Does Eve know God more than Adam?

[Greatest I am]

Does Eve know God more than Adam?

Genesis tells us that to know good and evil is to know God.
To be as Gods, knowing good and evil.
Since Eve received the first lesson, does this mean that she learned faster than Adam?
Could this be why today, there are more men studying religion than women?
Men rule the world and make it an ugly place. Would women, because they know more of God than men, do a better job of ruling?
Is it just because we are physically stronger than women, that we rule or is it women that have not exercised their greater wisdom and taken control?
In one sense we are all trained by women, at least when young children. Why do they stop teaching us?
Would it be better if they did not stop or is it a case of them not doing a good job with the young and reaping the ugly result later?
I am rather confused by the whole thing and need enlightenment.
Who is closer to God?
Who should lead?
Who is better suited to lead?
Do men have more to learn and is this why most posters and searchers here are men?

Regards
DL

[CFLarsen]

[SIZE=2]Does Eve know God more than Adam?

What, in a Biblical sense.....?

[-Fran-]

You need not ponder this question anymore since god, most likely, does not exist, and Adam & Eve is just a story.

[Greatest I am]

What, in a Biblical sense.....?

In all senses.

Regards
DL

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Does Eve know God more than Adam?

Genesis tells us that to know good and evil is to know God.
To be as Gods, knowing good and evil.
Since Eve received the first lesson, does this mean that she learned faster than Adam?


Yes, absolutely. Oh and snakes can talk. Oh and so can donkeys. Oh and unicorns are real.

LLH

[Darat]

Only invisible pink ones!

[JoeEllison]

When you get an answer to that one, maybe you should start a thread about why Humpty Dumpty would climb up on a wall, knowing full well that if he fell he couldn't be put back together, and if his suicidal act had its roots in mental illness?

[LordoftheLeftHand]

When you get an answer to that one, maybe you should start a thread about why Humpty Dumpty would climb up on a wall, knowing full well that if he fell he couldn't be put back together, and if his suicidal act had its roots in mental illness?

How about the social and economic ramification of a family of pigs building different homes of various building materials? Followed by the deliberate and systematic destruction of fully 2/3rds of these homes by an enrage lupine?

LLH

[linusrichard]

Why assume that women would do a better job of ruling because they know more of God? The God of the Bible rules through genocide and torture. If I were lunatic enough to believe that women were more likely to rule like the God of the Bible, I would never vote for a woman ever again.

[thatguywhojuggles]

What Fran said.

[CFLarsen]

In all senses.

Do you even know what "in a Biblical sense (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/but+not+in+the+biblical+sense)" means?

Well, now that you do, could you explain how Eve had sex with God?

[Lisa Simpson]

Do you even know what "in a Biblical sense (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/but+not+in+the+biblical+sense)" means?

Well, now that you do, could you explain how Eve had sex with God?

The same way Mary did?

[CFLarsen]

The same way Mary did?

Technically, that was the Holy Spirit.

[Lisa Simpson]

Technically, that was the Holy Spirit.

Jack Daniels?

[Elizabeth I]

What, in a Biblical sense.....?

Tee hee.

[CFLarsen]

Jack Daniels?

That's Unholy Spirit.

[Greatest I am]

Why assume that women would do a better job of ruling because they know more of God? The God of the Bible rules through genocide and torture. If I were lunatic enough to believe that women were more likely to rule like the God of the Bible, I would never vote for a woman ever again.

Why do you think they would rule like the god of the bible?
Is that not the way men have done it. Hitler, genocide, Genghis Khan, genocide etc.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Too many here have too little lives.

Regards
DL

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Too many here have too little lives.

Regards
DL


Damn right! However, I've just received an e-mail that promises a "natural way" I can have mine enlarged. :eye-poppi

[linusrichard]

Why do you think they would rule like the god of the bible?
Is that not the way men have done it. Hitler, genocide, Genghis Khan, genocide etc.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. As cruel as men have been, they don't approach the cruelty of the God of the Bible. If we accept the proposition that women have greater knowledge of the God of the Bible, it is logical to think that they would be crueler rulers than men. (But I don't accept that proposition.)
Too many here have too little lives.

...says the guy who wrote the wacky OP in the first place.

[Tumblehome]

Yeah, God always liked Eve better. --Adam Smothers

[bobhope2112]

Technically, that was the Holy Spirit.
Jack Daniels?
Manischewitz.

[Jackalgirl]

Does Eve know God more than Adam?
<other words>

Frankly, I think that gender stereotypes are damaging, regardless of which direction in which they go. Thinking that women are inherently superior as leaders is as damaging as thinking that they are inherently inferior. Women are people, and leadership involves a broader spectrum of methods of understanding, manipulation, diplomacy, and persuasion than is covered by any simple stereotype. Some people are good at it, some people are not, and though it does have something to do with gender (IMO), for the larger part being a good leader has very little to do with it.

Life is very complicated. It can't be distilled into simple & easy truths, as hard as some religions try to make it seem that that is the case. In fact, when I hear someone of a religious persuasion trying to make the case that, say, the Bible has simple & easy truths, it makes me almost certain that what's being presented is absolutely not true.

[Greatest I am]

I don't think you get what I'm saying. As cruel as men have been, they don't approach the cruelty of the God of the Bible. If we accept the proposition that women have greater knowledge of the God of the Bible, it is logical to think that they would be crueler rulers than men. (But I don't accept that proposition.)

...says the guy who wrote the wacky OP in the first place.

I will not comment on wacky.

I always thought though that women were gentler and kinder. They sure seem to fight less than men.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Frankly, I think that gender stereotypes are damaging, regardless of which direction in which they go. Thinking that women are inherently superior as leaders is as damaging as thinking that they are inherently inferior. Women are people, and leadership involves a broader spectrum of methods of understanding, manipulation, diplomacy, and persuasion than is covered by any simple stereotype. Some people are good at it, some people are not, and though it does have something to do with gender (IMO), for the larger part being a good leader has very little to do with it.

Life is very complicated. It can't be distilled into simple & easy truths, as hard as some religions try to make it seem that that is the case. In fact, when I hear someone of a religious persuasion trying to make the case that, say, the Bible has simple & easy truths, it makes me almost certain that what's being presented is absolutely not true.

You have confused me.
You say that gender does not matter and then you say “and though it does have something to do with gender (IMO),”
Make up your mind and let me know where you land.
You might consider that if things are bad and women have never lead then we don’t know if they would do better or not. We just know that men have failed.

Regards
DL

[JoeEllison]

I will not comment on wacky.

I always thought though that women were gentler and kinder. They sure seem to fight less than men.

Regards
DL

You don't know much about women.

[KingMerv00]

You don't know much about women.

To be fair, he is kinda right. Women are far less likely to commit violent crimes.

[KingMerv00]

Well, now that you do, could you explain how Eve had sex with God?

How could she not? God IS everywhere.

God screws you every day of your life.

[JoeEllison]

To be fair, he is kinda right. Women are far less likely to commit violent crimes.
Maybe... but the "gentler and kinder" part is horsecrap. Women are EVIL. :D

[juniper_ann]

I will not comment on wacky.

I always thought though that women were gentler and kinder. They sure seem to fight less than men.

Regards
DL

The average woman is not as physically violent as the average man, but is equally capable of inflicting stress.

Here is an article on female aggression. It's rather long, but seems (to a layman like me) pretty accessible, well-researched, and (I think) interesting.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_n3-4_v30/ai_15383471

[Jackalgirl]

You have confused me.
You say that gender does not matter and then you say “and though it does have something to do with gender (IMO),”
Make up your mind and let me know where you land.
You might consider that if things are bad and women have never lead then we don’t know if they would do better or not. We just know that men have failed.

Regards
DL

I never said "gender doesn't matter". I said gender stereotypes are damaging. Gender is a factor in leadership, but not an important one (i.e., culture has an influence in how genders deal with members of the same, and opposite, gender). What's more important is understanding that people are people, and that there are many ways to lead; being able to distinguish the best way for the situation at hand, and the skill of doing so, are not inherently natural to either gender.

Your statement that "women have never lead" is patently untrue. There have been, and will continue to be, a large number of women in leadership positions of a variety of types (although I am not suggesting that this number is at parity with the number of men in leadership positions). Also, there are a number of cultures in which the gender role for women involves playing a formidable role in leadership. Perhaps some cross-cultural studies might help you out.

Lastly, I do not accept your blanket statement that "men have failed". Men have failed in what situation, exactly? What are your criteria for defining failure?

[Ladewig]

[SIZE=2]
Since Eve received the first lesson, does this mean that she learned faster than Adam?


The whole post is kind of strange, but this question is the one I cannot get past. If Eve ate the fruit of the tree and then told Adam to eat the fruit, why would you even bring up the idea that she learned faster? First ≠ fastest.

[Jackalgirl]

GIA, I'm also curious -- what were you expecting when you posted this thread, and where did you ultimately want it to lead?

Were you thinking, "I have this important point to make about how women should lead instead of men because of my interpretation of the Bible"? If so, why post it here, where the majority of the people do not accept the Bible as any kind of authoritative document?

Were you thinking, "People will agree that women are naturally better leaders* than men, and therefore this will prove, through my interpretation, that the Bible is an authoritative document"? If so, I think it's pretty clear that there is a great deal of disagreement as to your first (assumed) assumption.

If it's neither of these, what did you envision this thread concluding?

*I'm making the assumption that you are going with the old stereotype that women are somehow more peaceful than men, and that if women were in charge of the world, there would be no war. Again, patently untrue. But if that assumption is untrue, do let us know what you mean.

[CFLarsen]

How could she not? God IS everywhere.

God screws you every day of your life.

She's allowed to.

[Greatest I am]

I never said "gender doesn't matter". I said gender stereotypes are damaging. Gender is a factor in leadership, but not an important one (i.e., culture has an influence in how genders deal with members of the same, and opposite, gender). What's more important is understanding that people are people, and that there are many ways to lead; being able to distinguish the best way for the situation at hand, and the skill of doing so, are not inherently natural to either gender.

Your statement that "women have never lead" is patently untrue. There have been, and will continue to be, a large number of women in leadership positions of a variety of types (although I am not suggesting that this number is at parity with the number of men in leadership positions). Also, there are a number of cultures in which the gender role for women involves playing a formidable role in leadership. Perhaps some cross-cultural studies might help you out.

Lastly, I do not accept your blanket statement that "men have failed". Men have failed in what situation, exactly? What are your criteria for defining failure?


My criteria is the state of the world and the fact that we have not improved our systems in 3000 years.
All that was said of society then can be said now.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The whole post is kind of strange, but this question is the one I cannot get past. If Eve ate the fruit of the tree and then told Adam to eat the fruit, why would you even bring up the idea that she learned faster? First ≠ fastest.

She was either more curious, smarter or more adventuresome.
Adam was too happy sitting there naming animals.
If Eve was to be the helpmeet then She was.
She helped us get out of the garden of ignorance and leads us towards God.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

GIA, I'm also curious -- what were you expecting when you posted this thread, and where did you ultimately want it to lead?

Were you thinking, "I have this important point to make about how women should lead instead of men because of my interpretation of the Bible"? If so, why post it here, where the majority of the people do not accept the Bible as any kind of authoritative document?

Were you thinking, "People will agree that women are naturally better leaders* than men, and therefore this will prove, through my interpretation, that the Bible is an authoritative document"? If so, I think it's pretty clear that there is a great deal of disagreement as to your first (assumed) assumption.

If it's neither of these, what did you envision this thread concluding?

*I'm making the assumption that you are going with the old stereotype that women are somehow more peaceful than men, and that if women were in charge of the world, there would be no war. Again, patently untrue. But if that assumption is untrue, do let us know what you mean.

I have no agenda. Just a curious mind.
I don’t see how you can think that women would not do better than men.
Women have never had the chance to lead so we do not know what would happen. I don’t particularly like what men have done and think that women should be given a chance to show what they can do.

Regards
DL

[CFLarsen]

My criteria is the state of the world and the fact that we have not improved our systems in 3000 years.
All that was said of society then can be said now.

Regards
DL


You want to live without antibiotics?

Really?

[Greatest I am]

You want to live without antibiotics?

Really?

Spider web has existed even longer than 3000 years.
Medicin even longer but I was speaking more of our mental, societal condition.

Regards
DL

[Furi]

My criteria is the state of the world and the fact that we have not improved our systems in 3000 years.
All that was said of society then can be said now.

Regards
DL


I might have said about 1700 years or thereabouts, kind of put a spoke in the wheel and created stereotypical frameworks, gender blame, raised the ideology of ignorance so as to protect the ruler/priest caste you know that ebul sort of social stunting.

[Ladewig]

My criteria is the state of the world and the fact that we have not improved our systems in 3000 years.
All that was said of society then can be said now.

Regards
DL


So Western Democracies outlawing slavery, child labor, and honor killings count for zilch in your worldview. Laws ensuring equal rights for women and minorities are for nought in your opinion. The right to trial by jury, the right to appeal unjust imprisonment, and the right to examine the evidence and witnesses in a trial that has carefully spelled out rules is bupkis to you. Laws limiting the power of kings and royalty aren't worth squat. The revolutionary idea that all men are created equal is not worth mentioning in a discussion of societal advances in the past 3000 years.

Wow! I have in my mind a description of your critical reasoning skills. I will not post that opinion.

[CFLarsen]

Spider web has existed even longer than 3000 years.

What are you talking about??

[Greatest I am]

So Western Democracies outlawing slavery, child labor, and honor killings count for zilch in your worldview. Laws ensuring equal rights for women and minorities are for nought in your opinion. The right to trial by jury, the right to appeal unjust imprisonment, and the right to examine the evidence and witnesses in a trial that has carefully spelled out rules is bupkis to you. Laws limiting the power of kings and royalty aren't worth squat. The revolutionary idea that all men are created equal is not worth mentioning in a discussion of societal advances in the past 3000 years.

Wow! I have in my mind a description of your critical reasoning skills. I will not post that opinion.

All the woes that you mention still exist in the world. Think globally. I meant my statement to be applied to the world.
The ideals that you mention also existed way back when depending at where in the world you look. Democracy for instance was invented a long time ago. I have forgoten the year but Socrates would remember.

Name one injustice that we have eliminated and I may change my view.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

What are you talking about??

Bush men have been using natural antbiotics for thosands of years.

Not much new under the sun.

regards
DL

[Ladewig]

All the woes that you mention still exist in the world. Think globally. I meant my statement to be applied to the world.
The ideals that you mention also existed way back when depending at where in the world you look. Democracy for instance was invented a long time ago. I have forgoten the year but Socrates would remember.

Name one injustice that we have eliminated and I may change my view.

Regards
DL

No modern society practices human sacrifice.

No 21st century country is ruled by a king who has the right to murder anyone with immunity.

Slavery is outlawed by every country.

As for the other advances, if the vast majority of people in the world have the right to a fair trial, isn't that considered an advance?

[Jackalgirl]

My criteria is the state of the world and the fact that we have not improved our systems in 3000 years.
All that was said of society then can be said now.

Regards
DL


I'm afraid you haven't really answered my question. "State of the world" is very broad and very vague. In fact, I imagine you would have a problem trying to find a consensus on what the "state of the world" actually is. When you say "our systems", who do you mean by "our"? What systems are you talking about, specifically? What are your criteria for improvement? Which society are you talking about?

For example, I would say that the state of medicine and medical advances have improved immeasurably over the past 3000 years, all across the world. Obviously, some places have done better than others. But for the most part, the average lifespan of human beings has definitely improved (in my definition of "improvement" = "lengthen") in the past 3000 years. Science has improved. Our ability, as a world, to communicate, has improved. The fact that -- in first world countries, at least -- the idea that physical violence is (for the most part; this is a generalization) considered to be abnormal, is a significant change in human values that I for one consider to be pretty positive.

You're making really vague statements here. Can't you be more specific?

[Jackalgirl]

I have no agenda. Just a curious mind.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. You clearly think that women would lead, somehow, in a more competent fashion than men. Did you expect everyone to agree?


I don’t see how you can think that women would not do better than men.
Women have never had the chance to lead so we do not know what would happen.

Again, I think that what you are saying here is patently untrue. Women HAVE had the chance to lead, on numerous occassions. Not at anywhere near parity with the opportunities for men, but to say that women have never had the chance to lead simply points out that you have no knowledge of history.


I don’t particularly like what men have done and think that women should be given a chance to show what they can do.

That is your opinion, which of course it is your right to hold. I, on the other hand, think that the person who is most qualified to lead should be the one to do it, and I do not think that that gender is a qualification. We shall simply have to agree to disagree.

[CFLarsen]

Bush men have been using natural antbiotics for thosands of years.

Not much new under the sun.

Wrong.

It isn't used because of its antibiotics characteristics. It is used because it is stronger than steel and isn't rejected by the body.

5. Biological Testing

Very few studies of biological testing of spider silk have been done in a rigorous manner. There is a large body of folklore concerning the antibiotic, wound-healing, and clot-inducing activity of spider webs. However, much of that lore has not been seriously tested. There are two recent publications that deal with the response of animals to implantation of natural spider silks.58,59 Both of these publications show that the natural spider silks do not induce an immune response whether implanted subcutaneously or intramuscularly in rats, mice, or pigs. In addition, the Vadlamudi paper shows that the spider silks tested show no antibiotic activity toward several bacteria and that the tensile strength shows no changes after 90 days of incubation in rat plasma.

In unpublished studies of ours conducted with U.S. Surgical the findings of these two papers were reinforced. Their studies showed no tissue reaction greater than the bare polyethylene rod control that the silk was wrapped around for implantation. In a curious finding, with the 10 male rats there was a lower tissue response to the wrapped rod than the control rod that was not seen in the female rats. This is likely a statistical fluke but further emphasizes the benign nature of the implanted spider silks.
American Chemical Society: Spider Silk: Ancient Ideas for New Biomaterials (http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/chreay/2006/106/i09/html/cr010194g.html#tcrx4)


More at:

The Royal College of Surgeons of England (http://www.rcseng.ac.uk/events/events-archive/event.2007-02-22.8140592742)

Do you understand that you are wrong?

[Greatest I am]

No modern society practices human sacrifice.

No 21st century country is ruled by a king who has the right to murder anyone with immunity.

Slavery is outlawed by every country.

As for the other advances, if the vast majority of people in the world have the right to a fair trial, isn't that considered an advance?

Not to get too semantic but what is the death penalty if not a sacrifice to the political master or god of that country.
Many political masters do kill with impunity. Some legally some not so legally.
Slavery may be outlawed but since the practice continues in a healthy state we can say that the law is ignored or not enforced equally everywhere.
We have made advances, no doubt but to say that we have eliminated any woes would I think be wrong.
Giving lip service or enacting laws that we do not follow does not eliminate anything. It just makes us fell better.
Even in a so called civilized country like yours and mine sex slaves, for an example, can still be bought.
Like it or not all the original woes are still here with us. Let’s not close our eyes to them or we will never get rid of them.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I'm afraid you haven't really answered my question. "State of the world" is very broad and very vague. In fact, I imagine you would have a problem trying to find a consensus on what the "state of the world" actually is. When you say "our systems", who do you mean by "our"? What systems are you talking about, specifically? What are your criteria for improvement? Which society are you talking about?

For example, I would say that the state of medicine and medical advances have improved immeasurably over the past 3000 years, all across the world. Obviously, some places have done better than others. But for the most part, the average lifespan of human beings has definitely improved (in my definition of "improvement" = "lengthen") in the past 3000 years. Science has improved. Our ability, as a world, to communicate, has improved. The fact that -- in first world countries, at least -- the idea that physical violence is (for the most part; this is a generalization) considered to be abnormal, is a significant change in human values that I for one consider to be pretty positive.

You're making really vague statements here. Can't you be more specific?

I try to think as a world citizen and include e all the world when I write.
There is no doubt that the sciences have improved.
My remarks though were directed more to the moral, ethical and or religious side of things.
I do like to speak to specific though. State a question and I will do my best.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Wrong.

It isn't used because of its antibiotics characteristics. It is used because it is stronger than steel and isn't rejected by the body.



More at:

The Royal College of Surgeons of England (http://www.rcseng.ac.uk/events/events-archive/event.2007-02-22.8140592742)

Do you understand that you are wrong?

As you may have noted, most of what I write pertains to morals, ethics and religious or philosophical issues.

I really am not into medicine.
If my poor memory was incorrect I gladly bow to your superior knowledge of pharmaceuticals.

Regards
DL

[CFLarsen]

As you may have noted, most of what I write pertains to morals, ethics and religious or philosophical issues.

I really am not into medicine.
If my poor memory was incorrect I gladly bow to your superior knowledge of pharmaceuticals.

Regards
DL


Very well: What was so morally and ethically superior about societies 3000 years ago?

[Ladewig]

Not to get too semantic but what is the death penalty if not a sacrifice to the political master or god of that country.

I think that is an absurd anaolgy
Many political masters do kill with impunity. Some legally some not so legally.
Slavery may be outlawed but since the practice continues in a healthy state we can say that the law is ignored or not enforced equally everywhere.
We have made advances, no doubt but to say that we have eliminated any woes would I think be wrong.
Giving lip service or enacting laws that we do not follow does not eliminate anything. It just makes us fell better.
Even in a so called civilized country like yours and mine sex slaves, for an example, can still be bought.

I am amazed that you are saying that sex slaves can be bought in the United States. The number of instances is so small that it can be effectively stated that slavery has been eliminated. There are harsh penalties for people engaging in human trafficing.

If 99.9999 % of all members in a society and 100% of all the leaders of a society condemn an activity, then progress has been made.


Like it or not all the original woes are still here with us. Let’s not close our eyes to them or we will never get rid of them.

Regards
DL



You are redefining all ideas in an effort to show that there is no progess. Is there a reason you are doing this? Is there a point you are trying to make?

[Jackalgirl]

I try to think as a world citizen and include e all the world when I write.
There is no doubt that the sciences have improved.
My remarks though were directed more to the moral, ethical and or religious side of things.
I do like to speak to specific though. State a question and I will do my best.

Regards
DL


I have already asked several questions, the gist of all of which is that you be specific. If you're going to make statements so general that they're capable of talking about the entire world, you really can't expect to come up with any real answers. People -- culture, morals, ethics, etc. are not homogenous. Therefore, there is no one solution and all of your discussion is so vague as to be pointless.

Also, I reiterate that you need to do some studying of history (and most especially cultural anthropology) if you really are interested in coming up with viable solutions for various specific problems. You really need to know what you're talking about, and it's clear that you do not.

[halofish2000]

Did Eve "know" the serpent in the Biblical sense? " as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety" 2Cor11:3

[Greatest I am]

Very well: What was so morally and ethically superior about societies 3000 years ago?

I don't recall saying they were superior.


In fact I see us arguing and debating the same issues that they had back then.
In most instances our understanding of God has been at a stand still.
The only fresh idea that has immerged in my memory are my own views on the perfection of God’s works and the perfection of the systems that we see all around us.
Few tend to give God this attribute and would rather wait for him to come back to fix the mess He left behind.
They ignore this scripture.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Goes to show how soft most are in their so called faith.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I think that is an absurd anaolgy


I am amazed that you are saying that sex slaves can be bought in the United States. The number of instances is so small that it can be effectively stated that slavery has been eliminated. There are harsh penalties for people engaging in human trafficing.

If 99.9999 % of all members in a society and 100% of all the leaders of a society condemn an activity, then progress has been made.

Think world instead ou US.

I have made my point that all the moral and ethical sins that were present 3000 years ago are still here.

Lip service does no eliminate them. It only makes people think that we are working on them.

Women in power may help. Men in power has not.

Regards
DL



You are redefining all ideas in an effort to show that there is no progess. Is there a reason you are doing this? Is there a point you are trying to make?

Socrates could not get slaves out of democrasy.
God could not either.
Perhaps a female God could.

[Greatest I am]

I have already asked several questions, the gist of all of which is that you be specific. If you're going to make statements so general that they're capable of talking about the entire world, you really can't expect to come up with any real answers. People -- culture, morals, ethics, etc. are not homogenous. Therefore, there is no one solution and all of your discussion is so vague as to be pointless.

Also, I reiterate that you need to do some studying of history (and most especially cultural anthropology) if you really are interested in coming up with viable solutions for various specific problems. You really need to know what you're talking about, and it's clear that you do not.

You nearly hurt my feelings.

Regards
DL

[Jackalgirl]

You nearly hurt my feelings.

Regards
DL

...and? If I am incorrect, you could provide some specifics to demonstrate it.

[Greatest I am]

Did Eve "know" the serpent in the Biblical sense? " as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety" 2Cor11:3

I do not believe in talking animals but thank God that Eve helped us escape the garden of ignorance.

Consider what little you would know without knowledge of good and evil.
Damn near nothing.

Regards
DL

[halofish2000]

Sounds like you are thanking Eve for getting us evicted from paradise. This is a first...never heard this before

[Ladewig]

Socrates could not get slaves out of democrasy.
God could not either.
Perhaps a female God could.

I see that are views are so far apart that we will never understand each other.

Have fun with your thread. Bye.

[Kopji]

I am a little curious how you concluded all this. If you take the story of Noah to be true, only Noah and his family survived the flood; the entire argument fails here. It would be Noah who who 'learned first'.

4000 years of teaching women that they are inferior and being justly punished for disobedience to God has apparently been an overwhelming success.


I am rather confused by the whole thing and need enlightenment.


It would be easy to just say that there is no God, at least like Genesis describes. The stories you think are so true are just myths that evolved over time and are used to guide development of society.

...But I do understand that questioning and examining is harder than that. Learning is like building a fire: it begins small, a spark igniting small twigs. As the fire sputters and grows the smoke can make you choke and cough. Eventually you have a warming fire. Lots of things are that way.

Do men have more to learn and is this why most posters and searchers here are men?

Maybe more men have learned to make time for themselves and do what they want. I know many women who do not really feel 'free' to do what they would want for themselves. Things are changing though.

[Greatest I am]

Sounds like you are thanking Eve for getting us evicted from paradise. This is a first...never heard this before

It all depends on how you read the Bible.
Think of the aptitude and tone of Jesus.
Read Genesis 3 with this in mind and you will see that when God was sending Adam and Eve out of the garden, his words were just facts of the future. Benevolence comes through.
If you read it with more force then you get a totally different impression. The wrong one.
If we were meant to be in the garden of ignorance then I am sure God would have found a way to keep us in line.
Adam and Eve preferred a life that included knowledge of good and evil in order to know why they followed God. They rejected being as bright as cows. Not knowing much of anything.
Take this knowledge away from yourself and you will know how important it is to you.
Let me know how you make out with reading like Jesus.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I see that are views are so far apart that we will never understand each other.

Have fun with your thread. Bye.

I hope it all kicks in some time and the light turns on to my views.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I am a little curious how you concluded all this. If you take the story of Noah to be true, only Noah and his family survived the flood; the entire argument fails here. It would be Noah who who 'learned first'.

4000 years of teaching women that they are inferior and being justly punished for disobedience to God has apparently been an overwhelming success.



It would be easy to just say that there is no God, at least like Genesis describes. The stories you think are so true are just myths that evolved over time and are used to guide development of society.

...But I do understand that questioning and examining is harder than that. Learning is like building a fire: it begins small, a spark igniting small twigs. As the fire sputters and grows the smoke can make you choke and cough. Eventually you have a warming fire. Lots of things are that way.

Maybe more men have learned to make time for themselves and do what they want. I know many women who do not really feel 'free' to do what they would want for themselves. Things are changing though.

Let's hope they change quickly.

To believe the flood story is to believe that God is a genocidal maniac.
Any one that does is a fool.
A law maker that goes around breaking his own laws of killing cannot ever be trusted.
Killing millions, including innocent babies and children would be unforgivable.
Especially if you are a God with many options to chose from.
Further 8 for God and millions for Satan would make God look bad.

Regards
DL

[CFLarsen]

[SIZE=2]It all depends on how you read the Bible.

Bingo.

Can you explain why we should accept that your way of reading the Bible is the correct one?

[Greatest I am]

Bingo.

Can you explain why we should accept that your way of reading the Bible is the correct one?

It logically leads to God.
God, if nothing else, has to be logical.

There are of course many roads to wisdom and knowledge. I just happen to know and understand the Bible better than other works.

It does take work though.

If you want a logical God then find Him there. I can perhaps help.
If your beliefs include talking snakes then I can't help.

Regards
DL

[CFLarsen]

It logically leads to God.
God, if nothing else, has to be logical.

There are of course many roads to wisdom and knowledge. I just happen to know and understand the Bible better than other works.

It does take work though.

If you want a logical God then find Him there. I can perhaps help.
If your beliefs include talking snakes then I can't help.

Regards
DL

What is the difference between you and a religious fanatic who insists that his interpretation of the bible is the correct one?

If any.

[halofish2000]

This has to be the strangest view of Genesis I have yet to encounter. Moses wrote a brief history of creation as a one true God versus the fertility gods view of birth and rebirth. I find the first few chapters of Genesis written like a parable and you have to look elsewhere for deeper answers. The one thing that makes sense is the disbelief of a talking snake. The naga serpent appears in many languages. What Greatest I Am is proposing does not coincide with none of the early writings, early Hebrew history, the legends or contemparaneous literature of the time. Are you getting visions or hearing voices?

[Greatest I am]

What is the difference between you and a religious fanatic who insists that his interpretation of the bible is the correct one?

If any.

I would need to know which fanatic you are speaking about to respond.

All I can say is that I offer a logic trail for you to follow.
Whenever 1+1 do not = 2, bail out.

It is not an easy trail.
IE. You will be asked to believe that all you see is perfect, includding all the evils. You will be asked to believe that God had a reason for giving us the world the way you see it.

God if nothing else has to be perfect and produce only perfection. Including you and I.
A perfection that is allowed to evolve.

Have I scared you away yet?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

This has to be the strangest view of Genesis I have yet to encounter. Moses wrote a brief history of creation as a one true God versus the fertility gods view of birth and rebirth. I find the first few chapters of Genesis written like a parable and you have to look elsewhere for deeper answers. The one thing that makes sense is the disbelief of a talking snake. The naga serpent appears in many languages. What Greatest I Am is proposing does not coincide with none of the early writings, early Hebrew history, the legends or contemparaneous literature of the time. Are you getting visions or hearing voices?

No visions or voices.

Definitely no talking snakes.

Just a logical view of a God that must be logical.

Regards
DL

[Darth Rotor]

If we accept the proposition that women have greater knowledge of the God of the Bible, it is logical to think that they would be crueler rulers than men.
Talking about Hillary Clinton belongs in the Politics forum, eh? :D And don't even get me started on Catherine the Great. That's a horse of another color.

For GIA:

What was Eve gonna do, tell God "Not tonight, I have a headache?"

DR

[CFLarsen]

I would need to know which fanatic you are speaking about to respond.

A religious fanatic who insists that his interpretation of the bible is the correct one.

What is the difference between such a person and you?

All I can say is that I offer a logic trail for you to follow.
Whenever 1+1 do not = 2, bail out.

It is not an easy trail.
IE. You will be asked to believe that all you see is perfect, includding all the evils. You will be asked to believe that God had a reason for giving us the world the way you see it.

God if nothing else has to be perfect and produce only perfection. Including you and I.
A perfection that is allowed to evolve.

Have I scared you away yet?

Regards
DL

No, I'm still here, but I wonder why you are.

When you say that "God has to be perfect", then that's not logic. That's an assumption.

You clearly don't understand what logic is. It isn't stating something and calling it "logic".

[Oroborus]

Someone please tell me they're not serious.

[Greatest I am]

Talking about Hillary Clinton belongs in the Politics forum, eh? :D And don't even get me started on Catherine the Great. That's a horse of another color.

For GIA:

What was Eve gonna do, tell God "Not tonight, I have a headache?"

DR

God knows all.
He knew of the headache beforehand, anyway He has multiple angels to pester.

As to women being crueler than men, what logic point to this -Fact-.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

A religious fanatic who insists that his interpretation of the bible is the correct one.

What is the difference between such a person and you?



No, I'm still here, but I wonder why you are.

When you say that "God has to be perfect", then that's not logic. That's an assumption.

You clearly don't understand what logic is. It isn't stating something and calling it "logic".

I only have that choice or one that states that God must be imperfect.

Is this your view?

What other choice could be offered?

Regards
DL

[CFLarsen]

I only have that choice or one that states that God must be imperfect.

But it isn't logic. It's your choice, based on...well, what? You cannot accept an imperfect god to worship?

Is this your view?

We are discussing your claims.

What other choice could be offered?

That your god was imperfect?

God knows all.

That is not logic either. That is a declaration.

What is the difference between a religious fanatic who insists that his interpretation of the bible is the correct one and you?

The question won't go away.

[Greatest I am]

But it isn't logic. It's your choice, based on...well, what? You cannot accept an imperfect god to worship?



We are discussing your claims.



That your god was imperfect?



That is not logic either. That is a declaration.

What is the difference between a religious fanatic who insists that his interpretation of the bible is the correct one and you?

The question won't go away.

He would have to state his view.
If it agrees with mine then he would be right.
If his God is logical and perfect along with his works then we would agree.
If his god is not logical then we would not.

Regards
DL