Eve and Pandora

Theology, Religious Studies, religion, god, faith and other topics of a spiritual nature.

Eve and Pandora

Postby Inrealtime87 on July 27th, 2018, 12:08 pm 

Considering both stories about the origins of what's called evil, why woman as the cause, and what's the difference between knowledge and hope in the context of the stories?
Inrealtime87
Member
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 30 Nov 2017


Re: Eve and Pandora

Postby BadgerJelly on July 27th, 2018, 2:01 pm 

Representation of “nature.” The feminine is associated with fertility and multiplicity. The whole “fruit” business is likely something to do with ancient mythos which all include some kind of axis mundi (in teh form of a “world tree”)

Another thing just occurred to me today looking at representations of Jesus on teh cross. He is Prometheus, never really noticed before that he as being poked in the liver - hence one connection to Prometheus myth among others.

Generally speaking there is little doubt about Christianity taking on older traditions and retelling their stories.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5383
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Eve and Pandora

Postby Serpent on July 27th, 2018, 5:48 pm 

Inrealtime87 » July 27th, 2018, 11:08 am wrote:Considering both stories about the origins of what's called evil, why woman as the cause, and what's the difference between knowledge and hope in the context of the stories?

Agriculture.
It was [presumably] women's curiosity that led to the cultivation of edible plants - They were generally the gatherers and became familiar with the ways of plants; probably began to observe and experiment with fruit-crops, then roots and grasses and possibly the domestication of animals. - and women's concern for the safety of their children that led to permanent human settlements.
That shift in lifestyle caused the loss of freedom that men have never stopped mourning, nor trying to recover in various substitutes for nomadic hunting. That men dominated (in the majority of communities) these settlements and later civilizations; that men continued to exercise far more individual freedom and class privilege didn't stop them blaming women for the loss of what they falsely recall halcyon millennia.
Oddly enough, the change to settlements and eventually walled cities, was much harder on women in the long run: civilization put an end to egalitarian society.

The Garden of Eden story is almost certainly the remnant of a much larger Sumerian mythology, which predates Christianity by about 4000 years. The nomadic early Hebrews picked up the stories of the region and made them over in their own image over time. At first, they were a tribe of herders, with no written literature, so the stories they heard joined the stories of their own adventures in an oral tradition.
In this way, via traveling peoples, as well as through trade, intermarriage and conquest, all the ancient stories circulated among all the populations of a region, borrowing from and adding to one another. Since the Middle and Near east, Asia, Africa and Europe are all connected by land traverses, in five thousand years, those stories covered a lot of territory.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3109
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Eve and Pandora

Postby mitchellmckain on July 27th, 2018, 7:12 pm 

With the Garden of Eden story, it is the reader who is laying the blame on the woman not the story itself. God punishes all three players in the drama, Adam, Eve, and the snake. The snake manipulates, Eve disobeys, and Adam blames everyone and everything but himself. So perhaps how you point the finger has to do which which of these is your preoccupation. Certainly much of religion is all about getting people to obey the dictates of their authority and thus it is hardly any wonder that they point the finger at Eve. But those who are more concerned with whether we learn from our mistakes are more likely to point the finger at Adam. While those wanting to absolve themselves (man or woman) of any wrong will blame that lying snake.

The story of Pandora doesn't give us this choice. That one is about obedience all the way and is also opposed to curiosity as well -- how well we know that asking questions is the bane of authoritarian dictators. Dig deeper into the story and you find out that woman (Pandora being the first) was created by an angry god as a punishment to torment us in retaliation for gaining the power of fire from Prometheus.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Eve and Pandora

Postby Serpent on July 27th, 2018, 7:36 pm 

mitchellmckain » July 27th, 2018, 6:12 pm wrote:With the Garden of Eden story, it is the reader who is laying the blame on the woman not the story itself. God punishes all three players in the drama, Adam, Eve, and the snake. The snake manipulates, Eve disobeys, and Adam blames everyone and everything but himself.

Adam blames Eve. That's the point, because it's one of his distant male descendants of the rabbinical calling who relates the tale. Once they're out of the garden, Adam has to work for a living. God, having thrown his little tantrum, wants to secure his precious Tree of Life. Once they're barred from the garden, they're on their own (and incidentally, can have sex and kids).

While those wanting to absolve themselves (man or woman) of any wrong will blame that lying snake.
These would presumably be Christians, because that's where original sin comes in, and the need for a redeemer. The Jews were not so self-contradictory.

God said, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (He's not talking to adults with free will; they don't know right from wrong yet; he's just scaring ignorant children. )
The serpent said
Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

And then:
the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

So, it was her decision; she's the one who desired wisdom. Adam gobbled up whatever she gave him, in all innocence. Or so he says. (She hasn't learned to cook yet; no bad boy has brought down the fire, and I don't think the bible deals with that pivotal event.)
And they didn't die - at least not until they were very, very old.
So who lied?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3109
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Eve and Pandora

Postby mitchellmckain on July 28th, 2018, 1:40 am 

Serpent » July 27th, 2018, 6:36 pm wrote:
mitchellmckain » July 27th, 2018, 6:12 pm wrote:With the Garden of Eden story, it is the reader who is laying the blame on the woman not the story itself. God punishes all three players in the drama, Adam, Eve, and the snake. The snake manipulates, Eve disobeys, and Adam blames everyone and everything but himself.

Adam blames Eve. That's the point, because it's one of his distant male descendants of the rabbinical calling who relates the tale. Once they're out of the garden, Adam has to work for a living. God, having thrown his little tantrum, wants to secure his precious Tree of Life. Once they're barred from the garden, they're on their own (and incidentally, can have sex and kids).

Thus the rabbi perpetuates the sin of Adam. The consequences fall quite logically from the choices made. Adam plays the blame game to avoid learning from his mistakes so God removes Himself from the equation and Adam is forced to learn that the consequences of his mistakes cannot be avoided no matter how much he chooses to throw blame around.

Serpent » July 27th, 2018, 6:36 pm wrote:
While those wanting to absolve themselves (man or woman) of any wrong will blame that lying snake.
These would presumably be Christians, because that's where original sin comes in, and the need for a redeemer. The Jews were not so self-contradictory.

The definition of Christianity doesn't require pointing the finger at the snake. Nor does the belief in a redeemer require this either. I am quite sure that self-contradiction can be found in equal measure among not only Christians and Jews but Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, and atheists also. It is unwise to paint any of these in such a singular manner. Whether they indulge in self-contradiction is more a function of lazy logic than particular religious beliefs.

Serpent » July 27th, 2018, 6:36 pm wrote:God said, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (He's not talking to adults with free will; they don't know right from wrong yet; he's just scaring ignorant children. )

Commands like "do not play in the street or you will die" are a natural function of parents in dealing with young children, when you most certainly do hope to scare them away from doing things which can kill them.

Serpent » July 27th, 2018, 6:36 pm wrote:The serpent said
Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


And thus the serpent exploits the complicated nature of life. In this case, the claim of the Bible that there is more than one kind of life, not to mention more than one way we can "be like God."

Serpent » July 27th, 2018, 6:36 pm wrote:And then:
the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

So, it was her decision; she's the one who desired wisdom.

It was a mistake, but it is easy to sympathize with her motivation. But the thing to do with mistakes is to learn from them.

Serpent » July 27th, 2018, 6:36 pm wrote: Adam gobbled up whatever she gave him, in all innocence. Or so he says. (She hasn't learned to cook yet; no bad boy has brought down the fire, and I don't think the bible deals with that pivotal event.)
And they didn't die - at least not until they were very, very old.
So who lied?

When a parent says "do not play in the street or you will die," I would not call that a lie. To do so would be to suggest that all elementary school science teachers are liars also. Throwing all the complications of life at a child all at once just isn't helpful. Instead we teach them on a need to know basis. What they needed to know at that stage was that certain actions would have dire consequences.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Eve and Pandora

Postby Serpent on July 28th, 2018, 3:07 am 

mitchellmckain » July 28th, 2018, 12:40 am wrote:Thus the rabbi perpetuates the sin of Adam. The consequences fall quite logically from the choices made.

Adam didn't make any choices. Technically, he didn't sin. Even if he knew what he was eating, he hadn't touched the forbidden tree.
Of course, a much more generous alternative explanation is that, realizing that his wife had fallen from grace by picking that fruit, he ate of it too, to share whatever retribution God would mete out.
He gets in one tiny defiant shot at God: "You gave her to me."
Adam plays the blame game

There is no blame game!
to avoid learning from his mistakes

You said this before, and I still don't see how it relates to this story. His only mistake was accepting a snack. What should he have learned? Don't eat anything you haven't been introduced to? And he didn't know any better. The crux of the whole thing, which Christians sweep under that vast bulky carpet of theirs, is that they didn't know good and evil. So how could they know they were sinning? It becomes wrong only after it's done, and only because it was done.
They're being held responsible for a decision (mistake, if you prefer) made when they didn't know right from wrong. A two-year-old, condemned for life, because he took a candy off the coffee-table.
Free will follows the fall. It's not given by God: he wanted them to stay ignorant/innocent/obedient.
They freed their own will by risking death. And that's very much the point of the myth: self-awareness, autonomy, and all the hardship that entails.

The definition of Christianity doesn't require pointing the finger at the snake.

Of course it does! They need an antagonist, a Darth Vader; the dark force who caused the doom from which their hero-god saves them.
Nor does the belief in a redeemer require this either.

What?? That's the basis of the whole cult! A sin so ancient and pervasive that only the sacrifice of a god will pay it off. Leviticus lays out all the sacrifices God demands for various routine sins. You need something really big, really spread around, to give purpose to Jesus.
I am quite sure that self-contradiction can be found in equal measure among not only Christians and Jews but Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, and atheists also.

I don't know about those others. In reading this particular book, I found the Old Testament reasonably straightforward, and Christian apologetics over the last 1200 or so years, convoluted.
It is unwise to paint any of these in such a singular manner. Whether they indulge in self-contradiction is more a function of lazy logic than particular religious beliefs.

I don't think it's a matter of logic. I very much doubt logic was ever deliberately applied to the mythologies of ancient peoples. Stories grew more or less organically, and then priests organized the beliefs into a system of commandments, tithes, holidays and sacrifices.
Nevertheless, the original stories represent the world-view of the people who told them and preserved them; they illustrate attitudes and relationships and insights from before written history.

Commands like "do not play in the street or you will die" are a natural function of parents in dealing with young children, when you most certainly do hope to scare them away from doing things which can kill them.

Sure. A car can certainly kill a child. However, understanding good and evil could not kill anyone.
This lie was not for the protection of the man and woman; it was to keep them from knowledge, which would prompt them to seek immortality.
It was a self-serving lie.

And thus the serpent exploits the complicated nature of life.

Exploits? What's in it for him? More like Prometheus, giving something of the gods' to man.
In this case, the claim of the Bible that there is more than one kind of life, not to mention more than one way we can "be like God."

Where? And how does it relate to this story?

It was a mistake, but it is easy to sympathize with her motivation.

A mistake, because... ? The alternative is to remain a great ape. Of course, that would probably have been the better course, but hominids didn't really make a conscious choice; they just kept evolving. Myths come after the fact, to explain how things might have come to be the way they are.
But the thing to do with mistakes is to learn from them.

What can you learn from this?
All ancient mythologies have stories about hubris: Don't aspire to be like the gods or you'll get a thumping. The human tragedy is that we cannot help but aspire, cannot help but inquire, cannot help but reach up.
This a lesson impossible to learn.

When a parent says "do not play in the street or you will die," I would not call that a lie.

Make excuses if you want. Parents lie, teachers lie, parsons lie, judges lie, presidents lie - all for your own protection. Okay.
There was no science or complication or danger in the Garden of Eden. God's little pets were expected to lie around all day - no chores, no lessons, no expectations.
For whatever reason, God lied; the serpent told the truth, but it's the serpent who is called a liar.
Transference, I suppose.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3109
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Eve and Pandora

Postby mitchellmckain on July 28th, 2018, 3:10 pm 

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:
mitchellmckain » July 28th, 2018, 12:40 am wrote:Thus the rabbi perpetuates the sin of Adam. The consequences fall quite logically from the choices made.

Adam didn't make any choices. Technically, he didn't sin. Even if he knew what he was eating, he hadn't touched the forbidden tree.

Of course he made choices aplenty. In particular, he chose blame God and Eve for everything.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:Of course, a much more generous alternative explanation is that, realizing that his wife had fallen from grace by picking that fruit, he ate of it too, to share whatever retribution God would mete out.
He gets in one tiny defiant shot at God: "You gave her to me."

That is stretching so far you are falling over backwards. His responses are not consistent with such an altruistic motivation. Is dishing out this kind of complete BS how you typically do things in life?

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:
Adam plays the blame game

There is no blame game!

Yeah... with some people I suppose this is such an ingrained habit that they cannot even distinguish blaming others for everything from simply breathing.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:
to avoid learning from his mistakes

You said this before, and I still don't see how it relates to this story. His only mistake was accepting a snack.

Making mistakes is natural. It is how we learn. But you cannot learn from mistakes if you do not even acknowledge that you made them. Blaming everyone else for what happens isn't helpful.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:What should he have learned?

How about... when you know there is something poisonous out there to make sure you know how to identify it so you don't eat it by mistake? Here is a nice epitath... "The moron ate the fruit which killed him because his wife gave it to him."

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:And he didn't know any better.

And... you will NEVER know any better if you do not learn. But you will not learn if you do not acknowledge your mistakes and try to learn from them.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:The crux of the whole thing, which Christians sweep under that vast bulky carpet of theirs, is that they didn't know good and evil.

Nonsense. We do not learn good from evil by eating fruits. Your literalism here is childish and I have the same criticism of Christians when they do this. And the story doesn't say anything of the kind. It never says that they are incapable of knowing right from wrong. It never says that only by eating the fruit can they know the difference. This is something you are adding to the story.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:So how could they know they were sinning?

What has that got to do with anything. God told them not to eat this fruit and said they would die if they did so. To claim they did not understand what God was saying to them is ridiculous.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote: It becomes wrong only after it's done, and only because it was done.

It wrong because there are dire consequences. That is why they were told not to do it.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:They're being held responsible for a decision (mistake, if you prefer) made when they didn't know right from wrong. A two-year-old, condemned for life, because he took a candy off the coffee-table.

It is the nature of life that we pay the consequences for our own actions. It is unavoidable. For a toddler we parents try to keep the dangerous things out of their reach. But if you keep on doing this they will remain a toddler for ever. Adam and Eve clearly were not toddlers. The next step towards getting them to be responsible for their own actions is to give them commands like "don't play in the street!" What kind of lame argument says they should not suffer from injuries when hit by a car because it isn't fair. Fairness has nothing to do with it.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:Free will follows the fall. It's not given by God: he wanted them to stay ignorant/innocent/obedient.
They freed their own will by risking death. And that's very much the point of the myth: self-awareness, autonomy, and all the hardship that entails.

Nonsense. Free will is inherent in the process of life. To be sure our free will grows as we grow and become more aware of the world and the possibilities. But if you keep making excuses and refuse to learn, then free will does not grow and can even diminish instead. These too are part of our responsibility as living learning beings. Diminished capacity due our own bad choices such as drinking and drugs is not an acceptable excuse.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:
The definition of Christianity doesn't require pointing the finger at the snake.

Of course it does! They need an antagonist, a Darth Vader; the dark force who caused the doom from which their hero-god saves them.

You can only mean that YOU need an antagonist, for you have no right to speak for others. Plenty choose not to believe in a devil -- that is quite common. I would in fact attribute this to another mistake by Adam and Eve in making the snake into their antagonist. It is another bad habit like that of blaming everyone else for things which go wrong.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:
Nor does the belief in a redeemer require this either.

What?? That's the basis of the whole cult! A sin so ancient and pervasive that only the sacrifice of a god will pay it off. Leviticus lays out all the sacrifices God demands for various routine sins. You need something really big, really spread around, to give purpose to Jesus.

The belief in a redeemer is central to Christianity. But the belief in a redeemer does not require a belief in an antagonist. Don't get me wrong. Just because it isn't necessary doesn't mean that I don't think there is one. The Bible identifies this snake as a fallen angel whom we name adversary "Satan" and the devil. I can credit the existence of such a being but I see no reason to credit the devil with either the existence of evil or responsibility for things which go wrong. Frankly I think mythology gives him goat-like features because he is a scapegoat and nothing more (i.e. another symptom of our own bad habits).

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:
I am quite sure that self-contradiction can be found in equal measure among not only Christians and Jews but Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, and atheists also.

I don't know about those others. In reading this particular book, I found the Old Testament reasonably straightforward, and Christian apologetics over the last 1200 or so years, convoluted.

Nah... Quantum Field theory is convoluted. The Bible is also complicated: sixty six books written by many different authors -- differnt types of literature with different intentions. It is no wonder that religious leaders like Mohammed and Joseph Smith wrote a replacement. But by contrast I find the apologetics of both Christians and atheists to be rather simple minded by comparison.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:
It is unwise to paint any of these in such a singular manner. Whether they indulge in self-contradiction is more a function of lazy logic than particular religious beliefs.

I don't think it's a matter of logic. I very much doubt logic was ever deliberately applied to the mythologies of ancient peoples. Stories grew more or less organically, and then priests organized the beliefs into a system of commandments, tithes, holidays and sacrifices.

Your doubt is like that of the creationists concerning evolution. It is nothing but willful blindness. The application of logic to religious belief is called theology. But no doubt you are as unwilling to face up to that reality as creationists are unwilling to look at the scientific evidence for evolution. They simply don't want there to be a scientific inquiry into the origin of the species, just as you don't want there to be any logic applied to religious beliefs. It is enough for more rational skeptics to simply stop at the simple fact that there is no objective evidence to support religious belief without this intolerant need to see it as irrational.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:Nevertheless, the original stories represent the world-view of the people who told them and preserved them; they illustrate attitudes and relationships and insights from before written history.

Apparently what you refuse to see is that people not only continue to preserve them but also to study them with the application of logic in theology. To be sure, you have every rational right to refuse their premise that there is any truth to the content beyond the metaphorical. But your need to see them as irrational only points to your own irrationality.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:
Commands like "do not play in the street or you will die" are a natural function of parents in dealing with young children, when you most certainly do hope to scare them away from doing things which can kill them.

Sure. A car can certainly kill a child. However, understanding good and evil could not kill anyone.
This lie was not for the protection of the man and woman; it was to keep them from knowledge, which would prompt them to seek immortality.
It was a self-serving lie.

How child-like of you to actually believe that knowledge of good and evil comes from eating a fruit. When we read fairy tales, such as The Scorpion and the Frog, wouldn't it be a bit silly to focus on the idea of the scorpion and frog being able to talk. That would be missing the whole point of the story. Well, it is just as much a fact of the world that we do not gain knowledge from eating fruit as the fact that frogs and scorpions do not talk. So your focus is just as silly.

Gaining knowledge, particularly of good and evil, comes by learning from our mistakes.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:
And thus the serpent exploits the complicated nature of life.

Exploits? What's in it for him? More like Prometheus, giving something of the gods' to man.

Frankly, I think he was just doing his job. Which was to supply challenges and stimulation which living things need in order to learn. He was an angel which the Bible says are servants by nature (i.e. tools frankly).

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:
In this case, the claim of the Bible that there is more than one kind of life, not to mention more than one way we can "be like God."

Where? And how does it relate to this story?

more than one kind of life: God says that on the day they eat of the fruit they will die, but they did not die in the usual physical sense. The is not the only place in the Bible which speaks of more than one kind of death. In Luke 9:60, Jesus says "Let the dead bury their own dead." And Ezekiel compares Israel to a valley of dried bones.
more than one way we can be like God: The serpent tells Eve that by eating the fruit she will become like God. People often focus on the power and authority of God and turn religion into a tool of power so they can use the idea of God to wield God-like authority. But Bible is constantly urging us to seek to be like God in a very different way -- caring about those in need (such as widows), defending those without defenders (orphans), doing what is right, correcting injustice and oppression, standing up for the truth, and serving people rather than lording over them.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:
It was a mistake, but it is easy to sympathize with her motivation.

A mistake, because... ? The alternative is to remain a great ape. Of course, that would probably have been the better course, but hominids didn't really make a conscious choice; they just kept evolving. Myths come after the fact, to explain how things might have come to be the way they are.

Your philosophy that eating a fruit changed us from apes into people is pretty lame. All the evidence point to only one difference between man and the animals and that is abstract language. It is because of this that we have a memetic inheritance as well as a genetic one. Thus if there is anything which made us more than apes it is not from eating a fruit but from ideas (like those God shared with Adam and Eve in the Garden, or which atheist believe to be learned on our own). Many myths originate in actual historical events, however much the facts are changed in the retelling of the story.

Regardless, whether it is biological or memetic, both learning processes are filled with choices and the evidence is all around you in the diversity of both species and cultures.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:
But the thing to do with mistakes is to learn from them.

What can you learn from this?
All ancient mythologies have stories about hubris: Don't aspire to be like the gods or you'll get a thumping. The human tragedy is that we cannot help but aspire, cannot help but inquire, cannot help but reach up.
This a lesson impossible to learn.

Incorrect. Only willfully ignorant ideology ignores all contrary facts to insist that everything fits the one pattern they choose to push. Not all myths are about hubris. The reason why this is a prevalent theme is rather obvious -- this is what is most useful to religions and societies demanding obedience to their dictates.

The myth of Santa Claus is not about hubris. The myth of King Arthur is not about hubris. The tooth fairy myth is not about hubris and the list goes on and on. Any effort to force these into this pattern is obvious attempt to push round pegs into square holes as is typical of the stubborn bludgeoning mentality of ideological morons.

Serpent » July 28th, 2018, 2:07 am wrote:
When a parent says "do not play in the street or you will die," I would not call that a lie.

Make excuses if you want. Parents lie, teachers lie, parsons lie, judges lie, presidents lie - all for your own protection. Okay.
There was no science or complication or danger in the Garden of Eden. God's little pets were expected to lie around all day - no chores, no lessons, no expectations.
For whatever reason, God lied; the serpent told the truth, but it's the serpent who is called a liar.
Transference, I suppose.

Your choice to see things in this way only tells us about you and nothing else.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Eve and Pandora

Postby Brent696 on July 28th, 2018, 10:18 pm 

Inrealtime87 » July 27th, 2018, 12:08 pm wrote:Considering both stories about the origins of what's called evil, why woman as the cause, and what's the difference between knowledge and hope in the context of the stories?


Adam and his wife, for she is not named until after the fall when the two enter this physical realm of toil and child birth, But Adam and his wife, as the parents of all the living, are metaphysical representations of the soul. Each soul knows two degrees of awareness, intellectually and emotionally, Adam represents the intellect and his wife the emotions.

All of us are faced with the tree of knowledge, the core of which is the idea that knowledge can change WHAT you are, but without going too far afield when we see Adam's wive as a conduit for evil entering the world, the metaphysical understanding the bible wishes to convey for those capable of hearing it, is knowledge of the self, the soul. Not knowledge as if to change but knowledge of how it functions in all of us.

That being said, you see something which is tempting to you, at first you desire it, this is your emotional nature. But still you have not acted, to act you need the intellects approval, so she turns and gives to her husband and he ate also, this is where sin manifest.

The emotions desire, then the mind if it follows the emotions, forms a justification. It looks good, make one wise, etc... this is the archetype why woman are not to rule over man, because emotions are not to rule over the intellect. In each human body, no matter the gender, each soul has a male and female nature, and within each of us reason should rule over emotion. When a husband and wife both are ruled by reason, there is harmony. Adam and his wife in the Garden teach us about ourselves rather than a past event.

Evil, ultimately is sourced from the nothingness from which we are all created, even the universe itself. All things in nature are consuming something else as energy is eating energy, sun eat hydrogen, we eat plants, when the universe extended up from the nothing, it maintains as it feeds off of itself.

This HUNGER manifest in us as sin, greed, lust, envy, all sin is hunger in one form or another, all seeking to consume something else. Because of Adam's wife, and most importantly because of Adams failure, so then souls had to take part in this physical experience of toil and struggle.

From here it should be easier to see how she coincides with Pandora as Pandora's curiosity brought about the end of the all male immortal golden age of reverence for the gods. But we should always be careful trying to merge different systems together as stories and the like are designed to transmit knowledge to us. The mythology of the Greeks is much more psychologically based than what is presented in the bible.
User avatar
Brent696
Member
 
Posts: 212
Joined: 12 Jul 2018
vivian maxine liked this post


Re: Eve and Pandora

Postby davidm on July 29th, 2018, 3:15 pm 

Brent696 » July 28th, 2018, 8:18 pm wrote:
Inrealtime87 » July 27th, 2018, 12:08 pm wrote:Considering both stories about the origins of what's called evil, why woman as the cause, and what's the difference between knowledge and hope in the context of the stories?


Adam and his wife, for she is not named until after the fall when the two enter this physical realm of toil and child birth, But Adam and his wife, as the parents of all the living, are metaphysical representations of the soul. Each soul knows two degrees of awareness, intellectually and emotionally, Adam represents the intellect and his wife the emotions.


This false dichotomy might be fine insofar as it reflects the mythology of Bronze-age goat herders, but it has jack-all to do with reality.

All of us are faced with the tree of knowledge, the core of which is the idea that knowledge can change WHAT you are, but without going too far afield when we see Adam's wive [sic] as a conduit for evil entering the world...


Of course! Women are evil!

That being said, you see something which is tempting to you, at first you desire it, this is your emotional nature. But still you have not acted, to act you need the intellects approval, so she turns and gives to her husband and he ate also, this is where sin manifest.


Nasty skanks.

The emotions desire, then the mind if it follows the emotions, forms a justification. It looks good, make one wise, etc... this is the archetype why woman are not to rule over man, because emotions are not to rule over the intellect.



Ha ha ha, can't even go on.

Why don't you take this nonsense to a forum for dummies?
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 387
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Eve and Pandora

Postby Braininvat on July 29th, 2018, 3:38 pm 

Well, I did move it to the religion forum. :-)

FYI, those of you who are more faith based, we didn't originally have a religion thread, given the general science orientation of the website. Then an admin created one (using a piece of his rib) so that flashpoints in biology and metaphysics (creationists and evolutionists flaming) could be shunted off to a venue where posts don't appear on the New Posts list and thus are less likely to instigate rioting.

I am usually more than happy to shut down threads where people talk past each other, or just blather on about their favorite fairy tale. You're in the philosophy forum, so bring some rigor.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6792
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Eve and Pandora

Postby mitchellmckain on July 31st, 2018, 12:04 pm 

This thread was comparing the story of Genesis and that of Pandora, which is first found in the writings of Hesiod (7th or 8th century BC), in poems "Theogony" and "Work and Days." The first poem is more highly misogynistic but it is the second which gives her the name Pandora. But the story was made more popular in a retelling by Enid Blyton in "Tales of Ancient Greece" 1930.

If you look for more misogyny in ancient myths you might also find the story of Lilith in the Midrash (Jewish writings) of 8-12th centuries AD. This tells the story of an earlier woman given to Adam before Eve, who refuses to accept male dominance, and on this is blamed her descent into a demonic level of evil.

There is certainly a common thread here in the demand for obedience not only of man to the dictates of the gods but also of women to the dictates of men. I find it all rather pathetic and wonder if this is to be blamed on exceptionally domineering women among the Jews and Greeks or upon a greater measure of insecurity in the men of these cultures. Or maybe this means nothing more than the existence of a few individuals with particularly bad experiences and grudges.

This caused me to search for the other end of the spectrum, looking for heroic women in comparative mythology. Certainly there is no lack of female deities in the pantheons of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Celt, German, Hindu, Persia, Arabia, Canaan, Babylonian, and the Aztecs. For myths of specifically human women (if the distinction between mythic gods and mythic humans is really of any significance) the search bears fruit in stories of warrior women among the Greeks and Norse particularly or else later in history which will bring you to the stories of Joan of Arc 14th century and Pocahontas in the 16th century. I suppose it just goes to show that some men (or cultures) in the past did have the cohones to admire strong women.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1327
Joined: 27 Oct 2016



Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests