|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted September 01, 2013 06:45 PM |
|
|
Christians say that sin is the cause of evil, but "sin" is defined as "offense against God and His commandments", and "evil" is "acting contrary to God and His commandments". So when Christians say that sin is the cause of evil, they're really saying, "Disobeying God is the cause of disobeying God", which obviously isn't saying anything.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 10:19 AM |
|
|
I doubt the tree was symbolic was knowledge of sex. If sex was forbidden, why did God command them to have children? Children are also described as being a blessing for God later in hte Bible.
Sex outside marriage is considered a sin though.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 10:25 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 10:29, 02 Sep 2013.
|
|
There's no procreation in heaven, giving birth to children with painful hard labour on earth is one of the punishments God gave to Eve for eating the forbidden fruit which again indicates the myth is subconsciously related to sex.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 11:39 AM |
|
|
Yes but children are still considered a blessing.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 12:10 PM |
|
|
|
There is no such thing as having children before eating the forbidden fruit and turning into sexual beings, what children are considered afterwards dont mean squat. In early Christianity (in Catholics still) sex is only EXCUSED if it's done for the sole purpose of procreation, otherwise it is considered something to be ashamed of. That's why the VAtican is still against even contraception not just abortion. Because it means sex just for sex.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 02:20 PM |
|
|
artu said:
There is no such thing as having children before eating the forbidden fruit and turning into sexual beings, what children are considered afterwards dont mean squat. In early Christianity (in Catholics still) sex is only EXCUSED if it's done for the sole purpose of procreation, otherwise it is considered something to be ashamed of. That's why the VAtican is still against even contraception not just abortion. Because it means sex just for sex.
You are wrong. Genesis 1:27-28 reads:
Quote:
So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
So what do you think how Adam and Eve were supposed to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth, if not by having sex?
Then in Genesis 2 we hear more:
Quote:
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it. For in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.”
That's Genesis 2:17 And in Genesis 2_23-25 we hear:
Quote:
And Adam said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
So what do you think, "They shall be one flesh" means? That they are supposed to Siamese Twins?
Lastly, in Genesis 3:4-7 we hear:
Quote:
And the serpent said unto the woman, “Ye shall not surely die;
for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and ate, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he ate.
And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves things to gird about.
So it should be obvious, it has nothing to do with sex, at least not directly. Instead, where they before simply WERE, in a natural state of naïve ignorance, they now "know good and evil" and with that comes self-consciousness (in every sense).
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 03:47 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:47, 02 Sep 2013.
|
This is an inconsistency of the Bible itself. Giving birth was a part of God's punishment to Eve and since they were in heaven and not exiled to Earth yet for disobeying God and eating the fruit how can God tell them to replenish it?
Remember there are even two versions of Adam and Eve's creation itself. These are collected myths not philosophical axioms, so I dont expect them to make perfect sense. I am gonna do this with links and copy/pastes too but that takes forever on iPad so for now I'll just say dont expect myths to make perfect sense.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 05:25 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Giving birth was a part of God's punishment to Eve
That is not correct either: the punishment was, that from that point on giving birth should be PAINFUL.
Anyway, do you really think that it makes sense to point to the fact that the Bible is full of contradictions, when you want to make a point of what the Bible actually says?
"The Bible is about this and that."
"No, it's not Quote:
."
"Ah, heck, you can't trust it, it's full of contradictions."
Strange line of arguing.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 05:37 PM |
|
|
You dont try to understand myths by their logical consistency but rather with what the symbols stand for and what they mainly meant to the people back then , your theological interpratation is too sophisticated for something at least 3000 years old anyway.
And since there was no child birth in Heaven, I dont think it's proper to pick out the painful part of birth labour in that verse.
I am on iPad for a few more days and I really hate typing with it, but when you keep asking questions and objecting to stuff, I feel the need to reply so please wait a few days.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 05:38 PM |
|
|
In any case I don't think sex or having children is a punishment or sin according to the Bible, only adultery is considered sinful.
A teacher of mine a few years ago said that she actually believed Adam and Eve were like Siamese twins, but I bet that's because she just didn't want to talk about sex to us teenagers.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 06:58 PM |
|
|
artu said:
You dont try to understand myths by their logical consistency but rather with what the symbols stand for and what they mainly meant to the people back then , your theological interpratation is too sophisticated for something at least 3000 years old anyway.
You are making too many assumptions, again, and your interpretation doesn't fit with the facts and is ahistoric at that.
A people having a religion tabooing sex wouldn't have survived; fertility is important for survival.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 07:03 PM |
|
|
|
Obviously it does not taboo sex completely but limits it to procreational purposes within wedlock. Since the catholic church STILL does that, I dont understand how you claim it does not exist. And I am not making assumptions but rather talking about a method. Your interpretation makes way more assumptions than what I detect.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 07:18 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Obviously it does not taboo sex completely but limits it to procreational purposes within wedlock. Since the catholic church STILL does that, I dont understand how you claim it does not exist. And I am not making assumptions but rather talking about a method. Your interpretation makes way more assumptions than what I detect.
Neither the Bible nor the Cathlic Church do. The Catholic Church forbids ACTIVE PREVENTION - not sex IN ANY WAY. You can, for example have sex until you bleed, when the wife is pregnant, even though it obviously doesn't have any purpose except a procreational one.
Which means you ARE WRONG (again). There is no limit whatsoever on sex within wedlock except that you are not supposed to prevent the possibility of conception by artificial means - you CAN for example measure temperatures and avoid sex on the critical days.
I see, though, that as in the other thread you are intent on selling opinions you cannot support with points or facts. That makes this discussion as well as the other one rather uninteresting.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 07:36 PM |
|
|
|
I made plenty of points which you insist on ignoring on both threads. Even masturbation was considered a sin for a long time. Saying sex is not a taboo in religion because people must reproduce cant be further away from the truth and you always get aggressive when your points are weak not the other way around. A couple is in a heaven where procreation does not exist, they eat a forbidden fruit, first the woman, then with her seduction the man. After that they become aware of themselves and immediately cover their naked genital area, they are exiled to an earth in which the woman is punished by giving painful, hard laboured birth. If you think relating this myth to sex is making too many assumptions, we have a very different idea of " too many" I will link further stuff when I get back home.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 08:06 PM |
|
|
You make a lot of FALSE points, claiming things about the Catholic Church or the Bible that are not true, and you dismiss quotes from the Bible, about which we talk here with the argument that it's contradictory anyway.
I wouldn't call that points.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 08:24 PM |
|
|
|
I'll link stuff, wait till I get a computer on my hands.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2013 08:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Even masturbation was considered a sin for a long time.
Now it isn't a sin, but just an "intrinsically and gravely disordered action".
Quote:
There is no limit whatsoever on sex within wedlock except that you are not supposed to prevent the possibility of conception by artificial means - you CAN for example measure temperatures and avoid sex on the critical days.
I'm confused. You're trying to prove that Church and the Bible aren't against non-procreational sex because they are just against not having your sperm in your wife's vagina after sex? 
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2013 08:14 AM |
|
|
Hobbit, first of all the Catholic Church and the Bible are two different things, and what the Catholic Church did or does is at best their interpretation of what God may want or not want.
Now: IF anyone was against sex, if it doesn't have a procreational purpose, you'd obviously have to outlaw it with a pregnant, because a woman cannot get more pregnant than she already is, and having sex then would definitely not have a procreational, but only a recreational purpose, right?
So that cannot be right.
Now, I don't know whether the Bible says anything about birth control or not in any of the "law" books (that would be valid for Jews only, anyway), but it certainly doesn't in the first Genesis chapters. What the Catholic church doesn't want is the use of "tools" to prevent a possible insemination - if you avoid that by abstinence, however, there is nothing wrong with it.
In fact, you can debate a lot about where that comes from. Abstractly spoken, the Christian religion (not only the Catholics) have a general problem with fun for fun's sake (Protestants have that problem even more). Fun for fun's sake is "wasteful", because fun is unproductive; plus, it's the devil's way to make you open for his temptations.
This is not only obvious when you look at the fun aspect of sex, it's also obvious when you look at the fun aspects of medication: our society has been getting out of its way to produce medicine without a "feelgood" or fun effect (even though everyone knows that it's important that a patient DOES feel good. when he's sick or ill or seriously woulnded), and only in the last few decades, our society starts to reconsider.
Austerity and general "abstinence" (from all kind of fun) isn't a Catholic idea, though. Catholics have the fasting period for a reason: there is a TIME fort austerity and abstinence - but that's only to "come down" from the rest of the time. Of course, if something went seriously wrong, you could still blame everything on the women, because ultimately everything was their fault anyway - and their fault was not having sex, but listening to what the serpent said: open for the suggestions of the devil), while the problem of men was that they were all too open for the suggestions of women) 
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 03, 2013 09:30 PM |
|
|
I have no idea what you're trying to prove right now, so let me repeat my question: do you personally think that being against putting man's sperm anywhere else than his wife's vagina isn't the same as being against non-procreational sex?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 03, 2013 10:05 PM |
|
|
Okay, after doing some research I've come to the conclusion that my interpretation was a little overfreudian, since most stuff that backs me up are psychoanalysis sites. Remember when I said
Quote:
It can even be considered a metaphor for reaching puberty.
There was a very insightful site that I lost track of and I cant find it now, in short the analysis was that the myth basically represents leaving childhood behind, turning sexual, the serpent is Adam's penis (snake = phallic symbol, the other day I didnt want to go that far because although I admire Freud cause he made a great discovery about human psyche, he also made the mistake of reducing everything to his discovery, just like Marx reduced history to class struggle), and since they now left childhood behind, Adam has to work for food and Eve has to give birth to children. In heaven, they were irresponsible kids and on earth they have to take responsibilities. What also seemed interesting to me was that the writer was Jewish, so just like me he wasn't raised in a Christian culture. I guess, when you are not raised in a culture that constantly emphasizes "the depth" of the original sin (both Jews and Muslims have the same genesis story, without the concept of original sin) the sexual symbolism is more "in your face."
If we put aside decoding the myth's symbols and go theological, the problem becomes this then though, if the original sin was not sexual and the disobedience was about awareness of self and getting the wisdom to learn right from wrong or in JJ's words:
Quote:
It's not about sex, it's about the realization of past and present, the step from an existence of living firmly anchored in the present and simply LIVE to realization, conscious thought and everything that comes with it (the realization of the finiteness of the physical existence and that everything must die eventuelly, including yourself and your beloved.
It's about the dawn of humanity as we know it.
Why is that even a sin? Aren't Christians proud of their God because he gave us free will. Sex (not having sex with your wife) was a taboo but wisdom never was. And if it's about
Quote:
Abstractly spoken, the Christian religion (not only the Catholics) have a general problem with fun for fun's sake (Protestants have that problem even more). Fun for fun's sake is "wasteful", because fun is unproductive; plus, it's the devil's way to make you open for his temptations.
then why, having sex with your pregnant wife (obviously sex for sex's sake) ISN'T a sin?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
