Neo-monophysitism

Sure, and it doesn't look like god said you can have only one wife.

Going back to the book of Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve -
When they ate from the tree of knowledge, they became wise and self-aware. Before that, they were semi-intelligent, and gullible.
From that do we learn that this was god's plan for us?
After they ate, God said "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

This is from Genesis posted on the Vatican website.

So god says "one of us" - us who? The other gods? The other creators? The other aliens?

We also learn from genesis that man is to lord over all things on earth, including women.

The story of adam and eve is bookended by stories that we know are not factually accurate - the story of creation, and the story of the flood.
Why should the one in the middle be true?

It looks like god's original plan for us was to be semiintelligent cattle, and the snake elevated us to self awareness.

It looks like god did not oppose multiple wives.

If these stories are true, we should celebrate original sin. It is the price we paid for self-awareness.

Why didn't god make us to be self-aware and intelligent in the first place?

I know I have brought up too many questions, and my posts are going to be cherry-picked to provide answers to a few, but not all of them. Oh well.

Quote: Dalex64

Sure, and it doesn't look like god said you can have only one wife.

Going back to the book of Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve -
When they ate from the tree of knowledge, they became wise and self-aware. Before that, they were semi-intelligent, and gullible.
From that do we learn that this was god's plan for us?
After they ate, God said "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

This is from Genesis posted on the Vatican website.

So god says "one of us" - us who? The other gods? The other creators? The other aliens?

This passage and others in Genesis have God speaking as a plural entity, such as, "Let us make man in our image..." This is early foreshadowing in the OT of the reality of the Trinity.

Quote:

We also learn from genesis that man is to lord over all things on earth, including women.

Actually no. In the first creation story mankind is made male and female and both are charged to be fertile and multiply having dominion over all living things. There is no distinction made in this between male and female. In the second creation story, Eve is formed to be a suitable partner to Adam, bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh and for this reason a man shall cling to his wife and they shall become one flesh. Their is no dominion or lording over anyone.

Quote:

The story of adam and eve is bookended by stories that we know are not factually accurate - the story of creation, and the story of the flood.
Why should the one in the middle be true?

Is the middle one true? The story of creation shows us a truth continually pointed to by modern science that the universe had a beginning and that God is the creator of all things out of nothing and the story of the flood shows us a truth that sin has consequences not just to the individual but to society as a whole. Everyone is hurt by sin, even the innocent and the even the earth itself. See innocent victims and global warming today. In the middle story of Adam and Eve we are taught that we as human beings are the special jewel of God's creation. This seems beyond obvious by looking at humanity and our dominion of the Earth whether for good or ill. It also teaches that we are all descended from common ancestors, that the human race is a family, I believe this is true and while science won't point to an individual couple there are many studies showing a primordial Eve or some other common ancestor to all of us. There are many theories then how we can hold to a couple Adam and Eve and still recognize our bodily evolution. Anyway I ask again if any of those three stories is completely to be taken literally? They weren't written to be and they pass on truths that you miss because you are so focused on the trees.

Quote:

It looks like god's original plan for us was to be semiintelligent cattle, and the snake elevated us to self awareness.

Very dangerously wrong. God's original plan for us was to be perfectly happy and this happiness comes through recognizing that we are not God. Seems simple enough. However the snake did not elevate us to self awareness but self forgetfulness. He convinces us that we should be God and overthrow the tyrant who created us and sets up rules to govern our lives. We should determine for ourselves what we want and not have to listen to some God! Why can't we be God? What is God keeping from us by not letting us eat of certain trees or do certain things? I want to do what I want to do! These lies of the devil are instilling selfishness in us not self-awareness. Self-awareness would be to recognize that I have received a gift of life that is not my own and I should be thankful, humble, and recognize God's greatness. You might call this a cattle mentality and you might even accuse God of wanting to be recognized. I think you could also call it the truth.

Quote:

It looks like god did not oppose multiple wives.

See above. For this reason a man clings to his wife and the two become one flesh.

Quote:

If these stories are true, we should celebrate original sin. It is the price we paid for self-awareness.

The price we paid to pretend to be gods (self-aware, LOL) is the violence, deceit, greed, thirst for power, fame, wealth, and the prejudicial treatment of others. Again Original Sin is about selfishness. Read the story and again and see how quickly things fall apart after Originial Sin. Adam turns on Eve, Eve turns on the serpent, and everyone turns on God.

Quote:

Why didn't god make us to be self-aware and intelligent in the first place?

He did. We were self-aware that we were not God and intelligent enough to recognize that fundamental truth and to listen to God rather than do whatever we wanted. Our intelligence now is dimmed by original sin.

Quote:

I know I have brought up too many questions, and my posts are going to be cherry-picked to provide answers to a few, but not all of them. Oh well.

I think I tried to answer them all, I've got a busy day but I look forward to your responses this evening.

I don't have much time now, but I'll start with Genesis chapter 3 verse 16 as published on the Vatican website

[3:16] To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Will you explain "he shall rule over you"

As for the story of creation being a story, and the story of thr flood being a story, what makes you believe that the story of the garden of eden is anything but a story?

[3:22] Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

This doesn't say that man pretends to be like God, it says that man now knows good and evil, like god. The next thing they want to prevent is immortality like god. I read nothing in genesis that leads me to believe that man was trying to be god, or usurp god, or pretend to be god. They are even being punished for being tricked into disobedience.

I'm not trying to take the stories literally, but you did say that adam and eve were real people who really betrayed god, and it sounded like you were taking the story of the garden of eden quite literally.

[2:24] Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.

This is not a directive, or a ban, it is an explanation of why two people get married.

4:19] Lamech took two wives; the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

This also is not a directive, it is a statement of what happened. It goes without admonishment or directive that it is wrong.

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/genesis/documents/bible_genesis_en.html

I'll not go further into chapter 4 yet. I do need to know if you think chapter 3 and 4 are the literal truth, or if it is just a story.

Quote: Dalex64

I don't have much time now, but I'll start with Genesis chapter 3 verse 16 as published on the Vatican website

[3:16] To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Will you explain "he shall rule over you"

The first thing to realize is that this is after the fall. I think you were earlier talking about God's original plan that had men and women working together as perfect partners. Now with original sin you can already see the relationships between human beings starting to be filled with tension and the temptation to rule over others. This is not a command remember, it is a punishment because of sin. We will often not be fair to one another because of sin.

Quote:

As for the story of creation being a story, and the story of thr flood being a story, what makes you believe that the story of the garden of eden is anything but a story?

I'm a little uncomfortable with your use of the word "story" as if it was worthless or not communicating real truths. I think I mentioned earlier what these various stories can teach us - some very fundamental and important truths.

Quote:

[3:22] Then the LORD God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

This doesn't say that man pretends to be like God, it says that man now knows good and evil, like god. The next thing they want to prevent is immortality like god. I read nothing in genesis that leads me to believe that man was trying to be god, or usurp god, or pretend to be god. They are even being punished for being tricked into disobedience.

Remember how they were tricked into disobedience, by being convinced that they would become like God. What separates man from God in the story? God sets the rules, God determines what He knows is best for the creation He loves. The fall is Adam and Eve begin not to trust that God the creator of all things knows what is best, but rather they themselves can no know what is good and evil - according NOT to God but according to themselves. This brings all kinds of chaos and problems in the world that you can see on the news everyday. It is mercy to not live in this broken world forever, it was always God's plan to have us live in perfect peace and happiness for eternity (like the Garden before we messed it up).

Quote:

I'll not go further into chapter 4 yet. I do need to know if you think chapter 3 and 4 are the literal truth, or if it is just a story.

I'm happy to do a kind of Bible Study thread with you on Genesis if you would like. I think that would be fun and informative. In answer to your question I continue to be uncomfortable with what seems like a pejorative take on the word "story". So while I don't think the chapters are literal truth I believe the foundational parts of them are such as an original couple, a tempter, the nature of their sin, the change in relationships between everyone involved, the consequences of sin, etc.

Quote:

the consequences of sin

Invent a concept, then invent the consequences
for not following something you invented. It's
like a Parker Bros game, except along the way
you started thinking it was real.

God and sin don't exist.

You are reading too much into my possible meaning of story.

Story = fiction. Not based on actual events, or facts. You can teach any lesson you want with a story, but it is still a story.

I don't want to jump all the way into the new testament yet, but those websites which claim that genesis is non-fiction point out all of the ways that Jesus, peter, and paul reference genesis as a non-fictional account of actual events.

If one of the punishments is woman being subservient to man, then it is clearly saying that this is how we are supposed to live, or as an explaination for why women are supposed to be subservient to men, just as it is an explaination of why women experience so much pain in childbirth. That punishment doesn't seem to have been lifted.

If we agree that the book of genesis is at least mostly a work of fiction, then I can instead ask questions about the message and meaning.

Still on the table - no admonishment for multiple spouses. Lots of examples of multiple spouses in the bible. It was against roman law, too. I've done a lot of reading on this now, and can see where the one spouse rule didn't really develop for centuries.

After that, I'd like to know the meaning of the enslavement of the son of Ham, and why Ham should be punished for seeing his father Noah naked.

Quote: Dalex64

You are reading too much into my possible meaning of story.

Story = fiction. Not based on actual events, or facts. You can teach any lesson you want with a story, but it is still a story.

I don't want to jump all the way into the new testament yet, but those websites which claim that genesis is non-fiction point out all of the ways that Jesus, peter, and paul reference genesis as a non-fictional account of actual events.

If one of the punishments is woman being subservient to man, then it is clearly saying that this is how we are supposed to live, or as an explaination for why women are supposed to be subservient to men, just as it is an explaination of why women experience so much pain in childbirth. That punishment doesn't seem to have been lifted.

If we agree that the book of genesis is at least mostly a work of fiction, then I can instead ask questions about the message and meaning.

Still on the table - no admonishment for multiple spouses. Lots of examples of multiple spouses in the bible. It was against roman law, too. I've done a lot of reading on this now, and can see where the one spouse rule didn't really develop for centuries.

After that, I'd like to know the meaning of the enslavement of the son of Ham, and why Ham should be punished for seeing his father Noah naked.

I'm not taking a position either way but are you saying woman should not be subservient to man? If not why not? Also, the multiple wives thing never seems to go so well, Bible story wise.

Quote: FrGamble

Now with original sin you can already see

Amazing how you can spin atrocities and evil acts by your god into victim-blaming.

Have you no shame?

The flood is supposed to show the consequences of sin? Does you all-powerful god lack free will? Is he a computer program where If Sin>Sin Limit then Destroy World?

No, I don't think women should be subservient to men as a societal rule. If individuals choose to do so that is fine.
You ask why not, and I ask why should they be?
One of my points on polygamy is the assertion that marriage has always been between one man and one woman, yet in the very first book of the bible there is an example showing this not to be true, and it is not forbidden.
One of my points on women is that I earlier asserted that the Catholic church instructs woman to be subservient to man, but FrGamble tells me that isn't true. If genesis is telling us that women is subservient to man because of original sin, then the catholic church is picking and choosing which rules and explainations in the story of adam and eve to teach.
That also applies to the multiple marriage examples - they are there, they are a part of society, yet the rules of society, not just the catholic church, now forbid it.

Quote: Dalex64

No, I don't think women should be subservient to men as a societal rule. If individuals choose to do so that is fine.
You ask why not, and I ask why should they be?

There is a big difference between what western women [particularly US] consider being subservient and what Japanese culture demonstrates with the woman walking 3 steps behind the man.

Too often, it is portrayed that if a woman were to fix a plate of food and bring it to her husband, that somehow is thought to be subservient. If a woman takes on the traditional role of doing household chores and fulfilling the sexual needs of her husband she is thought to be a slave. Somehow the 60-80 hours the husband puts in, is just natural. Men are finding the current bargain to be unfair, with media showing women to be dominating and demeaning to men, the implied social contract is broken. Many women found they over shot on women's lib but can't get the genie back in the bottle.

Quote:

One of my points on women is that I earlier asserted that the Catholic church instructs woman to be subservient to man, but FrGamble tells me that isn't true.

It certainly is true in the Baptist culture. It probably doesn't happen all that much, but it is what they preach, to the destruction of the women.

Quote:

That also applies to the multiple marriage examples - they are there, they are a part of society, yet the rules of society, not just the catholic church, now forbid it.

We live [d] by Colorado City where that preacher Warren Jeffs was marrying children and women into polygamist marriages. It worked for some of the sister wives fine, for others it was obviously abuse.

Also, western thinking gets all hung up thinking sex is all that is important and a man should be monogamous. That isn't natural at all. We are made to cast our seed wherever possible and as often.