Feed on Posts or Comments 29 July 2014

Christianity Thomas on 19 Feb 2010 12:21 am

The problem with Eve

Any normal person who reads the creation story has to wonder about Eve. If you read the Bible’s description of Eve, it appears that the omnipotent, all-knowing creator of the universe creates Eve as an afterthought, as described here:

Eve was an afterthought – but did God retrofit Adam?

After reading that, any normal person knows that the Bible is a book of mythology, and is therefore both meaningless and useless. It is a ridiculous story.

If you are a Christian, it would be interesting to hear how you account for God’s lapse. What happened? Why do you believe in any of this?

24 Responses to “The problem with Eve”

  1. on 19 Feb 2010 at 11:25 pm 1.peter said …

    Eve was not an after thought,nor was her eating the forbidden fruit a surprise. God ordains all things. God draws us to himself by allowing us to sin. God united himself with the seed of the women to assum human flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. Christ died for us so that we might be drawn to God through love, the love He displayed on the cross. Know one knows God but we believe through faith. God gives us this faith as a gift. The proof of that faith is that it works. We are spiritual beings. Beyond food and shelter most of our lives are involved with our spirits. True happiness can only be found in God because He is the truest truth.

  2. on 20 Feb 2010 at 9:39 am 2.Severin said …

    1 Peter
    “God draws us to himself by allowing us to sin.”
    What a stupid formulation!
    But more than that: god DIRECTS US to sin, by allowing incestuos sex.
    How do you think human race developed (according to Bible) if A+E children did not have mutual intercourses?

    And, of course, WHO married them (and according to Bible, sex out of marriage is a sin)?

    Stupid!

  3. on 20 Feb 2010 at 9:43 am 3.George Johnson said …

    I have a sincere question for any Christian Believer who reads this blog… one so far not answered for me.

    If the Garden of Eden story is mythological (as many, probably most scholars believe) then there was no literal Adam and Eve. If so, then there was no Original Sin, no Fall, and hence no reason for a Divine Redeemer to come to earth to save us. We are as we were created. Does not acknowledgement of the mythical nature of the Garden of Eden story shoot all Christian theology down in flames?

    How then do Christian Scholars resolve this conundrum?

    George

  4. on 20 Feb 2010 at 9:59 am 4.Severin said …

    Peter 1
    „Christ died for us so that we might be drawn to God through love, the love He displayed on the cross.“

    What a morbid story!
    I am the god, and people I created sinned against my laws.
    Then I kill the entire human race (except Noah & Co.) to punish sinners (of course, I kill non-sinners too, and all the animals, as the „collateral damage“. Who cares about innocent children which COULD NOT sin, because they were to young to understand anything.
    Just a „collateral damage“.

    Then I see that Noah’s descendents sin even more.
    Then I send a part of myself (Jesus = god, or isn’t he?) to suffer and to be killed for sins of people I created, to „bring them salvation“ from my own anger.

    Did I hate more people I created or my own son? What a monster I was to first kill the entire human race (big flood), then to sacrifice my own son (more than that! A part of myself, the god) to please MYSELF!

    Try better!

  5. on 20 Feb 2010 at 10:04 am 5.Severin said …

    3 George
    “Does not acknowledgement of the mythical nature of the Garden of Eden story shoot all Christian theology down in flames?”

    “Down in flames, right to shit”, I would say, but you just can not fight them using logic, science, history, they do not accept it.

  6. on 20 Feb 2010 at 11:56 am 6.JR said …

    I’m new here, I was being groomed into an Evangelical Christian, but I couldn’t go through the motions (fake it til I make it) anymore. I feel alive again!
    Random idea, not related to this post, but a decent idea for spreading the word of this blog’s “parent” video website…
    Post the http://godisimaginary.com/ address in your “religious views” for those of you who have a Facebook profile.

  7. on 20 Feb 2010 at 1:13 pm 7.Scott said …

    The perfect place JR – just perfect. Because this is a religion. The fervor, the priests, the dogma all create a great relgion.

  8. on 20 Feb 2010 at 3:43 pm 8.P-Dunn said …

    ///After reading that, any normal person knows that the Bible is a book of mythology,///

    This is a typical way of operating here at this blog. Any “normal” person will agree with what I have said. Clearly Christians are not “normal.”

    How do you get away with this sort of bigotry?

    ///and is therefore both meaningless and useless. It is a ridiculous story.///

    Even if something is mythology, that does not make it “meaningless and useless.” If the story of Adam and Eve is mythology, then that means it was intended to tell some kind of story. By my estimation, it was how God created humankind with freedom, and they used their freedom to disobey him. That is a meaning to the story, which has useful applications throughout the entire Bible. To call it “meaningless and useless,” which in your mind might be rhetorically effective, just shows your ignorance of what mythology is at all.

  9. on 20 Feb 2010 at 3:47 pm 9.P-Dunn said …

    Hey George,

    ///If the Garden of Eden story is mythological (as many, probably most scholars believe) then there was no literal Adam and Eve. If so, then there was no Original Sin, no Fall, and hence no reason for a Divine Redeemer to come to earth to save us. We are as we were created. Does not acknowledgement of the mythical nature of the Garden of Eden story shoot all Christian theology down in flames?///

    Good question.

    I’m not entirely sure if Adam and Eve is mythology, but as far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t really matter that much. Even if there was no “original sin,” we all individually sin all the time. We keep perpetuating this state of separation from God by allowing ourselves to sin on a daily basis. Even if Adam and Eve never ate any forbidden fruits, we all keep “falling” by our own actions, by eating our own forbidden fruits. And thus, “the Divine Redeemer coming to earth to save us” would be to save us from ourselves, and to restore us to a right relationship with him.

    Does that make sense?

  10. on 20 Feb 2010 at 5:47 pm 10.Severin said …

    9 P-Dunn
    “Does that make sense?”

    It does not.
    The story about A+E is an ESSENTIAL story on which the Bible builds all further developments. This is THE cornerstone of the Bible.

    If this story is a myth, Bible does not exist, but as a book of (ugly) fairy tails.
    What is NOT a myth in the Bible, if A+E story is?
    And who is authorized to make the choice of what is and what is not a myth there?

  11. on 20 Feb 2010 at 7:54 pm 11.Lou said …

    Dunn,

    Jesus refers directly to Adam and Eve in Matthew 19 and in one other passage that escapes me. Even Paul refers to Adam in Romans 5. Therfore I have to lean to the Genesis account being literal.

  12. on 20 Feb 2010 at 11:48 pm 12.Observer said …

    P-Dunn -

    ” This is a typical way of operating here at this blog. Any “normal” person will agree with what I have said. Clearly Christians are not “normal.” ”

    I have to agree with you that “normal” is misapplied in this sense. Normal, in the sense we are referring to here is behavioral. Furthermore, in that sense, it refers to being at the middle of a symmetric distribution (Gaussian). So if you replace “normal” with “intelligent and rational” you would better get the sense of what was the intended meaning.

    Moreover, “normal” in this society means being more poorly educated, less intelligent, grossly fatter than our G7 countries counterparts. “Normal” means eating garbage sold them by large corporations and a much higher chance of getting cancer than aforementioned counterparts. It means being less likely to vote in national elections than aforementioned counterparts. Need I go on?

    As for the bigotry, well, as I understand the word, it is a manifestation of strict intolerance. It also connotes unjustified prejudice in current usage ( forgive me not getting on Bloomberg for an OED etymology ). Let us think about my friend at http://www.fixedearth.com . Now, if we were discussing anything relating to accepted and verified scientific knowledge since around the 12th Century, this CRANK would be dismissed outright; his points of view would not be tolerated. Is that bigotry? Unless you are some hippy-dippy “ya know man, every viewpoint’s valid man” buffoon, the answer is clearly, “It is not bigotry to dismiss outright all views stating a geocentric view of the universe in astronomy.”

    Here is the point: Christians are the new cranks.

  13. on 21 Feb 2010 at 1:54 am 13.Spence said …

    Observer sums up things well. You see bitterness, aggravation and frustration in his post due to the fact the vast majority of individuals in the US and even the world have faith in some sort of religion that brings them peace and understanding beyond the five senses. Observers find some sort of acceptance on blog like this where they can air those frustrations with others who feel those same annoyances. By minimizing the intelligence and rationality of those who don’t share their worldview they bring themselves a small portion of assurance that they indeed are the more intellectual and accordingly and even more importantly they are (they hope) right in their beliefs! They are the embodiment of the tortured soul.

  14. on 21 Feb 2010 at 12:20 pm 14.JR said …

    Scott,
    I appreciate your point, but I think in any realm of society humans are drawn to organize and inevitably have leaders, rules, and passion, or at least an interest, for whatever it is they have decided to organize around.
    Society itself is clearly an organization. Our jobs, whether we are corporate or independent, are organized in some way. Our hobbies have organizations. People who want to help others and make life better for other people just because they care about and love them even if they don’t know them and will never meet them, they get organized to accomplish the mission. It’s not just churches who help people either, but churches do it with underlying motives to indoctrinate the people and so God will compliment them for their good deeds.
    I think the people on this blog and in the realm of atheism and secular humanism as I have seen it so far, we are organizing under the interest that the God idea and all the religious stubbornness, self-righteousness, bigotry, and superstition surrounding it is outdated and even dangerous to, for example, the advancement of international political cooperation, medicine, scientific exploration, and equal respect for the life of all humans. At a minimum, these areas are stifled by the God idea.
    Gotta run, it’s Sunday morning, time for church.

  15. on 21 Feb 2010 at 3:36 pm 15.pub said …

    Why don’t you just live and let live, you backward intolerant Neanderthals? You give all of us Atheists a bad name.

  16. on 21 Feb 2010 at 5:42 pm 16.Horatio said …

    JR,

    You are nothing more than blind or just a plain simple idiot. There are men/women of faith in medicine, politics, science and many other fields where they are leaders in their fields. The greatest scientist throughout history have been men/women of faith. The great founders of our nation where men of faith. Atheist wish they had such a magnificent history of scientific brilliance and philanthropy.

    You will gain more respect with honesty and you lies and distortions will be challenged.

  17. on 21 Feb 2010 at 6:53 pm 17.observer said …

    Horatio-

    And just who might the greatest scientists through history be that are also people of faith?

    That of course begs the question of human progress. Which leads to beliefs like slavery, which were once acceptable, and were eventually deemed unacceptable. Now, correlation is not causation, but isn’t it telling that Western Europe where slavery was understood to be immoral centuries ago the Enlightenment arose and the peoples there are likely to self-identify as atheistic or agnostic, and vitually no one is a biblical literalist. Whereas in the Southern United States, where folks were slow to pick up on the notion of the human indecency of slavery, and in many Muslim countries where slavery, albeit quietly, is still going on, these folks are much more likely to be self-identified theists, and are more likely to be biblical literalists. Note, the Southern United States and similarly primitive Muslim countries are where 20thCentury religious fundamentalism started.

    Can evangelicals, Southerners, their allies, Taliban, and other Muslim wing-nuts be elevated into the modern era? This is the nearly insurmountable obstacle facing humanity. Unfortunately, everyone’s fates are intertwined.

  18. on 21 Feb 2010 at 8:30 pm 18.Horatio said …

    Observer do you have a difficult time reading the English language? People of faith cover many more individuals than “Muslims” and “Evangelicals”. I’m sure you recognize that by leaving out deist, theist, RC along with a multitude of other labels you could attempt to skew any point. Can you prove that one’s faith is tied into their acceptance of slavery or could it be more likely a financial influence?

    I could just as easily maintain every country with a nationalized atheist religion is bent on control of their people and the complete disregard of human rights. Can the atheist wing-nuts be elevated into the modern era and usher in a new area of human rights? It’s not likely since their very existence is bent on the suppression of their people. I’m sure those of the atheist faith find it more appealing not to acknowledge their communist contemporaries of the Red persuasion.

  19. on 22 Feb 2010 at 12:10 am 19.Observer said …

    I hate wasting time on this blog again, but here we go…

    Horatio- I typically do not have a difficult time reading and understanding well written and reasoned English. Thanks for the concern. At any rate, there was a character on here a few weeks ago with whom I had a running discussion which eventually degenerated to him inviting hand-to-hand combat. He made specific assertions of fact in general which I challenged by asking for examples or something specific. Likewise, he never would respond to the question, and would veer off on some tangent, never really getting the intellectual traction needed to debate. You are doing something similar.

    Please answer the original question: Who are the scientists to which you refer?

    Second, on the “faith” slavery issue, if you read and understood my preface to the comments related to slavery I wrote “correlation is not causation”. Which addresses your initial question.

    Third, and I do not know if you picked this up from one of the corn-ball colleges like Liberty or Pat Robertson’s diploma mill, but your clumsy rhetorical attempt to equate atheism to a form of religion, or even more lame, equate atheism as a form of oppression, is goofy. Faith is a rather imprecise word in that its meaning changes with context. Faith in the sense “I have faith my car will get me to work.” could mean the speaker has a strong conviction that his well maintained and hitherto reliable car will again perform its function. That would be rational and reasonable. On the other hand, the speaker could firmly believe that his poorly maintained jalopy which breaks down nearly every time it is driven will perform its function since he recently put one of those cute little fish with “TRUTH” written inside its lines on the trunk lid being held down with a bungee cord. Atheists, in as much as they are a faith, are more like the former driver. Christians more like the latter.

    As for “religion”, again the meaning is imprecise. I do not know the full range of social-anthropological meanings attached to it. I do know the common meaning is that religion is typically a belief system organized around a supernatural entity or force. For Christians, the supernatural forces are God, Jesus, the pantheon of saints, spirits, the Elohim, whatever else. Hindus have their own pantheon, etc. So, while it is a reasonable attempt at rhetorical sleight of hand to debase a non-theistic belief system into a theistic belief system, any reasonably intelligent reader will see the fallacy and reject what you are attempting.

    I do confess to having a hard time understanding what you are trying to get at in the second paragraph. By trying to be clever with the words “religion” and “faith” you lose traction.

    What the hell does this pearl mean? “I’m sure those of the atheist faith find it more appealing not to acknowledge their communist contemporaries of the Red persuasion.” If I can parse this, remember it was the godless ACLU types who were fighting oppression in the Soviet Bloc.

    Anyway, time wasted, but…
    Who are the great scientists of faith? Please let Duane Gish be on your list.

  20. on 22 Feb 2010 at 2:59 am 20.Horatio said …

    My condolences for your experience. I have dealt with Severin so understand my position.

    I’m sorry but the fact you need others lend a hand with scientist who had faith is a bit bizarre to say the least. Please tell me you did not believe most scientist have been atheist throughout history? It is amazing the many backwater hicks who held to some faith and yet we have managed to make this much advancement.

    Einstein
    Plascal
    Mendel
    Faraday
    F Collins
    GW Carver
    Pasteur
    Bohr
    Oppenheimer
    Dobzhansky
    Mead
    Salk

    You get the picture. Do your own homework if you need more. You seem to be hung up on atheism correlating with faith. Don’t be. When you can observe the universe and deem it came about through naturalistic means, you have some rather astounding faith. It is beyond my capacity.

    Study the pearl, it offers much insight.

    Too much time wasted. I’m done.

  21. on 22 Feb 2010 at 9:47 pm 21.observer said …

    Horatio-

    Look at these guys chronologically. Many of these guys are not religious at all. Einstein was an atheist. Oppy? Are you kidding? Some would see a similar trend if one were to look at the belief in phlogiston.

    Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): Became a believer in his mid-twenties after temporary paralysis. Found to have a brain tumor upon death at 39. Favorite quote,”Sickness is the natural state of Christians.” Amen!

    Michael Faraday (1791-1867): Absolutely devout Protestant sect member. Appears to be an unquestioning believer.

    Gregor Mendel (1822-1884): Professional theologian and great natural scientist. We should assume he was a believer.

    Louis Pasteur (1825-1895): Catholics claim him, but he did not attend mass after childhood. Not aware of profession of faith.

    George Washington Carver (1864-1943): Clearly Christian.

    Albert Einstein (1879-1955): This guy was an atheist. Prosaic quotes like “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.” are as mistakenly cited as professions of faith, as Einstein was mistaken about quantum mechanics.

    Niels Bohr (1885-1962): This guy was not a believer. In fact Kierkegaard, father of existentialism, “doubter” and proto-atheist, was an intellectual influence.

    Dobzhansky (1900-1975): Affiliated with Eastern Orthodox Church. Assumed a prime-mover God.

    Margaret Mead (1901-1978): She was an extremely liberal Episcopalian. Does that mean she was a believer? Your call.

    Jonas Salk (1914-1995): Non-believer.

    Many of these guys are non-believers, especially the physicists. Where did you get this list? You have nothing here because from the end of 18thC the number of believers has evaporated from the ranks of scientists.

    You need to learn some science beyond high school level. “When you can observe the universe and deem it came about through naturalistic means, you have some rather astounding faith.” betrays a lack of education and knowledge of what science is or does. Again, review my previous comments of the meaning of “faith”.

    Horatio, you seem like a reasonably bright guy. You probably deserve better than your lot. Try reading a “Brief History of Time.” ( Again, Hawking is an atheist, but will use a figurative prosaic “God” as is common in non-academic popular science writing. ) While Dawkins is sort of a Christian bogeyman, you could learn something about what you claim to not believe by reading his popular works.

    Good luck.

  22. on 22 Feb 2010 at 11:42 pm 22.Horatio said …

    Thanks for the counsel Observer, but I am working on Ike at the moment. I have read Dawkins, love ‘em but clearly biased and not much of the amateur theologian. I found him to be quite pretentious.

    Once again if you were a comprehensive reader you would have noted the declaration was men of faith, not a religion. You fail have a clear grasp of the difference. Try looking into deist and theist.

    Einstein was not an atheist. He unmistakably states he believed in Spinoza’s God. Look into it. Again, he was a man of faith.

    Salk was a Jewish Deist much like Einstein. Again, another man of faith check you sources.

    My list is my own. Enjoy it and hope you now appreciate most scientist have been and continue to be men and woman of faith. They are not the back-wood hicks ruining you lot in the world. Enjoy the diversity and try to be tolerant of others. You’ll be a much happier individual.

    LOL, thanks for you unease for my lot in life. When the exchange turns personal, I know the blogger no longer has an argument. I met your question with facts. Keep moving the goal post, maybe you can score a cheap point.

  23. on 23 Feb 2010 at 2:30 pm 23.observer said …

    Horatio- No offense intended.

    As for the Deism, Spinoza, etc. It is the evolution of intellectual development in the West. Spinoza was one of Nietzsche’s inspirations. By the way, given your rather broad definition of what it means to be a man of faith, as you include Einstein (????) in that group, then would you not have to include Nietzche as well?

    As for the evangelicals and their allies, back-woods or otherwise, tolerance seems foolish. I am an American. I do not want my country to be destroyed. These people are poisoning my country. Education is the only hope short of civil war. That seems insurmountable as the aforementioned actively work to forbid education, not the least of which is trying to equate supernatural belief with science (observe, theorize, hypothesize, experiment, observe, theorize, etc., repeat). This website is a window into the irrationality and lack of interest education- present company possibly excepted.

    I will concede there is something for the notion that a dish of honey attracts more flies than a dish of vinegar. Harris and Hitchens are not particularly sweet, but entertaining.

    Switzerland ain’t what it used to be. An even more insane USA than the one of the Bush/Cheney years makes nowhere safe except maybe China, but China has its own problems. It is not for me. Maybe I would feel differently about the Christian degenerates otherwise.

  24. on 23 Feb 2010 at 9:09 pm 24.Severin said …

    Horatio 16
    “You are nothing more than blind or just a plain simple idiot.“
    Horatio 22
    “When the exchange turns personal, I know the blogger no longer has an argument.“
    So why are you keeping blogging? You turned personal, and typically agressively offending some 6 comments ago!
    And many times before that.

    “Einstein was not an atheist. He unmistakably states he believed in Spinoza’s God. Look into it.“
    I do not believe Einstein was a believer of any kind, but WHAT if he was, in the sense you claim?

    What has a deep personal belief, out of any kind explicity, to do with the circus of “public” religions, such as christianity, islam, judaism, hinduism….?

    In what way the claim “Einstein believed in Spinoza’s god” helps justifying religions that has NOTHING to do with Spinosa’s god, but bring superstition, ignorance, terror, and supressing of everything positive to human race?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply