★ Citsonga ★ Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I'm curious about others' thoughts on this. After Adam and Eve eat of the forbidden fruit and get the knowledge of good and evil, we are told this: Genesis 3:7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Now, at this point Adam and Eve were supposedly the only people in existence, and they were basically husband and wife, so why would they have any shame about being naked? Are we supposed to believe that they were really concerned about the animals seeing them? What can we make of this part of the myth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Davka Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I tend to think of this as a folk explanation for why people wear clothes and animals don't. The whole body shame thing is just - sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Genesis 3:7and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. What can we make of this part of the myth? That they innately knew how to sew leaves. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddity Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 If we innately know how to sew, how come I'm so terrible at it? Maybe I should start using fig leaves instead of fabric. Oh, and more on topic, I think it's mostly about body shame. God made you in his perfect image, but your naughty bits aren't quite perfect enough to show. 'Cause, y'know, Christianity just makes sense like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marabod Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I'm curious about others' thoughts on this. After Adam and Eve eat of the forbidden fruit and get the knowledge of good and evil, we are told this: Genesis 3:7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Now, at this point Adam and Eve were supposedly the only people in existence, and they were basically husband and wife, so why would they have any shame about being naked? Are we supposed to believe that they were really concerned about the animals seeing them? What can we make of this part of the myth? I take it as a symbolic description of us stopping being the animals and becoming humans, the moment of our final separation from the animal world. But this of course contradicts Christian doctrine about the need to take Biblical word literally, as it is the word of God, passed by Holy Spirit to enlightened people who wrote it. If they thought these all could be allegories and fables, then they would've accepted Darwinism from day one, but it took 150+ years of progress for them to agree that the Earth is not 8000 years old, that the sky is not solid and rain water is not stored above it etc. I actually feel pity they are refusing from literate following the Bible now, as then we could suggest that if Adam and Eve were naked and did not know what the clothes are, then the Lord God was supposed to be naked too, as they were created in God's image, so the white robe on the icons is a fake, covering the divine details we are not supposed to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 What can we make of this part of the myth? The "nudity and sex are bad!!!!111!!!oneoneone!!!!" brainwashing has to start somewhere. Happens to be right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagan Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I'm curious about others' thoughts on this. After Adam and Eve eat of the forbidden fruit and get the knowledge of good and evil, we are told this: Genesis 3:7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Now, at this point Adam and Eve were supposedly the only people in existence, and they were basically husband and wife, so why would they have any shame about being naked? Are we supposed to believe that they were really concerned about the animals seeing them? What can we make of this part of the myth? They made aprons? Like for cooking? With slogans like "Kiss the Cook" or "World's best BBQer?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 ...but it took 150+ years of progress for them to agree that the Earth is not 8000 years old, that the sky is not solid and rain water is not stored above it etc. When did THAT happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marabod Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 ...but it took 150+ years of progress for them to agree that the Earth is not 8000 years old, that the sky is not solid and rain water is not stored above it etc. When did THAT happen? I guess they mainly stopped to believe in solid skies in around 60s when the space flights started, as I can remember even in 70s some were still sure that the rockets punch holes in the sky. As for the age of the world, I am unsure, but I link this with Jurassic Park. After all last year Vatican decided to accept Darwin! So there is some shift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marabod Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I would not be calling them protestants. In my understanding Protestants are Anglicans, Lutherans and possibly some Baptists, they legitimately stay within Christianity as they follow Nicene Creed, and disagree mainly on the organisational features within Catholic Apostolic Church. One may notice that the Shisms within Christianity were mostly territorial, and there was always a Bishop as a head of a splitting church, while technically the Bishops are successors of the Apostles. Little novelty heresies do not follow Nicene Creed, and they split on the basis of personal teachings of their pastors, thus they do not express any "protest" but rather revise the biblical interpretations ad infinitum. Technically they are not Christians as they disagree with the Christian Symbol of Faith (Nicene Creed) - same was as some Islamic sect would not be Muslims if they disagree that "there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet". These guys are no more bible followers than I am president Mugabe, otherwise we would've seen them on the crosses or selling out their wealth and donating all to the poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 Thanks for the replies. I agree that the text is supposed to explain why people wear clothes, and possibly even show a distinction between people and animals. What I was getting at, though, is the perplexing "logic" of them having shame when there were no other people around. I guess I'm making the issue too complicated, since these primitive people simply may not have seen any need to apply logic to the story. marabod, I have to think that the literalists are the closest to following the intent of the Bible authors. For example, why would the authors have such extensive genealogies if they were writing figurative stories? The fact that more and more believers have drifted away from a literal understanding of the Bible is just an indication that what the Bible literally teaches just can't be true in light of modern science, and so they have to twist the Bible to try to fit it into reality as best they can. There's no doubt in my mind that the original authors (or at least the editors who cobbled stuff together) did NOT mean what the nonliteralists claim, but rather meant for the accounts to be taken literally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Thanks for the replies. I agree that the text is supposed to explain why people wear clothes, and possibly even show a distinction between people and animals. What I was getting at, though, is the perplexing "logic" of them having shame when there were no other people around. I guess I'm making the issue too complicated, since these primitive people simply may not have seen any need to apply logic to the story. marabod, I have to think that the literalists are the closest to following the intent of the Bible authors. For example, why would the authors have such extensive genealogies if they were writing figurative stories? The fact that more and more believers have drifted away from a literal understanding of the Bible is just an indication that what the Bible literally teaches just can't be true in light of modern science, and so they have to twist the Bible to try to fit it into reality as best they can. There's no doubt in my mind that the original authors (or at least the editors who cobbled stuff together) did NOT mean what the nonliteralists claim, but rather meant for the accounts to be taken literally. I'm afraid you're probably right, but I think there are some passages that are metaphor. I could be wrong though, and Genesis in particular does not seem to be intended as metaphor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marabod Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Thanks for the replies. I agree that the text is supposed to explain why people wear clothes, and possibly even show a distinction between people and animals. What I was getting at, though, is the perplexing "logic" of them having shame when there were no other people around. I guess I'm making the issue too complicated, since these primitive people simply may not have seen any need to apply logic to the story. marabod, I have to think that the literalists are the closest to following the intent of the Bible authors. For example, why would the authors have such extensive genealogies if they were writing figurative stories? The fact that more and more believers have drifted away from a literal understanding of the Bible is just an indication that what the Bible literally teaches just can't be true in light of modern science, and so they have to twist the Bible to try to fit it into reality as best they can. There's no doubt in my mind that the original authors (or at least the editors who cobbled stuff together) did NOT mean what the nonliteralists claim, but rather meant for the accounts to be taken literally. Catholic Apostolic Church was always taking the Bible literally. But the Bible was never written for the "followers" (as those were en masse illiterate) but for the priests only. When someone learns how to read and write, this alone does not make a person to become Jonathan Swift or Spinosa, neither learning Arithmetic makes anyone to be Einstein. Thus when the literacy level rose within the last 1-2 hundred years, every peasant became able to read the Bible, but a peasant mind is not equipped with the vast knowledge of history, dead languages, Theologies and Moralities, hence modern literalism and sola scripture approach. A learned priest was always interpreting the "God's word" for the followers, because the latter live mundane lives, earn the bread in sweat, procreate, pray... They do not have a mental equipment to liaise with God on "professional" level, they are only followers, a crowd. Novelty "christians" in biblical terms are blind, following a blind, as their priests are the same peasants as the followers. In some sense total literacy ensured the end of Christianity, as the latter started crumbling into little heresies under the pressure of the biblical contradictions and became a laughing stock - just look at the last Pope's visit to Czech republic, BBC was talking to pedestrians in Prague, and most of them did not even know the Pope was visiting their country, despite he was addressing the believers in few hundred meters from them. And this is a Catholic country for more than 1000 years! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I think it is allegory of when people became self-aware. Like Marbod suggested...we became human. I think the entire story could been seen as us becoming self-conscious and separated from God through this process. This leaves the animals closer to God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeking Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I guess they mainly stopped to believe in solid skies in around 60s when the space flights started, as I can remember even in 70s some were still sure that the rockets punch holes in the sky. As for the age of the world, I am unsure, but I link this with Jurassic Park. After all last year Vatican decided to accept Darwin! So there is some shift. Some. Plenty of Protestant Christians believe in young Earth. I just dated one. He reproduced, and passed on these beliefs, common among his spiritual circles. Very true. Everyone in my immediate (and most in my extended) family is a firm believer in young earth creationism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I think it is allegory of when people became self-aware. Like Marbod suggested...we became human. I think the entire story could been seen as us becoming self-conscious and separated from God through this process. This leaves the animals closer to God. I also see it as an allegory for leaving religion. With a childish mind, a person is dependent on a belief in some higher power taking care of them, and in that ignorance the person feel a false security. Food is served whenever they want it. Every desire is filled. (By parents, mostly) Then, when a person fully develops the fourth stage of Piaget's cognitive development, Formal Operational Stage, he or she becomes aware of the difficulty of discerning right and wrong, and the person is separated from God. He or she also realizes that God is nothing but a symbol, a figment of childish belief. And this separation and becoming an adult means to start working the plow, in sweat. In other words, eating the fruit, is to de-convert and leave the delusion behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marabod Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I think it is allegory of when people became self-aware. Like Marbod suggested...we became human. I think the entire story could been seen as us becoming self-conscious and separated from God through this process. This leaves the animals closer to God. Not funny! Manly Hall mentions magical practices in pre-Deluge antiquity, of the Magi basing on this very principle, and reducing their material body to the level of an animal, thus expending their own "divine part". This is where werewolves stories originate! (M Hall Encyclopaedia of qabbalistic, masonic and hermetic esoteric knowledge). According to Hall while the Magi was "bathing" in divine realms, the body, deprived of its usual owner was circling the environments in a manner of a mad dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri butterfly Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I'm curious about others' thoughts on this. After Adam and Eve eat of the forbidden fruit and get the knowledge of good and evil, we are told this: Genesis 3:7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Now, at this point Adam and Eve were supposedly the only people in existence, and they were basically husband and wife, so why would they have any shame about being naked? Are we supposed to believe that they were really concerned about the animals seeing them? What can we make of this part of the myth? I take it as a symbolic description of us stopping being the animals and becoming humans, the moment of our final separation from the animal world. But this of course contradicts Christian doctrine about the need to take Biblical word literally, as it is the word of God, passed by Holy Spirit to enlightened people who wrote it. If they thought these all could be allegories and fables, then they would've accepted Darwinism from day one, but it took 150+ years of progress for them to agree that the Earth is not 8000 years old, that the sky is not solid and rain water is not stored above it etc. I actually feel pity they are refusing from literate following the Bible now, as then we could suggest that if Adam and Eve were naked and did not know what the clothes are, then the Lord God was supposed to be naked too, as they were created in God's image, so the white robe on the icons is a fake, covering the divine details we are not supposed to see. one theory (anthropologists) is that this seems to reflect a certain point in civilization e.g. hunter gatherer, once humans figured out that they could store seeds they then planted their fields and no longer had to move with their food...Which also marked a time they wore more and more clothes ( or it could of been that fabric was a major commodity in trade) .... It could have something to do with the discovery of where babies came from....Of course, no modern person would take this literal but perhaps more as a kind of speculative tale of major societal developments.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marabod Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I still think that the fella who first told this Adam and Eve story, later recorded in Genesis, was a genius Philosopher of his time - but he was addressing to those around him, and given that there is no metals mentioned in early Genesis, we can suggest this fella was living in Stone Age. Is not it ridiculous, to live in 21st century and to build one's life on a Neolithic morality story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri butterfly Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I still think that the fella who first told this Adam and Eve story, later recorded in Genesis, was a genius Philosopher of his time - but he was addressing to those around him, and given that there is no metals mentioned in early Genesis, we can suggest this fella was living in Stone Age. Is not it ridiculous, to live in 21st century and to build one's life on a Neolithic morality story? Imo, yes it is absurd to base a life on this, and its something I have great issue understanding ..... As if a major part of ones mental development is obsolete...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest `V... Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 one theory (anthropologists) is that this seems to reflect a certain point in civilization e.g. hunter gatherer, once humans figured out that they could store seeds they then planted their fields and no longer had to move with their food...Which also marked a time they wore more and more clothes ( or it could of been that fabric was a major commodity in trade) .... It could have something to do with the discovery of where babies came from....Of course, no modern person would take this literal but perhaps more as a kind of speculative tale of major societal developments.... Or major social decay...? ...perhaps it represents a time 'after' Adam and Eve had been living in times of plenty. A time free from the rules of dictators/oppressors for filthy lucre's sake. ...thus having once developed larger forebrains, intelligence/critical thinking (growth) only to become indoctrinated with fear, with more emphasis on developing the hindbrain, animal instinct/impulse (protection) ...the 'animal' skin covering representing human regression/digression? I also think the guy who wrote Genesis had been living in a cave too long. Sorry Marabod. lol *kisses Sheri on the cheek* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri butterfly Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 one theory (anthropologists) is that this seems to reflect a certain point in civilization e.g. hunter gatherer, once humans figured out that they could store seeds they then planted their fields and no longer had to move with their food...Which also marked a time they wore more and more clothes ( or it could of been that fabric was a major commodity in trade) .... It could have something to do with the discovery of where babies came from....Of course, no modern person would take this literal but perhaps more as a kind of speculative tale of major societal developments.... Or major social decay...? ...perhaps it represents a time 'after' Adam and Eve had been living in times of plenty. A time free from the rules of dictators/oppressors for filthy lucre's sake. ...thus having once developed larger forebrains, intelligence/critical thinking (growth) only to become indoctrinated with fear, with more emphasis on developing the hindbrain, animal instinct/impulse (protection) ...the 'animal' skin covering representing human regression/digression? I also think the guy who wrote Genesis had been living in a cave too long. Sorry Marabod. lol *kisses Sheri on the cheek* was it arbitrary that they decided to approach the unknown with such fear or the brain V... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I'm curious about others' thoughts on this. After Adam and Eve eat of the forbidden fruit and get the knowledge of good and evil, we are told this: Genesis 3:7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Now, at this point Adam and Eve were supposedly the only people in existence, and they were basically husband and wife, so why would they have any shame about being naked? Are we supposed to believe that they were really concerned about the animals seeing them? What can we make of this part of the myth? So if this happened to A&E after they ate the fruit do you think that the little maggots, bugs or whatever ate the leftovers they dropped also had a similar reaction? Is there a colony of fruit flies out there wearing little clothes because their little FF A&E ate of the forbidden leftovers? And so their little multi-faceted eyes were opened and they were naked? Is there a FF Jesus? mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest `V... Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 one theory (anthropologists) is that this seems to reflect a certain point in civilization e.g. hunter gatherer, once humans figured out that they could store seeds they then planted their fields and no longer had to move with their food...Which also marked a time they wore more and more clothes ( or it could of been that fabric was a major commodity in trade) .... It could have something to do with the discovery of where babies came from....Of course, no modern person would take this literal but perhaps more as a kind of speculative tale of major societal developments.... Or major social decay...? ...perhaps it represents a time 'after' Adam and Eve had been living in times of plenty. A time free from the rules of dictators/oppressors for filthy lucre's sake. ...thus having once developed larger forebrains, intelligence/critical thinking (growth) only to become indoctrinated with fear, with more emphasis on developing the hindbrain, animal instinct/impulse (protection) ...the 'animal' skin covering representing human regression/digression? I also think the guy who wrote Genesis had been living in a cave too long. Sorry Marabod. lol *kisses Sheri on the cheek* was it arbitrary that they decided to approach the unknown with such fear or the brain V... "In my dream, I could read the "Book of Worlds", a vast encyclopedia of a billion planets within the Milky Way. What could the galactic computer tell me about this now darkened world? They must have survived some earlier catastrophe. Their biology was different from ours. High technology. I wondered what those lights had been for; there must have been signs they were in trouble. The possibility of survival in a century -- less than one percent, not very good odds. Communications interrupted. Their world society had failed; they had made the ultimate mistake. I felt a longing to return to earth. The television transmissions from earth rushed past me, expanding away from our planet at the speed of light. Then suddenly -- silence, total and absolute. But the dream was not yet done. Had we destroyed our home? What had we done to the earth? There had been many ways for life to perish at our hands; we had poisoned the air and water; we had ravaged the land. Perhaps we had changed the climate. Could it have been a plague or nuclear war? I remembered the galactic computer. What would it say about the earth? There was our region of the galaxy; there was our world. I had found the entry for earth: HUMANITY: THIRD FROM THE SUN. They had heard our television broadcasts and thought them an application for cosmic citizenship. Our technology had been growing enormously (they got that right). Two hundred nation states, about six global powers, the potential to become one planet. Probability of survival over a century -- here, also, less than one percent. So, it was nuclear war, a full nuclear exchange. There would be no more big questions, no more answers. Never again a love or a child; no descendants to remember us and be proud; no more voyages to the stars, no more songs from the earth. I saw east Africa and thought, "a few million years ago we humans took our first steps there. Our brains grew and changed. The old parts (hindbrain) began to be guided by the new parts (forebrain), and this made us human -- with compassion and foresight and reason. But, instead, we listened to that reptilian voice within us, counseling fear, territoriality and aggression. Maybe the reptiles will evolve intelligence once more. Perhaps, one day, there will be civilizations again on earth. There will be life, there will be intelligence; but there will be no more humans -- not here, not in a billion worlds." ~Dr. Carl Sagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted October 2, 2009 Author Share Posted October 2, 2009 So if this happened to A&E after they ate the fruit do you think that the little maggots, bugs or whatever ate the leftovers they dropped also had a similar reaction? Is there a colony of fruit flies out there wearing little clothes because their little FF A&E ate of the forbidden leftovers? And so their little multi-faceted eyes were opened and they were naked? Is there a FF Jesus? mwc Haha, good points. Although Adam & Eve supposedly being in "God's image" (while the other creatures were not) would have to be taken into account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts