Lucis

when eve ate the fruit, god cursed eve so that giving birth would be painful. evelution says that the reason it's painful is because we became intelligent (tree of knowledge) and started to walk on two feet. does that mean that adam and eve walked on all four in the garden of eden? like animals?

no, i don't think so... i think that when adam and eve still hadn't eaten the fruit, their bodies were much different than now, and they reproduced in a different way. they laid eggs. god says in the bible that he created us male and female (hermaphrodite). several myths, like the greek myths, talk about the separation of sexes, and they say that male and female once used to be united as god, and that's why they try so hard to become one by having sex. but for some reason, the child that is born is also only one gender.

eventually, because male and female are like two different races, the two will probably melt together again and hermaphrodites will become more common, and male and females will be the abnormality.

bacht

JewishEncyclopedia.com [1906]:

Eve — Critical View:

The account of the creation of woman—she is called "Eve" only after the curse—belongs to the J narrative. It reflects the naive speculations of the ancient Hebrews on the beginnings of the human race as introductory to the history of Israel. Its tone throughout is anthropomorphic. The story was current among the people long before it took on literary form (Gunkel, "Genesis," p. 2), and it may possibly have been an adaptation of a Babylonian myth (ib. p. 35). Similar accounts of the creation of woman from a part of man's body are found among many races (Tuch, "Genesis," notes on ch. ii.); for instance, in the myth of Pandora. That woman is the cause of evil is another wide-spread conceit. The etymology of "ishshah" from "ish" (Gen. ii. 23) is incorrect ( belongs to the root ), but exhibits all the characteristics of folk-etymology. The name , which Adam gives the woman in Gen. iii. 20, seems not to be of Hebrew origin. The similarity of sound with explains the popular etymology adduced in the explanatory gloss, though it is W. R. Smith's opinion ("Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia," p. 177) that Eve represents the bond of matriarchal kinship ("ḥayy"). Nöldeke ("Z. D. M. G." xlii. 487), following Philo ("De Agricultura Noe," § 21) and the Midrash Rabbah (ad loc.), explains the name as meaning "serpent," preserving thus the belief that all life sprang from a primeval serpent. The narrative forms part of a culture-myth attempting to account among other things for the pangs of childbirth, which are comparatively light among primitive peoples (compare Adam; Eden, Garden of; Fall of Man). As to whether this story inculcates the divine institution of Monogamy or not, see Gunkel, "Genesis," p. 11, and Dillmann's and Holzinger's commentaries on Gen. ii. 23-24.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...r=E&search=eve

Keith&Co.

You're mixing science and myth quite freely here.
It's not exactly that it's painful because of intelligence, in the eye of evolution. Or that we walk erect because of intelligence. Ostriches walk erect and they're dumber than two bags of hammers.
Why it hurts is that evolution opted for a bigger brain, and the compatible skull, faster than it opted for a baby-skull-eject system that could handle the load without discomfort. As long as the discomfort isn't enough to preclude reproduction, there's nothing 'in it' for evolution to change.



They didn't reproduce in the garden at all.


Depends on which part you read. CHapter one has him putting men and women all over the place, chapter 2 has one man in the garden. Woman was last option after none of the other animals met with Adam's approval for a help-meet.


This is actually worse than 'i saw it on tv' as arguments go. Myths talk about the man being created by accident or out of spite; as part of God, as having god parts such as gods' breath, spit, hair, sweat, sperm; as the ultimate goal of the universe or as a small mistake that taints the universe. How do you choose which myths apply and which are 'just myths?'

Uh....i don't see that happening at all. Starting with the word 'again' being right out there.

There are some species that have done away with males entirely. They evolved to where the females kind of clone themselves. They still enjoy sex, and the females that sex produce more eggs than those that don't. Seems to indicate a past with the usual male/female split.
But i don't think they qualify as hermaphrodites. They're all female, they can't impregnate other females...

Chili

Not Eve but Woman ate the fruit and gave it to Man so his eyes would be opened and can see for himself as "like-god" here now first called Adam. So Adam did not fall but Adam was the image of man created in and by the Tree of Knowledge where and wherein it remains an illusion.

We would call it the persona or mask today that was banned from Eden when we first became rational beings with a mind of our own that never ever gained ascend in the TOL where the woman remained in charge of our being as Man in the image of God and therefore is our dowry as God in person upon our return to Eden.

Instead of continuing to walk upright we learned to crawl with the serpent on our side that we as Adam [in our own right] called Eve and it is because we live beside our own true self that pain was a gift of God to guide us while in the darkness that was created in the absence of the celestial light . . . to say that pain as well as darkness are both illusions

Created male and female denotes androgyne with the potential to become either male or female in our sex identity but with a gender identity wherein our sexuality is also an illusion and is why we can return to be united as God in the image of Man . . . while in the mean time our gender identity serves as the magnetic force to procreate man in the image of God throughout the ages, and actually is what makes evlution possible in a fertile mode of existence (as opposed to cloning, for example).

Chili

Under hypnosis pain does not exist even in child birth which makes pain an illusion of our own benefit.

Keith&Co.

I will stipulate that under hypnosis, something is illusionary.

How would you determine that hypnosis is revealing illusions, rather than imposing them?

bacht

It's true our brain has to interpret sensory data, but tissue damage is real whether we feel it or not.

Chili

Because if we bypass our conscious mind in another way pain also is no longer. A good example here is glossolalia wherein a stream of syllables flow over the dam (or the Adams apple) where our faculty of reason is normally used to add sense and so form a flow of words that is conventional in our own language.

Chili

For sure but that has nothing to do with the existence of pain in the same way that the nutrition of food has nothing to do with our taste of it.

Pain is good and so is taste but perhaps only to make pleasure known that only can be conceived to exist in the conscious mind where our sensory data is interpreted. This, then, is also where time-as-such is known to make eternal life known in its shadow and is also where the sun rays are transformed into the light of common day to make the celestial light known to us first hand.

This would explain why daylight never came to Magdalene when she arrived at the tomb without the other Mary; it tells us why the sun stopped for Joshua (was it?), and it tells us why funny things happen to the sky when Jesus dies time and time again but only in the mind of the crucified.

Chili

If Genesis is where we come full circle it must be true that we are described in Genesis at least until we recognize where we parted company with our own self in Genesis 3.

An important step to take is to accept the fact that we, as in each one of us, live beside our self for our own benefit (for sure), but for which the price to pay is that there now is two of us with the undesired consequence that we cannot make our own mind the subject of our inquiry and therefore really do not know who we are . . . yet we do know who we are but not consciously until we come full circle in Gen.2 where unite with the woman (bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh) who once was taken from us.