequence to even understand what you were telling him.

Is it fair then to punish him and his descendents for all time for a transgression he did not even understand he was making, because you made a ****ing pronouncement?

They had more faculties than toddlers. They were capable of coherent speech and Eve even relayed to the serpent that they were not allowed to eat from that tree. Whether she knew why or not does not matter. What's clear from her stating she wasn't supposed to eat from the tree is that...she knew she wasn't supposed to.

Fair is a completely different matter altogether, and not the point of this thread. To answer your question though, no, it isn't fair. But considering the overblown actions God takes for his word not being heeded is the status quo in the book. One of the reasons I put no stock in the Bible to begin with.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by socool8520
They had more faculties than toddlers. They were capable of coherent speech and Eve even relayed to the serpent that they were not allowed to eat from that tree. Whether she knew why or not does not matter. What's clear from her stating she wasn't supposed to eat from the tree is that...she knew she wasn't supposed to.

Fair is a completely different matter altogether, and not the point of this thread. To answer your question though, no, it isn't fair. But considering the overblown actions God takes for his word not being heeded is the status quo in the book. One of the reasons I put no stock in the Bible to begin with.

The ability to repeat what you are told is not synonymous with understanding it.

socool8520
Why would he tell them if they can't understand it?

NewGuy01
because he's a douche, that's the point.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.