Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let me rephrase that; maybe it was a story of why there is procreation. When that was written, women were seen more of as property and could not be ordained by God (within the Christian/Judaic religions). The story of Adam & Eve (IMO) is just a fancy way of saying, women tempt me into sex that is why they carry the burden of childbirth.
So you call God a liar; after all He gave us the right to free will?
So you're implying that if women didn't tempt men into having sex they wouldn't get pregnant and therefore "carry the burden of childbirth." Evidently then god made women temptresses so they would tempt men into having sex in order to get pregnant just so they would "carry the burden of childbirth." Now why would god do such a thing? To punish women because Eve ate the fruit? If that's the case then men are getting the better end of the deal, cool sex with no strings attached, while women are made to suffer. Seems awfully discriminatory to me considering Adam was just as guilty as Eve.
Perhaps he means that god cares for us as much as we care for legos?
Not that I think that men are not responsible for their offspring. In biblical times, this is just how they did things. This to me is just another story trying to explain the reasons for why people do the things they do (cultural/religious excuses). I personally do not take the story of Adam and Eve as historical documentation so much as I do a parable or tale trying to explain the reasoning behind what is nothing more than nature itself (which we are all a part of). Once again, may I state that I do not feel that the representation portrayed in the story is necessarily correct, but at the same time it does give one something to ponder about.
they ate and harmed plants, so they used to be even more evil.
I think most animals have reason, but not faith math logic. it think emotion is an instict... i'll might have other thoughts later
Animals have spirits guiding them where people have both souls and spirits. No where in the Bible is it stated "the soul of animals" or even "animals have souls". A soul is an embodiment of self while the spirit is the communication between living creatures. Animals are here for our consumption and pleasure, so why would they need a soul?
ants grow crops. my dog will try his best not to poo inside the house. no i think they are here mainly to try to reproduce and survive. As the Egyptians used to say: the only thing animals obviously lack is bread and alcohol.
That's the thing, most Christian that I know think spirit and soul are the same thing, My agnostic Christian brother thought they were distinct things...and that God breathed LIFE, which means anything alive has a soul and/or spirit. but since Animals don't get judged they don't have souls. so my brother thought animals only have spirits. So in any case, the "Soul" came from the fruit of knowledge, which all of Adam and Eve's decendants are now cursed with. It is a sort of Identity. it is the "I" or "Me". Even bacteria and Fungi have spirits. But only humans have "souls". But all these "immaterial" things...they are just odd belives. If we believe in aphysical things, what stops "Hababaloo" from existing. It is one of the reasons that I didn't really see how my brother's knowledgable explination of a reasonable form of semi-Biblical Christianity even mattered. reasonable is not mean true.
I agree the story is just that and nothing more; however, your interpretation of it is
