Why was Adam exempt from the transgression when the transgression was

1. 57

   Gnostic Bishopposted 10 years ago

   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

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Righteous Atheistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Because this religion is made up nonsense?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Paul Wingertposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         

         replyreport
   2. 0

      Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      More evidence that it was fiction written by men to control women and slaves and to give it's men a sense of entitlement.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Well, if we are going to take the story literally; it appears to me that Adam was held more culpable. God cursed the snake through two verses. There was one verse where the woman was cursed and three verses where the man was.
      
      Sure, as women we find the curse on the woman offensive. But, to say that Adam was somehow exempt ignores the whole passage. The garden provided everything. It was a virtual paradise where all of their needs were met. All of that was taken away and it was put on Adam's shoulders to replace it, as best he could. And, it appears, the woman was relegated to the role of advising and then complaining when her voice was ignored. Kind of like God without the power to punish.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Gnostic Bishopposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Emaly
         
         You say all their needs were met. They were too stupid to even know they were naked.
         
         Is a proper education not a requirement for children?
         
         If so, why did God deny them the education from the tree of knowledge?
         
         Further, if God did not want A & E to eat of it, why put Satan there to insure Eve was deceived?
         
         Regards
         DL

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            This is funny. OK, I'll play.
            
            You do realize that we chose not to be naked? Why do we wear clothes? We wear them to protect ourselves from the elements. If we didn't have an initial need, would we have thought of them? We also wear them to cover ourselves; out of modesty. Had we no knowledge of sex would we have developed a need for modesty?  Seriously. That question posed implies that you aren't really thinking.
            
            As for the accusation that they were being denied an education; I don't know that the story implies that. The tree represented the knowledge of good and evil. Not knowledge. I can learn quite a few things that don't have anything to do with the subject of good and evil. A person can be innocent; yet learned.
            
            On the subject of the serpent. You got me. It's hard to imagine a talking snake. But, Eve did no wrong at that moment. She didn't have the knowledge of good and evil. Maybe, it isn't so much that they ate the fruit; it's more of a problem with how they reacted once they had eaten it. Once Eve's eyes were opened she chose to beguile Adam into eating. Also, even though she understood why the snake's actions were wrong she chose to emulate those wrong behavior patterns. Once Adam had eaten they both attempted to transfer blame; not taking responsibility for their actions.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               Gnostic Bishopposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               I see that as what man always does and Christianity caters to it by telling Christians they can just dump their responsibilities for their sins on a scapegoat Jesus.
               
               "As for the accusation that they were being denied an education; I don't know that the story implies that. The tree represented the knowledge of good and evil. Not knowledge. I can learn quite a few things that don't have anything to do with the subject of good and evil. A person can be innocent; yet learned."
               
               It has been sais that the tree of knowledge is the tree of almost all knowledge as almost all knowledge is subject to good and evil. I agree with that thought.
               
               Try to think of a few issues that are not subject to good and evil and you will likely agree or I will refute, if I can, whatever issues you come up with.
               
               Regards
               DL

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Seriously? Everything boils down to good and evil? That may be the problem in nut shell. Things don't boil down to good and evil. Not really. What you perceive as good, or evil, will be perceived the opposite from another point of view. Cosmically, do you think your perception would be accurate? Would mine? Even if we agreed?
                  
                  The need to attempt to label is our problem. We can't see the bigger picture. We can't fully understand our fellow man so many times these judgments are not only inaccurate, but they hurt others in the process of making them.
                  
                  If everything boils down to good and evil in your mind I doubt we could find a meeting of the minds.

                  replyreport
                  1. 57

                     Gnostic Bishopposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Yet you could not come up with anything that was not subject to good and evil.
                     
                     How do you expect to see a big picture when you cannot see a small piece of it?
                     
                     Regards
                     DL

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm not naming anything because it doesn't boil down to good and evil. How can I provide an example of something I believe to be a figment of your imagination?

                        replyreport
                        1. 57

                           Gnostic Bishopposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           No one said it boiled down to anything. The point is that alomost everything is subject to good and evil.
                           
                           I think I made my point.
                           
                           Regards
                           DL

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Emile Rposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              So it doesn't boil down to good or evil, but everything is subject to good or evil? How does one not equate to the other? You are still making a judgment call. The only point you've made is that you aren't capable of admitting you either don't have a clue or you are wrong.
                              
                              Either way, it is clear you aren't in it for an exchange of ideas, simply here to shove an opinion.
                              
                              Bye.

                              replyreport
                              1. 57

                                 Gnostic Bishopposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 Subject to is not the same as boils down to.
                                 
                                 Regards
                                 DL

                                 replyreport
   4. 70

      AshtonFireflyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting comment. I've never heard it observed from that angle before (e.g. that Adam was more guilty due to his lack of deception.)
      
      This first of all implies a literal understanding of this story, which seems to be somewhat debatable. But for clarity, let's assume that it's understood in the Christian circle to be a true story.
      
        If Adam was indeed the less deceived, I think the assumption there was that he must have been stronger or better equipped to deal with deception than Eve was, or that the "transgression" was getting deceived in the first place. This assumption seems biased, if you compare the story in Genesis with Paul's interpretation of it in the book of Timothy. The book of Timothy was discussing Paul's viewpoint on an old story. It seems safe to say that the male-centered, male-dominant culture of that time era (Paul's and before) influenced his interpretation of it. What would have happened if Paul had basically said that both man and woman were equally responsible? That would have put them on the same plane. That would have been a big no-no.   
        One other thing I wonder is this: if they had no knowledge of good or evil, how would they even know what being disobedient was, in order to avoid it? If they supposedly had no idea about the knowledge of good and evil, then how can they be punished and held accountable to a law of which they have no knowledge?

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Gnostic Bishopposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Ashton
         
         I do not believe or read this myth literally either.
         
         I do use a literal view to engage theists who believe it that way.
         
         You pose good questions and you and I, it seems, could tear this literal reading to shreds.
         
         You are correct in that putting A & E as equal would have been horrible to the early scribes, whoever they were. They, after all, were Jews who were allowed as many wives as they could afford.
         
         You do not give equality to chattel. Todays Jews are of course not as course as the ancient tribes.
         
         The, in fact, give women more than Christians and Muslims do.
         
         Regards
         DL

         replyreport
2. 57

   Gnostic Bishopposted 10 years ago

   2 reasonable replies thanks gents.
   
   I thought that women wold have more to say.
   
   Regards
   DL

   replyreport
3. 60

   Paul Wingertposted 10 years ago

   So you implying that Adam and Eve existed? Good one! Cute story even though it was stolen from an earlier religion.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Gnostic Bishopposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I agree but Christianity sure used this myth to their advantage against women.
      
      Regards
      DL

      replyreport