Thread: Why was Adam exempt from the transgression when the transgression was disobedience?

Why was Adam exempt from the transgression when the transgression was disobedience?

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

I think that Adam, not being deceived, was more culpable than Eve.

Why then did God favor the guiltiest, Adam, with, --- he shall rule over you?

Men rule over women? Why when men were not deceived but disobeyed?

What was the transgression, --- if not a wise decision to choose knowledge and wisdom and shun immortality of the flesh, --- even if that were possible, --- and why was Adan not punished as hard as Eve when he was clearly more guilty?

Regards
DL

God put a fruit near Adam and Eve and told them not to eat it although God knew that if they did eat it he would punish every person who ever lived after that. Putting it there was therefore the right thing to do. Adam and Even were the first humans, but if they hadn't eaten the fruit, none of the billions of humans that followed would have eaten one of those things. Adam and Eve had no knowledge of evil, yet they chose evil, knowing that it is evil to choose evil. They messed up, and that is why we wear clothes today.

That really happened.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

God put a fruit near Adam and Eve and told them not to eat it although God knew that if they did eat it he would punish every person who ever lived after that.

Oh my. Did he never read the scriptures?

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

Putting it there was therefore the right thing to do.

That makes no sense. Why place all those people in jeopardy? What is right about that?

Adam and Even were the first humans, but if they hadn't eaten the fruit, none of the billions of humans that followed would have eaten one of those things.

Quite easy when it is fruit we are talking about but it is not fruit. It is the knowledge of almost everything because almost everything is subject to good and evil.

So are you saying we billions of intelligent humans should be as stupid as E & E were before they ate of knowledge?

They were even too stupid to know they were naked.

Adam and Eve had no knowledge of evil, yet they chose evil, knowing that it is evil to choose evil.

Well that sounds stupid. Care to re-write it?

They messed up, and that is why we wear clothes today.

That really happened.

Ah. You have been pulling my leg. How droll. Not.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by DeviantThinker

Because Eve and hence all women are just deformed ribs?

That Adam can't seem to do anything right. No wonder Eve took charge and did the right thing.

It is good to become as Gods.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by snoop

Eve also knew as well as Adam that they were not to eat the fruit. However, not only did she disobey God and eat the fruit, like Adam, but she actually convinced Adam to do it too (believing a snake's word over the word of God). That's two transgressions versus one. Whether or not you want to argue that the disobedience should have been punishable as well is something in its own right, but your argument that Eve was less guilty than Adam is wrong. Eve committed an additional transgression, Adam only committed one.

Read that quote again. Eve was deceived and was not charged with disobedience. God said she was deceived.
Sorry to screw up your math. Why do you think God put Satan right there with Eve?

Adam then disobeyed and Eve did not so why did God reward Adam with dominion over Eve?

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Alric

It is because the bible was written in a male dominate society that saw woman as little more than slaves, so of course that will be reflected in their writing.

Exactly right. Religions tend to reflect the society that creates that particular God.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

^ Which is also because this:



From this article: SHAME, THE ARAB PSYCHE, AND ISLAM

And of course, I realize the article is focused on Islam, not Judeo-Christianity, but they did develop in the same basic region from the same kind of cultures.

True and that looks like a find worth the read. Thanks.

Regards
DL

Because Eve and hence all women are just deformed ribs?

Eve also knew as well as Adam that they were not to eat the fruit. However, not only did she disobey God and eat the fruit, like Adam, but she actually convinced Adam to do it too (believing a snake's word over the word of God). That's two transgressions versus one. Whether or not you want to argue that the disobedience should have been punishable as well is something in its own right, but your argument that Eve was less guilty than Adam is wrong. Eve committed an additional transgression, Adam only committed one.

It is because the bible was written in a male dominate society that saw woman as little more than slaves, so of course that will be reflected in their writing.

^ Which is also because this:

When a culture determines that the avoidance of shame is necessary no matter what the cost, the result is a culture of fanaticism, bizarre behavior in the name of "honor"; and simultaneously the cultural oppression, subjugation, and humiliation of women and others perceived as "weak" (and therefore "shameful"). It also inevitably results in the projection of one's own unacceptable behavior and shameful feelings onto another individual or an outside group.

From this article: SHAME, THE ARAB PSYCHE, AND ISLAM

And of course, I realize the article is focused on Islam, not Judeo-Christianity, but they did develop in the same basic region from the same kind of cultures.

Originally Posted by Gnostic

Why was Adam exempt from the transgression when the transgression was disobedience?

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

I think that Adam, not being deceived, was more culpable than Eve.

Why then did God favor the guiltiest, Adam, with, --- he shall rule over you?

Men rule over women? Why when men were not deceived but disobeyed?

What was the transgression, --- if not a wise decision to choose knowledge and wisdom and shun immortality of the flesh, --- even if that were possible, --- and why was Adan not punished as hard as Eve when he was clearly more guilty?

Regards
DL

Because the Bible was written by men. So it was convenient to them to excuse themselves.

Originally Posted by kadie

Because the Bible was written by men. So it was convenient to them to excuse themselves.

Wow!! It sounds like you're trying to say all men are misogynists. I hope that's not what you meant - I hope it was something more along the lines of what Alric wrote.

IN fact though I'll go one farther than anyone has yet - I think not only is it to put all the blame on Eve and make Adam come off blameless, but I think it was to imply that all men are blameless and all women can be deceitful and treacherous, therefore men need to watch them closely.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Wow!! It sounds like you're trying to say all men are misogynists. I hope that's not what you meant - I hope it was something more along the lines of what Alric wrote.

IN fact though I'll go one farther than anyone has yet - I think not only is it to put all the blame on Eve and make Adam come off blameless, but I think it was to imply that all men are blameless and all women can be deceitful and treacherous, therefore men need to watch them closely.

Don't look at me like that! Lol...I figure that 2000+ years ago that was the way things were. BTW...have you ever seen me post something emasculating?

Somehow I posted this to my DJ by accident earlier...

Originally Posted by kadie

Because the Bible was written by men. So it was convenient to them to excuse themselves.

Quite politically correct and correct.

That and make sure women were and are second class citizens by denying women equality.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Gnostic, I have some free knowledge for you. Please teach it to the millions of other people on the internet who are not familiar with it.

sat·ire
ˈsaˌtīr/
noun
noun: satire

the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
synonyms: mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature;
irony, sarcasm
"he has become the subject of satire"
a play, novel, film, or other work that uses satire.
plural noun: satires
"a stinging satire on American politics"
synonyms: parody, burlesque, caricature, lampoon, skit;
informalspoof, takeoff, sendup
"a satire on Canadian politics"
a genre of literature characterized by the use of satire.

One must know how to use such things and most do not have the writing skills to pull it off.

Just so you know Ace.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by Gnostic

One must know how to use such things and most do not have the writing skills to pull it off.

Just so you know Ace.

Regards
DL

Oh, of course that was the problem. What I wrote wasn't absurd enough, and I forgot to illustrate blatant contradictions. At least you learned something today.

the-more-you-know-1.jpg

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Oh, of course that was the problem. What I wrote wasn't absurd enough, and I forgot to illustrate blatant contradictions. At least you learned something today.

the-more-you-know-1.jpg

Yes, I learned that there are at least two of us who do not know what you are talking about.

Try English and KIS. You seem to be confusing yourself and possible at least 2 others.

Regards
DL

Originally Posted by kadie

Because he was referring to my comment I believe. Although I could be wrong, it seemed as though you were calling my comment into question as well.

He addressed both of us. I accidentally quoted where he addressed you. It's fixed now. Get some help with those straying eyes. I was never rude to you. Attempt to be decent.

Originally Posted by Gnostic

Yes, I learned that there are at least two of us who do not know what you are talking about.

Try English and KIS. You seem to be confusing yourself and possible at least 2 others.

Regards
DL

I used satire, and it went past you. I defined satire, and you acted like a child. I think it's past your bed time.

Gnostic, I have some free knowledge for you. Please teach it to the millions of other people on the internet who are not familiar with it.

sat·ire
ˈsaˌtīr/
noun
noun: satire

the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
synonyms: mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature;
irony, sarcasm
"he has become the subject of satire"
a play, novel, film, or other work that uses satire.
plural noun: satires
"a stinging satire on American politics"
synonyms: parody, burlesque, caricature, lampoon, skit;
informalspoof, takeoff, sendup
"a satire on Canadian politics"
a genre of literature characterized by the use of satire.

Lol ok, just checking.

In the myth, Adam was perhaps millions of years old before he was put to sleep and Eve was brought to him.

Genesis 2

18 And the LORD God said,*It is*not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an helpmeet for him.

19*And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought*them*unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that*was*the name thereof.

20*And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21*And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22*And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Adam would have gotten to know and love all those creatures, much more than any human, (that ever loved a pet) since. He would have gotten to know, what he named, even more deeply than Sir David Attenborough allows us to get to know the amimals around today.

Watch "Sir David Attenborough on God" on YouTube
Sir David Attenborough on God: Sir David Attenborough on God - YouTube (5:16) 99,830 views

Originally Posted by Gnostic

Why was Adam exempt from the transgression when the transgression was disobedience?

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

I think that Adam, not being deceived, was more culpable than Eve.

Why then did God favor the guiltiest, Adam, with, --- he shall rule over you?

Men rule over women? Why when men were not deceived but disobeyed?

What was the transgression, --- if not a wise decision to choose knowledge and wisdom and shun immortality of the flesh, --- even if that were possible, --- and why was Adan not punished as hard as Eve when he was clearly more guilty?

Regards
DL

^ Huh? Are you referring to Gnostics comment or mine or both?

Originally Posted by kadie

^ Huh? Are you referring to Gnostics comment or mine or both?

Ha ha, why do you think I might have been referring to your comment? I quoted Gnostic.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Ha ha, why do you think I might have been referring to your comment? I quoted Gnostic.

Because he was referring to my comment I believe. Although I could be wrong, it seemed as though you were calling my comment into question as well.

Jesus was nothing like Saint Paul.

When Christians search through the words of Jesus in the Gospels; Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they are often astounded by what Jesus NEVER said. Saint Paul said a lot of things that Jesus never said.

For instance, Jesus NEVER spoke about (or against) same-sex-attracted.

Also, Jesus had/has a VERY high opinion of women.

★★★

Dr Ben Witherington: Jesus and Women: Dr Ben Witherington: Jesus and Women - YouTube

★★♡(8 minutes) 2738 views

lol...they are rolling eyes...like OMG do I really have to explain it? Ptsh
No worries.

Originally Posted by kadie

lol...they are rolling eyes...like OMG do I really have to explain it? Ptsh
No worries.

I know. That's what I addressed.

Let's move along gentlemen.

Regards
DL