Satan gave man love. Was it worth the hate?

[Greatest I am]

That is not what the story says. It says they could not because they lacked the knowledge of anything that had good or evil applications. That would include procreation and sexual matters.

That can't be correct because it would prevent them from doing literally anything. They couldn't pick up a stick because it might be used to hit someone or poke out an eye. They couldn't use their hands because hands can be used to strangle someone. Feet ... kicking someone. Etc.

If Adam can use his hands without doing harm then he can use his penis without doing harm.

You are correct.

If no artistic leeway was permitted the scribes who made up this myth, it would never have been completed.

The broad theme is what is important and what I am focusing on.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

That is not what the story says. It says they could not because they lacked the knowledge of anything that had good or evil applications. That would include procreation and sexual matters.

That can't be correct because it would prevent them from doing literally anything. They couldn't pick up a stick because it might be used to hit someone or poke out an eye. They couldn't use their hands because hands can be used to strangle someone. Feet ... kicking someone. Etc.

If Adam can use his hands without doing harm then he can use his penis without doing harm.

Well said, and further they even seemed to find mere nakedness sinful, which is not evil.

Would you go out in public naked and not want to hide your junk?

What makes you think A & E would not answer as you, I hope, did?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Yes. Why would they be ashamed of their nakedness?

God had made them naked. He had no problem with it. They had no problem with it until they ate the fruit.

It's like the fruit messed up their thinking.

I am not ashamed of my nakedness but would sure feel ashamed to be caught outside by anyone.

But hey, if that is your thing.

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

I am not ashamed of my nakedness but would sure feel ashamed to be caught outside by anyone.

But hey, if that is your thing.

Well, we're not talking about you or me in modern day Canada. We're talking about Adam and Eve feeling ashamed of their nakedness when viewed by God who had sanctioned their nakedness. Which makes no sense.

[phyllo]

The broad theme is what is important and what I am focusing on.

You're putting forth a particular interpretation of the story. Let's not forget it.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Would you go out in public naked and not want to hide your junk?

I don't call it junk, but if me and my wife were the only humans, of course I would go outside, on warm enough days with no clothes on. It's illegal in most places, so I don't. I have done it where it is legal, gone skinny dipping. I have in other contexts. I never, ever worry about God or animals experiencing my body as sinful or shameful. And presumably God can see through clothes and further is not offended by what he created. Is it the trees they should have been ashamed in front of?

If I get undressed in a locker room, am I sinning because other people are changing also?

What makes you think A & E would not answer as you, I hope, did?

I actually think they would answer as I do, were they real individuals.

[Ierrellus]

IMHO, the thread still lacks a credible definition of hate as applied to Adam's and Eve's awakening into consequences of behavior.

If I have to define well defined words from a dictionary then you show you cannot use a dictionary.

Regards
DL

Under no definition of either love or hate in my dictionary is a mention of the Eden story.
I agree with Phyllo that this story is about dualism as a human perspective.
To see how this sense of dualism emerges in the human psyche, read the first chapter in the book of James KJV.

[Greatest I am]

I am not ashamed of my nakedness but would sure feel ashamed to be caught outside by anyone.

But hey, if that is your thing.

Well, we're not talking about you or me in modern day Canada. We're talking about Adam and Eve feeling ashamed of their nakedness when viewed by God who had sanctioned their nakedness. Which makes no sense.

Sigh. Good manners and couth come from the tree of knowledge and you criticize A & E for having those good qualities.

You seem to think it couth to

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWN65nAkk20 ------- in front of other.

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

I don't call it junk, but if me and my wife were the only humans, of course I would go outside, on warm enough days with no clothes on. It's illegal in most places, so I don't. I have done it where it is legal, gone skinny dipping. I have in other contexts. I never, ever worry about God or animals experiencing my body as sinful or shameful. And presumably God can see through clothes and further is not offended by what he created. Is it the trees they should have been ashamed in front of?

I find the shame and hatred of the human body to be strange. It's not just in Christianity, it's in a lot of religions and philosophies. Why is the mind-body dualism so appealing?

[Greatest I am]

The broad theme is what is important and what I am focusing on.

You're putting forth a particular interpretation of the story. Let's not forget it.

Absolutely. The original Jewish view as opposed to what the Christian usurpers used when the reversed the moral of the story.

Who has more authority of the myth? Originators or the usurpers who pulled the story apart and forgot all about Asherah and Lilith?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Would you go out in public naked and not want to hide your junk?

I don't call it junk, but if me and my wife were the only humans, of course I would go outside, on warm enough days with no clothes on. It's illegal in most places, so I don't. I have done it where it is legal, gone skinny dipping. I have in other contexts. I never, ever worry about God or animals experiencing my body as sinful or shameful. And presumably God can see through clothes and further is not offended by what he created. Is it the trees they should have been ashamed in front of?

If I get undressed in a locker room, am I sinning because other people are changing also?

What makes you think A & E would not answer as you, I hope, did?

I actually think they would answer as I do, were they real individuals.

If things worked well for God and as he said, they have become as gods, you might remember that god has cloths on and the right thing to do for A & E would be to emulate him.

Case closed.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

IMHO, the thread still lacks a credible definition of hate as applied to Adam's and Eve's awakening into consequences of behavior.

If I have to define well defined words from a dictionary then you show you cannot use a dictionary.

Regards
DL

Under no definition of either love or hate in my dictionary is a mention of the Eden story.
I agree with Phyllo that this story is about dualism as a human perspective.
To see how this sense of dualism emerges in the human psyche, read the first chapter in the book of James KJV.

Not required as Gnostic Christians recognize dualism.

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

Sigh. Good manners and couth come from the tree of knowledge and you criticize A & E for having those good qualities.

You're saying that covering up is the right thing to do. But why is it the right thing to do? What is wrong about being uncovered?

I suspect that the typical answer is that if women are uncovered, then men won't be able to control themselves and they will start masturbating in public.
Or worse, men won't be able to control themselves and they will be raping women all over that place.

I don't think that would happen.

In the 80s, if you went to a beach in France, practically all the women were topless. I don't recall seeing any guys masturbating. "Topless" was just normal and ordinary. If you some guy was excited by it, he saved it for when he got home.

[Greatest I am]

I don't call it junk, but if me and my wife were the only humans, of course I would go outside, on warm enough days with no clothes on. It's illegal in most places, so I don't. I have done it where it is legal, gone skinny dipping. I have in other contexts. I never, ever worry about God or animals experiencing my body as sinful or shameful. And presumably God can see through clothes and further is not offended by what he created. Is it the trees they should have been ashamed in front of?

I find the shame and hatred of the human body to be strange. It's not just in Christianity, it's in a lot of religions and philosophies. Why is the mind-body dualism so appealing?

Sigh.

Even as a Gnostic Christian who hates Christians for their Inquisitions against us, I cannot agree with your views of Christians hating or being ashamed of their bodies. Muslims on the other hand sure dress like they do.

If you look at all ancient tribes and the new ones we are discovering, they almost all wear something over their junk.

The reasons why are obvious. Ever had a wasp prick your poker or have a twig snap back on it?
Women do not have that problem but that once a month thing is sure dirty and messy.

Put your brain in gear my friends.

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

If you look at all ancient tribes and the new ones we are discovering, they almost all wear something over their junk.

The reasons why are obvious. Ever had a wasp prick your poker or have a twig snap back on it?
Women do not have that problem but that once a month thing is sure dirty and messy.

There is a difference between wearing clothes for warmth or protection and wearing clothes because of shame.

Menstruation is another religious bugaboo.

[Greatest I am]

[

quote]Sigh. Good manners and couth come from the tree of knowledge and you criticize A & E for having those good qualities.

You're saying that covering up is the right thing to do. But why is it the right thing to do? What is wrong about being uncovered?

At the right time and place, nothing. Here we have A & E' father popping up and that is not an appropriate time.

Even if you are a nudist, when the family comes to call, you will likely cover up unless they are there for a nude gathering, which was not the case with A & E as their good manners and couth told them to hide their junk.

I suspect that the typical answer is that if women are uncovered, then men won't be able to control themselves and they will start masturbating in public.

A foolish answer.

Or worse, men won't be able to control themselves and they will be raping women all over that place.

Another foolish thought.

I don't think that would happen.

Ah. Reality again.

In the 80s, if you went to a beach in France, practically all the women were topless. I don't recall seeing any guys masturbating. "Topless" was just normal and ordinary. If you some guy was excited by it, he saved it for when he got home.

[/quote]

I agree. But he would have to be some hard up as an average group of people nude is not the most exciting thing to see. It is rather funny in fact. By todays standard, anyone over 16 years old starts to look like gravity is 5 times the norm. Be it breasts or junk, the knees get a lot closer. Yuk.

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

So your answer is still "it's just the right thing to do".

[Greatest I am]

If you look at all ancient tribes and the new ones we are discovering, they almost all wear something over their junk.

The reasons why are obvious. Ever had a wasp prick your poker or have a twig snap back on it?
Women do not have that problem but that once a month thing is sure dirty and messy.

There is a difference between wearing clothes for warmth or protection and wearing clothes because of shame.

Menstruation is another religious bugaboo.

You do not seem to want to think like the ancients did when they created all the taboos.

Religions in question were created in areas where there were finite resources and baby sacrifices if the people did not control themselves. Religions tried to sanctify sex so as to not have to sacrifice so many babies. It is also why Temple prostitutes were used and were a well respected and venerated part of the temple stall.

This link speaks to much of that but unfortunately it is long and the facts I speak of are closer to the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TndLzFZI9A

Regards
DL

It was a choice

[Greatest I am]

So your answer is still "it's just the right thing to do".

Nowhere did I say such a thing. I showed why I thought so.

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

Nowhere did I say such a thing. I showed why I thought so.

One of your reasons was that God was clothed and they were trying to emulate God.

But that's not even in the text.

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

Genesis 3 NIV

"I was afraid"

Afraid of what?

It doesn't make much sense to me.

[Karpel Tunnel]

If things worked well for God and as he said, they have become as gods, you might remember that god has cloths on and the right thing to do for A & E would be to emulate him.

So, you decided not to respond to what I wrote. Now you are arguing that God wears clothing. I don't know how you know this. God was clothed, metaphorically, with things like majesty and splendor, but garments, nah. And you are also sounding rather God as a kind of big guy in the sky like non-gnostic Christians here.

Case closed.

LOL. We can all add that our posts are right, or perfect arguments, but it adds nothing to the discussion.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The reasons why are obvious. Ever had a wasp prick your poker or have a twig snap back on it?

So now it is a practical issue and not a moral one. If this is the obvious reason, then Adam and Eve were ashamed for not real reasons.

Put your brain in gear my friends.

Again adding nothing to the discussion, but here an insult.

[Greatest I am]

[

quote]Nowhere did I say such a thing. I showed why I thought so.

One of your reasons was that God was clothed and they were trying to emulate God.

But that's not even in the text.

That is true but most of the iconography shows god dressed while only those around him are naked.

Since god made them cloths right away, my assumption is likely correct because if God was naked, as you indicate, A ^ E should not have been ashamed or afraid as they would have been right at home in a naked world. It makes more sense to have god dressed.

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

Genesis 3 NIV

"I was afraid"

Afraid of what?

It doesn't make much sense to me.

[/quote]

Most myths have things that do not fit logic and reason. That is why they are called myths and why Christians have such a hard time explaining Eden in a literal way.

To explain the fear etc., you might imagine you walking in on a couple of what, 3 or 4 year olds who have just played touche P P.

My bet is that they will stop on the spot because they might have a clue that they were being naughty without really knowing why adults say it is naughty to play touche P P.

That is a French expression. What do you English call it?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

If things worked well for God and as he said, they have become as gods, you might remember that god has cloths on and the right thing to do for A & E would be to emulate him.

So, you decided not to respond to what I wrote. Now you are arguing that God wears clothing. I don't know how you know this. God was clothed, metaphorically, with things like majesty and splendor, but garments, nah. And you are also sounding rather God as a kind of big guy in the sky like non-gnostic Christians here.

Case closed.

LOL. We can all add that our posts are right, or perfect arguments, but it adds nothing to the discussion.

I gave the logic on the clothe think just above.

What else did you have on your mind that I might have missed or had no argument against?

Do I need to agree to every individual thing you say?

Regards
DL

[Karpel Tunnel]

If things worked well for God and as he said, they have become as gods, you might remember that god has cloths on and the right thing to do for A & E would be to emulate him.

Me: So, you decided not to respond to what I wrote. Now you are arguing that God wears clothing. I don't know how you know this. God was clothed, metaphorically, with things like majesty and splendor, but garments, nah. And you are also sounding rather God as a kind of big guy in the sky like non-gnostic Christians here.

Case closed.

LOL. We can all add that our posts are right, or perfect arguments, but it adds nothing to the discussion.

I gave the logic on the clothe think just above.

And then here did not respond to my objection to the God was clothed argument. Which is a bizzare argument for a Gnostic, I repeat.

Do I need to agree to every individual thing you say?

I mentioned that you chose not to respond. I made no demand that you agree. So this is a implicit strawman type question.

As far as what I said about you choosing not to repond, I raised some issues, you two posts ago. You did not respond to them, brought up the idea that God is clothed, and now here did not respond to my objection to that.