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?
If you buy into their dogma God can never make a mistake.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
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.
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.
^ 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.
__________________ QUANCHI112:In between the passes Khan will tear out the orca teeth and use them as an offensive weapon. Khan has crushed a skull before so tearing a tooth off a whale should be no issue.
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.
Re: Re: Re: Did God err in making Adam ruler over Eve?
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.
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.
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.
^ 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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Afro Cheese on Oct 23rd, 2017 at 09:55 PM
KMC Community Forums
Oct 12th, 2017 06:27 PM
lol
