inkriminator

I remember very few things from High School, but my 12th grade teacher's theory on the Garden of Eden was one thing that I think will stick with me for the rest of my life. I'd like to hear what you all think about it.

Essentially he was talking about hte concept of original sin, and how popular conception places the blame entirely on Eve. My teacher was making the argument that both Adam and Eve made the singular mistake of not realizing what their relationships were to one another. Abstractly speaking, neither knew how they should treat their ego (in the freudian sense) with respect to the other.

What he meant was this. adam should have enlarged his "ego" his self, his conscience large enough to encompass Eve, such that for Eve to do something bad, "eat the apple" would have been as unconscionable as Adam eating the apple. Eve's problem was that she was too headstrong to allow herself to be wrapped inside Adam's ego.

Now, the reason that I love this concept is how applicable i find it to the large decisions I have to make in my life. for example, when deciding what to do in college, what to major in, i had to choose between what I enjoyed...and what i thought would allow me to make money. My first inclination was to do what made me happy, b/c what a horribly relative scale money is to measure's one's happiness by. But later when I got to thinking, I realized that what my ego as of then would be made happy by, would change later on.


this is to say, as I got a wife and kids, my ego, my self, would be unsatisfied with making just myself happy. I would only be happy through the happiness of my family, b/c in essence they had become me.


the crux of the issue is clearly this, is woman subservient to man in some fundamental way. And the best explanation that I could come to that is clearly yes. My reasoning:
There is no totality of information regarding the proper relationship between man and woman
The one clear relationship we have is the physical one, with man protecting the woman
We should use the 1 element of knowledge we have, in order to make further judgements

Thus....man is...in some way, responsible for woman.

Later on, when i was trying to explain this to a friend, I realized how this is paradoxically predicted by Nietzsche, but I really don't want to go into that right b/c I think this post has really been traveling.

In case anyone was wondering, Yes, I was extremely high when i came to these epiphanies connecting all these thoughts, but the individual thoughts had all occured to me in sobriety.

lurkette

I would argue that there is more than "one clear relationship" and you've hit upon one fairly obvious one that happens to support your hypothesis, and also happens to support a patriarchal society. You could look at the more obvious control women have over the reproductive cycle of the species and say that man is subservient to woman. Even if a man could dominate a woman into reproduction - rape, essentially - women have always had ways of controlling their own reproductive capacities, long before Roe v. Wade. Natural abortifacents are plentiful. This is the ultimate in denial of male power - monopoly over procreation - and no wonder a patriarchal society cooked up a myth to scapegoat women and give a deified rationale for male domination of the species.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Aias

It is interesting that youy posted this question. Have you, by chance, read Paradise Lost by John Milton? The story has a great interpretation of biblical scripture and the story of the Garden of Eden. It also sounds much like what your teacher was teaching, but without the freudian aspects.

God and the angel Raphael explain to Adam that he and Eve are the pinnacle of creation. Adam was made as the pinnacle of Reason, the wisest of all animals of creation and special because of reason. Eve was made as the pinnacle of beauty in all of creation, and that nothing else on all of the earth would be as beautiful or as wonderous as woman. Now it was Adam's job to Reason to Eve and to be her reason. Eve was to rely upon Adam for reason and understanding. (The text even notes that she enjoyed this. She could have sat in and heard from God or the Angel, but she much rather enjoyed hearing the news from Adam). Eve's job was to help Adam see the beauty and passion in the world. It was her job to open his eyes to the wonder of all of creation.

The problem in the story developed out of this idea, told by Raphael to Adam, "You [Adam] are a creature of reason. So enjoy Passion, but do not let it over-rule you." Eve eventually began to formulate ideas of her own about how the Garden should be kept (ie. more work could be done if they split up and work on different parts at a time). Although it should have been Adam's place to make these decisions he allowed his love (passion) for Eve to over-rule him and allowed her to make the decision.

Here is the problem: If Eve was a creature of beauty and Adam a creature of Reason then they both abdicated their roles to the other.

The same problem later happened when Eve ate the fruit from the tree and gave some to her husband WHO WAS WITH HER! Adam was right there with Eve, he knew that they should not have eaten the fruit. He allowed Eve the decision and abdicated his role as a creature of Reason.

The idea here is not that men should make decisions and women should just be objects of beauty! Many have mistaken the text as well as the bible for this. It was the abdication of these roles that lead to their fall.

You are right Inkriminator, the bible does point specifically to the fact that man is responsible for woman. (this does not suggest that man is GREATER than woman). Even the texts which suggest that wife should be submissive to the husband are often read falsly. The texts DO say that wives should be submissive to their husbands, but within the true context a better understanding of this can be acheived.

The bible details that wives (not women, but wives) should submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ. This goes as far as to say that they allow their husbands the right of JUST leadership. It suggests that the husband should lead if he is CAPABLE of spiritual leadership. If the husband does not resemble christ in his leadership, then the wife is allowed to lead herself. Husbands (not men, but husbands) should be the head of the wife as Christ was the head of the church. What did christ do for the church? He lay aside his life as a sacrafice for the church. In this way a husband should lay aside his own life in sacrafice for doing what is JUST for his wife and family.

The scriptures portray this relationship of marriage and husband and wife quite often. No where in the bible does it EVER blame Eve for the fall, it always blames Adam. Even though Adam was not the first to eat, he is the one responsible for his wife (for keeping her safe from harm, even if it means telling her,"no.") Adam was the second to eat the fruit, but he was cursed before Eve. This suggests that "eating the fruit" was not Adam's problem, but rather disobeying and failing to be responsible for his wife.

If you look in the biblical creation and fall of man when God asks Adam what he has done he hides in shame. He then admits, but in the same sentence he blames Eve. This blame shift does not represent being a sacrafice for his wife. Were he a true sacrafice, like christ, he would have begged God to allow Eve's sin to fall totally upon him instead of shifting the blame.

So are men responsible for women? I do not think that the bible says that. I DO think that they scriptures show that we should love each other, forgive one another, and help each other out. People are ultimately responsible for their own lives. In a marriage, the bible suggests that the husband should care for his wife so much that she becomes his responsibility. If the husband does not care that much, than the two should not be married.

__________________
But I will seek the meadows by the shore: There will I wash and Purge these stains, if so I may appease Athena's wrath. Then will I find some lonely place, where I may hide this sword, beyond all others cursed, buried where none may see it, deep in earth.

Aias

Just sitting and thinking again over this, I came to another possible conclusion of why our society (and most all of other societies throughout the world) suggest that men are responsible for women. this idea takes a slightly more evolutionary approach.

It makes sense that in a culture or group of people that you protect your resources right? If your group of people were under seige from hostile enemies you would surely want to make sure you had plenty of what? Food, water? Medical supplies? Shelter? Weapons?

All of these things are great in protecting one's community from a foe, but the foe in these scenarios would be, in the end, a short-term threat. Even if such a seige of a city were to last a hundred years, it would be considered a short term threat.

The true, long-term foe most early societies faces was what? extinction! So in what ways would you ensure survival of your community against such a threat. Food, water and medical supplies are great answers again, but one last resource still exists.

Wombs.

Which sounds better for procreation? One womb to 100 men, or one man to 100 wombs. This is not to downplay woman to just a "womb" but they are mothering figures as well. Women are very important to the early society, as well as to society today where we do not think of these things much. They provide another aspect which is necessary to the flourishing society, nurturing and teaching. If men are so important, they why aren't there many men teachers today (aside from the low paid status of teachers. Men feel they can't teach because they must supply for their family and protect their family. which brings us back to the same question). Perhaps this is where the old stereotype of man protecting woman comes into play and is built into our society from its very roots.

Why else would MEN be considered as dominant, war-like individuals in these communities? Would early societies send "wombs" off to war or hunt if "sperm" was cheaper? Especially if "wombs" were more rare and more valuable?

Perhaps this is where today's society gains the idea of men protecting women? If anyone else has heard of this idea I would gladly like some more information on it.

__________________
But I will seek the meadows by the shore: There will I wash and Purge these stains, if so I may appease Athena's wrath. Then will I find some lonely place, where I may hide this sword, beyond all others cursed, buried where none may see it, deep in earth.

inkriminator

wow, excellent reply. I haven't read Paradise Lost yet, its one of those books that I know I should read, and I do want to, but haven't gotten around to yet.

Not to take away from an excellent post, but the order in which punishment is given is first the serpent, then Eve, then Adam.

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;



See you 'round.

Xell101

I think it relates to how our societal goals destroyed a very functional way of living, and is doomed to failure, as you can't punch nature in the balls and make it your bitch without destroying those things you need to live.

Albeit not as elegant as other posts in this thread it gets the point across.

chavos

scary...

that one "clear role" of physical protection does not give a man dominion over anyone else. i wasn't exactly a big kid in middle school, and a few of my buddies would play body guard for me so i didn't get beat up. but i'm sure as hell not their servant...and i would never use my physical protectiveness to stake a claim over a woman's mind or body. to do so seems very repellant to me, to tell the truth.

My credo is this. People are people. My favorite line of scripture:
"There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, all are one in Christ Jesus."

inkriminator

But look at it like this, in any social group you do have the leaders and followers, and generally the leaders will be those who are physically dominant, for males anyways. I think that for most people in your situation, b/c of being subservient in the physical sense, they would be more willing to take shit from those who were stronger/bigger than otherwise. Again, the physical is a good estimation of what the social relationship is. I can see that working in most of the social groups I look at, but like all generalizations, it won't hold true for everyone

chavos

thats the point...i didn't *have* to take that shit becuase they didn't ask me to. just the same, you don't have to ask a woman to bow down to you because you've got a better left hook. physical might gives you options...what you do with that might is a testament to your character.

just because a violence enforced social order can be made to function does not mean it is blessed by God. i was lucky to have friends who did not expect servitude in return for their protection, and its made me a critic of any order that would give male priviledge based on our strength....i take personal pride in being able to be protective, but i expect no quid pro quo from it. leadership in one sense does not mean leadership in all senses...

Tha Sewer

i was raised christian, and attended christian school for 13 years (k - 12 ), ps...i am no longer christian, although i believe in the TEACHINGS..

and my response is this...with out man (adam), there is no eve (woman), so i say it makes no sense. anyone involved is at fault...who is to say who's job it was to take the situation under control, Adam or Eve, in the story...which in my opinion is entirely false. simply a story to teach a lesson to mankind, to not disobey God. Mankind is BOTH MAN AND WOMAN, so if you draw lines then i have 2 words to say to you....F*ck Off.

to say one is at fault and one should have taken a role to play is simply ridiculous. mankind is everyone, down to you and me. which is what i believe, and if you choose to believe the bible word-for-word, then...in essence, YOU, EVERYONE, and I are all at fault for "original sin".

inkriminator

whoa whoa, calm down. I was giving you the interpretation of my teacher [which he derived from others no doubt]. You have your interpretation, but just b/c you believe it, you shouldn't get angry with others who disagree.

Slims

I read somewhere that it was a sort of allegory (duh, I guess), but the lesson was a little unusual.

There were no apples in that part of the world. The only fruit that fits the actual description in the bible is the pomegrenate (sp?). Coincidentally, (or, perhaps not), the seeds are a fairly potent form of birth control. So the apple represented the knowledge of how to have sex without consequences.

I have wondered about this analogy a lot, and it makes sense......sortof. But like most ancient stories in the bible, I feel that there was probably a strong social reason for including it. My thoughts are that perhaps in addition to acting as a contraceptive, the seeds may have caused birth defects in the babies that were concieved anyway, hence their becoming taboo and subsequently birth control in general....

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

chavos

there is no description of the fruit, other than it's name...

Johnny Rotten

I find the Garden of Eden striking in many ways, especially after reading The Da Vinci Code. Woman created from man, woman veing responsible for the first sin. But, most importantly, the tie between knowledge and evil. Trust in the Bible, trust in God, and ask no questions. Right there at the beginning of the book. God becomes your only approved channel of enlightenment.

__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

Aias

The Idea of the pomegranate surfaces in the Greek story of Persephone when she was abducted and taken to Hell by her uncle Hades. Hades was king and wanted Persephone as his wife, so he stole her away (not obeying the "law of the land" and asking her father first). Persephone wouldn't have to stay if she didn't eat anything, but she ate a few pomegranate seeds (this symbolizes having sex. In their view a marriage was not complete until consumated with sex.)

So the Pomegranate was seen as a symbol of sexual activity as well as fertility. Have you ever seen the inside of a Pomegranate? It is FULL of seeds! The many seeds represents, at least to the Greeks, Fertility.

So if you applied this to the creation story in that aspect, you'd get the same result. Passion over-ruling reason.

I have never heard your suggestion about the pomegranate before though. It is very interesting and I would like to do more research on that theory, any suggestions on where I could find it?

__________________
But I will seek the meadows by the shore: There will I wash and Purge these stains, if so I may appease Athena's wrath. Then will I find some lonely place, where I may hide this sword, beyond all others cursed, buried where none may see it, deep in earth.

archer2371

Yeah, Adam shoulda said somethin, because women are subservient to men. Yet, it's a two way street, because men must respect women and not do the stupid stuff like beat them, rape them, etc. Yes, Eve is at fault, but so is Adam. He shoulda grabbed that snake by the neck and told him to go spread his lies somewhere else, but, he just sat there like a weeny and did something that he knew he shouldn't have.
The pomegranate theory is interesting, but, it was the Garden of Eden folks, every bountiful food source was right there, so it could have been an apple, or a pomegranate, or an orange, lemon, etc. etc. Don't get so hung up on the details, it's the story that matters most.

Post Scriptum: I didn't mean for that to sound harsh, I just wanted to point something out.

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

MacGnG

why dont people blame the snake for telling them lies!? no one says, it's the snakes fault, they always blame eve and then adam. isn't it the snakes fault for tricking them?

i just wanted to point this out cause people dont talk about this

archer2371

Yes, the old "The Devil made me do it." excuse, classic, but worn out and Satan's very nature is to deceive. The point the rest of us are trying to make is that it isn't any ONE person's fault. God specifically told them (not a direct quote but something to this tune) "I'm tellin ya, don't eat the fruit from that tree over there, you will regret it, not even if the Ole Morning Star comes to visit, DON'T EAT FROM IT!" So sure, Satan shares in some of the blame, but Eve for listening, and Adam for not stopping the whole stuff when he had the chance.

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

MacGnG

see i dont know what it literally says, if someone could share that it would be helpful but anyway. well if God specifically said and showed them, as if adam and eve were little children, then ok thats a good point and they did screw up.

-----
you could always argue that God knew what was going to happen anyway....
-----

chavos

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die. Gen 2:17

That's RSV, which is a pretty literal translation. I don't think we collectively have enough knowledge of Hebrew to have this discussion on the original text, so we're left with translations. The rest, can be found below. It's KJV on the main page, but you can get other versions verse by verse.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen002.html
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen003.html