Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Foxy Methoxy

Adam, Eve, And The Talking Penis . . . Er . . . Serpent

Recommended Posts

When I was a Christian, the story of Adam and Eve bothered me. It made no sense. First, Eve gets created out of Adam's rib. Then Adam and Eve are hanging out naked in a garden, a talking serpent walks up to Eve. They go off and eat some forbidden fruit together. Eve loves the fruit so much, she gets her husband in on the fruit action. And then in attempt to hide their misdeed from God, they cover their genitals. God finds out anyway and is furious casting Adam and Eve out of the garden, forcing Eve to have difficult childbirth, and cursing the serpent. Adam goes on to live to be 930 years old and Eve lives to be 940. No further mention of the serpent is made.

 

First off, this doesn't sound like a story meant to be taken literally. Second, if I don't take it literally, it sounds to me like Eve cheated on Adam but didn't want to lose him or give up her relationship with the serpent, so she convinced Adam to join in a love triangle, then things went badly. The serpent is a metaphor for a house wrecking male. If they were literally eating fruit, why didn't Adam and Eve attempt to hide their mouths from God? And why would God punish Eve with painful childbirth over something she ate? And then there's the obvious: a talking serpent. Come on! This isn't Disney. Animals don't talk. A talking serpent is about as clear of a sexual metaphor as you can ask for.

 

Even so, this story doesn't make a lot of sense if there were only two people in the world. This would suggest Adam and Eve's children were committing incest in order to populate this planet. And there's also the problem with Eve being created from Adam's rib. What is the significance of that? Why couldn't God just be the creator and make Eve out of dust like he did with Adam? And how can anyone possibly believe they both lived nearly 1,000 years? It's all preposterous. Unless . . . .

 

What if Adam is actually the patriarch of a tribe named after him? Perhaps being "created in God's image" refers to the laws of that tribe being the first laws to be the core values of latter Hebrew culture? What if Eve was a matriarch from tribe of Adam who started a new tribe that also followed the same religious laws as the tribe of Adam? This new tribe would have sprung forth from the midsection of Adam. It's certainly more feasible that a tribe could last 940 years. And patriarchs such as Israel, Judah, Benjamin, et al are both individuals as well as tribes in the Bible, so is it far fetched to view Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Enoch, Methuselah, and Noah as such, too?

 

So if we if we look at Adam and Eve in this context. We have two ancient tribes who followed the precursor to what would later become Judeo-Christian laws. Their golden age was ended when a third tribe who did not share the same values interbred with Adam and Eve. Thus, their own values changed and their golden age came to an end. This is actually a common theme in the Bible, especially the Old Testament: "Don't breed with outsiders or you'll become more like them and God will punish you for it" which is a very typical view in tribal cultures. Today we view such sentiments as xenophobic and backwards, but there is no denying that having sexual relations with outsiders is probably the biggest offense to a primitive culture.

 

If viewing the story by this perspective, the original sin is actually breeding with outsiders and adopting their ways and not eating fruit with a talking serpent.

 

Finally, this story makes sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eve was made from Adam's rib to signify that she is bound to the man and is not an independent individual like Adam.

 

The whole genesis story is so fucked up that even the rabbis that created the Midrash couldn't make seem like one cohesive and comprehensive story (I'm being a tad bit factious here).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think anyone who literally believes Eve was created from a rib needs their head checked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eve was made from Adam's rib to signify that she is bound to the man and is not an independent individual like Adam.

 

This.

 

They also couldn't let women be the first, but it is she who gives birth/life, so they wrote a story which reverses natural birth, taking origins from the female.

 

Phanta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, several hundred years after the story was originally written, a bunch of old men decided that. As we all know, it's hogwash. But I'm entertaining the idea Eve was a tribe and not merely a single woman and the story of original sin was about the consequences of interbreeding with outsiders.

 

Not sure why you're both zeroing in on the rib anyway. That part is a side note. I guess the way the rib has been interpreted traditionally strikes a nerve with women.

 

Here's what I'm proposing:

 

- Adam was not the first man. He was the patriarch of the first tribe to follow religious laws that later became Hebrew culture.

 

- Eve never knew the original Adam. Rather, she was a matriarch from Adam's tribe who founded her own tribe, a tribe that was very in tune with the ways of Adam's tribe.

 

- The talking serpent represents outsiders / foreigners with different values who corrupted the original ways of the tribes Adam and Eve.

 

- When the tribes of Adam and Eve interbred with foreigners, strife and discord entered their society ending the golden age they had previously enjoyed.

 

- This story is not an explanation of the origins of humanity. Rather, it is an old tribal tale meant to keep people from interbreeding with outsiders. It has been corrupted by centuries of literal translations and dubious scholars and preachers who didn't understand the text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, when you've spent your entire life being told that you are no good because you are a woman, the symbols the men teach stay with you. Do you have any idea how much emotional self-flagellation I put myself through simply because I am a female and females are inherently "evil"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God was the first person who ever tried to make home made bar-b-que ribs............

but he didn't follow the recipe, screwed up and made a human instead !:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Never mind. I should have started some feminist rant about Christianity being sexist. Let's talk about the rib then and how it made you feel inferior when you were a believer.

 

*sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Never mind. I should have started some feminist rant about Christianity being sexist. Let's talk about the rib then and how it made you feel inferior when you were a believer.

 

*sigh*

 

Notice I said' human' and not woman?

Damn! - that's why I'm always hunger - I'm made from a bar-b-que rib! :woohoo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure why you're both zeroing in on the rib anyway.

 

Because you asked about it. Why did you ask if it wasn't important to you?

 

When I was a Christian, the story of Adam and Eve bothered me. It made no sense. First, Eve gets created out of Adam's rib.

 

And there's also the problem with Eve being created from Adam's rib. What is the significance of that? Why couldn't God just be the creator and make Eve out of dust like he did with Adam?

 

I brought it up because I think it is a reasonable answer to a question you asked point blank about.

 

Males who have a will to power acquire that by taking away that thing that is inherently female: birth. Why is the first human not female, as she has the natural ability to give forth life? Doesn't that make the most sense? God creates female and impregnates her and she gives birth to a male and they propagate the earth. I can't imagine that has bigger genetic incest issues than mating with one's clone, but it puts females in a superior position to males, and that is a no-no in writing that is about establishing heirarchy.

 

Another reason for taking birth away from females is to establish God's will as superior to and unbound by natural law. This theme is repeated in Genesis many times, for instance, when God overturns cultural primogeniture in each major patriarchal generation (Cain/Abel, Ishmael/Isaac, Esau/Jacob, brothers/Joseph), ensuring preference for the younger son. In this way, God asserts that nature does not equal God's law, but is inferior to it. Similarly, in Gen 2, God overturns the natural order of birth, taking it away from the female and giving it to the male in order to establish his (God's) theological order as superior to nature. Creating Eve out of dust would have made her Adam's equal and allowed her the first birth-from-flesh.

 

Sure, several hundred years after the story was originally written, a bunch of old men decided that. As we all know, it's hogwash. But I'm entertaining the idea Eve was a tribe and not merely a single woman and the story of original sin was about the consequences of interbreeding with outsiders.

 

Here's what I'm proposing:

 

- Adam was not the first man. He was the patriarch of the first tribe to follow religious laws that later became Hebrew culture.

 

- Eve never knew the original Adam. Rather, she was a matriarch from Adam's tribe who founded her own tribe, a tribe that was very in tune with the ways of Adam's tribe.

 

- The talking serpent represents outsiders / foreigners with different values who corrupted the original ways of the tribes Adam and Eve.

 

- When the tribes of Adam and Eve interbred with foreigners, strife and discord entered their society ending the golden age they had previously enjoyed.

 

- This story is not an explanation of the origins of humanity. Rather, it is an old tribal tale meant to keep people from interbreeding with outsiders. It has been corrupted by centuries of literal translations and dubious scholars and preachers who didn't understand the text.

 

I guess you could be right.

 

I read an argument once that at least part of Gen3 helped to assuage a natural fear of a deadly land animal with (unbelievably!) no legs. A land animal with no legs? Really? Speculation is that they had to come up with some way to explain it, as people who are afraid are wont to do with things that are both strange and uncomfortable in order to calm their fears. So, that's why the snake in the story originally had legs and was cursed and lost them.

 

How does the snake losing it's legs work in to your idea?

 

Phanta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least you ladies may be a spare rib but us men folk are just a pile of dirt :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least you ladies may be a spare rib but us men folk are just a pile of dirt :grin:

 

*laugh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Yakuza

Just because the story of Adam and Eve is false, doesn't mean that God isn't real

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because the story of Adam and Eve is false, doesn't mean that God isn't real

 

Cool! Could you just point out the rest of the parts that aren't true for us? You know, so we'll get it right.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.