The Adam & Eve

Fan Club

 

Eve renamed

i.e., Eve’s true function described

 

 

Genesis 3:20 (Section 39): The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

 

+     “The man called the woman/wife’s name chavvah1

+       because she was the mother of all living.”

 

         The man renames the woman2

         He calls her ‘Life’ (or ‘Living’), not Eve3,4

         It is not stated how the man arrives at his conclusion that the woman ‘was the mother of all living’

         Neither the storyteller nor the Lord God comment on the woman’s new name

         The man neither praises nor blames the woman for becoming ‘the mother of all living’5

         The man neither praises nor blames the woman (nor the serpent) for the situation in which he now finds himself6

         It is not stated if ‘becoming the mother of all living’ multiplies her sorrow during conception and childbearing7

 

÷

 

Footnotes

 

39.1 … Young’s (less than) literal translation reads: “And the man calleth his wife's (i.e. woman’s ??) name Eve (rather than Life, my insertion): for she hath been mother of all living.’ Young’s translation is disinformation. The original meaning of the Hebrew word chavvah was (the injunction or order or capacity to give) ‘life’, hence ‘living’.1 The (mythic) 70 translators who create the first Greek version of the story, i.e. the Septuagint, translate her name as Zoe, meaning ‘Life.’ The Old (i.e. ‘dog’) Latin translation (used by Augustine) also gives the woman’s name as ‘Life’.2 Clement of Alexandria also translates her name as ‘Life’3,4

39.1.1 … Strong’s reference (02332) suggests that the term chavva or chavvah derives as causative of the word chavvah (02331), meaning: to tell, declare, show or make known; or to breathe (i.e. life). That opens up lots of interesting translation and interpretation options

39.1.2 … Many Bibles now add a footnote purporting to explain the name Eve. One bible, i.e. the Gute Nachricht Bibel of the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, claims (i.e. in a footnote) that “Eve sounds like the Hebrew word for ‘life’.”1 In fact the reverse is true. Eve (or Havva2 or Ava or Eva) is the sound (or phonetic transliteration) of the Hebrew word chavvah, meaning: the injunction to (Hebrew: vah) life (or living) (i.e. chai or chay)

39.1.2.1 … The footnote seeks to disguise the true content of the first part of verse 39, namely that the woman is called Life and not Eve (the name Eve having no meaning for non-Hebrews). This is quite extraordinary deception. Even today, theologians at such reputable universities as Cambridge and Durham, continue to uphold this deception1

39.1.2.1.1 … The purpose of this deception is to hide the true function of the woman, namely that of life giver. Her function as life giver cleverly eliminated, religious blackguards such as Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian can calumniate the woman with impunity (see: 39.1.3 and 39.6.2, wherein Tertullian makes Eve responsible for Jesus’ death)

39.1.2.2 … The translation of chavvah as ‘life’ becomes even more interesting when it is noted that in the cognate Arabic and Aramaic languages the word havvah (and which sounds as a pun of chavvah) means ‘serpent’ (in Aramaic hiwya), moreover, can also mean: desire; also ruin; calamity, iniquity, mischief, mischievous (thing), naughtiness, naughty, noisome, perverse thing, substance, very wickedness. Take your pick

39.1.3 … Clement of Alexandria writes: “In fact the woman (not the man, my insertion) who first began transgression (not the serpent?, my insertion) was named ‘Life’ because she became responsible for the succession of those who were born and fell into sin (that’s not stated in our story, my insertion), the mother of righteous and unrighteous (according to Augustine’s free interpretation of our story (but not of the other version), every child is born unrighteous, i.e. a criminal, my insertion) alike, since each one of us makes himself (this does not follow, my insertion) either righteous or disobedient.” (note the extraordinary spin from righteous to disobedient) Elsewhere he reconfirms the woman’s name as ‘Life’: “The Church must be chaste, both from inward thoughts contrary to the truth and from outward tempters, that is the adherents of the sects who would persuade her to commit fornication against her one husband, Almighty God, lest as the serpent deceived Eve, who is called Life (i.e. Zoe, my insertion), we too should be led to transgress the commandments by the lewd craftiness of the sects.”1

39.1.3.1 … Clement statements suggest that he does not accept Augustine’s flaky theory of Original Sin, therefore is, according to the edicts of the Councils of Carthage and of Trent, a heretic, therefore justly worthy of being tortured and fried, as so many hapless humans were fired for not accepting Augustine’s unfounded speculation

39.1.4 … Augustine knows that the woman’s name is Life, rather than Eve, hence the name’s true significance and import. Yet he chooses to deliberately misinterpret the verse (i.e. and its actual meaning) to support his theory of Original Sin. He writes: “Who is not troubled by the fact that after sin (which one?, my insertion) and the sentence of God as judge (?), Adam (here intentionally given the personal name Adam by Augustine, i.e. to personalise his attack on the man and the woman,  though the original text speaks of the adam) calls his woman (sic.) ‘Life’? For she is (called) the mother of the living, after she merited death (not in the story, my insertion) and became destined to bear mortal offspring.” Augustine’s exceedingly slick innuendo, achieved by adding the superfluous adjective mortal, hence suggesting that the woman’s offspring will also die (the suggestion being that they will die because of her) is vicious mental misdirection

39.2 … The name first given by the adam to the help-as-counterpart is woman, i.e. “because she was taken out of man” (in this instance not ‘the’ man but generic man). He appears to derive the first name from her origin.1 The second time he names her he appears to derive her name from her (basic) function,2 in other words, from her newly emerged, or soon to emerge capacity to motherhood, hence the proper name Life3 

39.2.1 … The hero of this story (and of the other version of the Life of Adam) is described in Hebrew as adam (possibly meaning earthling, dust or soil creature or production), because he is formed of (red) dust or soil or of the ground (Hebrew: adamah, the latter term being the feminine form of the term adam). His description (and which is not a name) derives from the material from which he is formed, and not from his function The earthling (or dustman) has no name since he does not give himself one. The insertion into this verse of the proper name Adam is a deliberate text falsification by the translators of the Septuagint. Whether or not the Hebrew term adam should be interpreted as ‘man’ or ‘mankind’ (i.e. since in Genesis 1 it is stated that (the) adam was formed male and female), or as a particular ‘man’ (i.e. as ‘the’ man), or as a man called Adam, is uncertain. In this verse, the Hebrew term adam (meaning man, but not the male man, i.e. iysh) is linked with the term ishshah (meaning woman) rather than with adamah (possibly the female groundling), thereby introducing serious ambiguity and suggesting that the verse a redacted extract for an earlier source interpolated later

39.2.2 … In ancient times it is thought that a person’s name contains something of the very essence of that person. Therefore, by giving someone a particular name one can influence that person’s fate, and, by changing the name, manipulate his or her fate. The etymology of a name also contains something of the person bearing that name. Hence the proper name Yahweh is sometimes interpreted to mean (or to have been derived from) ‘Being’, which is why the Lord God (i.e. the Hebrew mountain strong one, named Yahweh, formerly called El-Shaddai, meaning the God of the mountain and regularly mistranslated as God Almighty or God on high) is alleged to have told Moses, on being questioned about His name, “I am that I am”, or words, in fact consonants, to that effect1

39.2.2.1 … There is obviously a serious problem here. Since it is the mythic (i.e. now known to be a composite, mainly fictional character) Moses who is first told by the strong (ones) (i.e. the elohim, later interpreted to mean godhead or God (in the singular)) that He now wants to be known as Yahweh, that is to say, centuries after this story is (allegedly) first told, it is not entirely clear how the name Yahweh finds its way into our version of the Life of Adam story1,2

39.2.2.1.1 … The notion that the self description, “I am that I am” should be understood to mean that the Hebrew deity refers to himself as ‘pure being’ is developed centuries, probably in Greece. It is of course developed early on in India, specifically by commentators of the Upanishads. They also produce the notion of the formless (i.e. nirguna) Brahman (very loosely translated, but never understood by Indians, as God) and referenced as (all pervading or all-being) sat-chit-ananta (rather than ananda) and, moreover, described as ‘the one without a second’. It is the Indians who first come up with a genuine notion (and experience) of mono-‘theism’, though their ‘theos’ (i.e. the Brahman) is not a person but a combination of fundamental functions (later wrongly reified as qualities), hence a pre-quality Basic Operating System. The Hebrews (more precisely stated, the people of Israel, to wit, the people of EL) eventually accept the god, Yahweh as their sole god, thereby becoming monotheists. However, since Yahweh Himself accepts that there are other gods,1 the Hebrews actually practice not monotheism but monolatry

39.2.2.1.1.1 … The God of Israel (and not the God of any other nation), Yahweh, makes the following statements (Exd 20.3), thereby admitting that other Gods exist1 and, moreover, that He is not the one God of all humans. “Thou shalt have no other gods (elohim) before me” and (Deu 6:14): “Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which [are] round about you;…”. In short, Yahweh insists that the people of EL (i.e. Israel) worship (i.e. fear and love) only him. 39.2.2.1.1.1.1 … Apparently Yahweh, and who appears to have been merely one of 70 sons of the supra-god EL (i.e. the ancient God of Canaan, and who is later reincarnated as the Arab deity Al-lah, possibly derived from al-elah), inherited the tribes of Israel, specifically Jacob, as ‘His portion’ of the supra-god El’s domain, i.e. the tribes who worshipped (to wit, Isra-) the super god El (Hebrew: el’yown, to wit, El on high1), quite obviously fanatically. Yahweh appears not to have a problem with other gods2, not because thy exist but because he is jealous and needs to be the sole deity of the tribes He has received, or has chosen, or who have chosen Him, not taking kindly to any of his flock drifting off to worship (or serve) the competition

39.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 … It is clearly stated in Deuteronomy 32:8, “When the most High (Hebrew: elyown) divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam (here interpreted as man or mankind, my insertion), he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD'S (Yahweh’s) portion [is] his people (that is to say, the tribes of Israel, my insertion); Jacob [is] the lot of his inheritance.”

39.2.2.1.1.1.1.2 … Yahweh never claims to be the god of all nations, therefore of the nations of the uncircumcised. It is stated 235 in the OT, mostly by Yahweh, that He is the God of Israel, i.e. the God of Abraham and of Jacob. He does not state that He is the God of the Irish, the Mongolians or the Pygmies, let alone of the Arabs. The notion of one God for all, and, indeed, of a loving God, the latter notion wholly alien to the belief of Hebrew priests, and Jesus too, is derived by Paul from Greek philosophy and then used as fundamental article of belief framing his new Christos cult

39.2.2.1.2 … There are two possible reasons why the name Yahweh, always intentionally mistranslated (and/or misspoken) as Lord (Hebrew: adown or adon, plural adonai), appears in our story. Either the editor who later rewrites the story, and when he inserts the false story elements (i.e. relating to transgression) in order to ‘bend’ the moral of the story, i.e. from a simple passage solution to a ‘crime and punishment’ drama, to suit current socio-political (hence religious) need, simply adds (i.e. superimposes) the name of Yahweh to give the story greater credibility; or the basic story (as passage myth) is actually composed (or borrowed and altered) when the unknown authors of the Books of Moses invent the fable of Moses and his grandiose achievements (now known to have been fantasy), possibly just prior to or during the Babylonian captivity. In any case, the name Yahweh cannot possibly have been part of our story (moreover, the other version speaks only of elohim, i.e. the gods, and not of Yahweh) since the man, who alone is given the authority to name, does not name Him. There is serious cheating going on here

39.2.3 … It is probable that this verse has been moved forward in the story. For at the time when the man renames the woman Life she has not yet conceived and born her first child (of 3). The verse fits better (i.e. more logically) after the birth of Cain outside the garden

39.3 … The renaming of the woman as ‘Life’ or ‘Living’ begins the process of turning the entire story away from the primary theme, namely the mortal danger of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, and from the secondary them, namely from the notion that transgression (i.e. crime) and punishment, i.e. disobedience, sin and death, result from (‘one man’s’) sin, as interpreted later into the story (i.e. specifically by the expert witnesses Paul, Augustine and Luther, and the countless others who accept their mindset), to the third theme,1 namely that the man (and, possibly, the woman) leaves the garden as peer of gods, his ‘as (one) of us’ status, restricted albeit to his (alleged) knowledge of good and bad, and without any Law being imposed on him

39.3.1 … The shift in (possible) meaning is made all the more dramatic and significant when the Lord God makes garments of skins for the man and the woman (although they are already wearing aprons) and then declares; “Behold, the man has become as one of us, knowing good and bad …”, thereby (i.e. by having the man wear His clothes) announcing to the ‘us’ (but not to the man) the man’s status change (indeed ‘rise’) to membership of the (peer) group of the Lord of the gods, i.e. the elohim, i.e. the ‘strong ones’1

39.3.1.1 … The non-inclusion of the extremely important, in fact, deciding content of this verse Paul and the verse’s ‘playing down’ by Augustine in their respective interpretations of the whole story, and which results in misinterpretation of the story (i.e. as crime and punishment account), amounts to intentional deception1

39.3.1.1.1 … It is truly astonishing that neither Paul nor Augustine refer in detail and at length to the prima facie evidence against punishment of man’s apparent rise in status to ‘as one of us’, and which stands out  (or must have stood out) like a sore tooth. Paul does not refer at all to this sentence. Augustine appears to gloss over this verse and the last part of the story, and which suggests a different solution to the story.1 And the reason is obvious. If, as the sentence seems to suggest, the pair eat from the tree of life rather than from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, and therefore commit no transgression, then Paul’s (and Augustine’s) theory of Original (hence absolute, because transmitted from one source to all human offspring in the man’s semen (so Augustine)) Sin as the cause of death (and which is presented by Paul as a flat assertion) cannot be sustained. If Paul’s disobedience, sin and death theory fails (i.e. ‘falls’, and it ‘falls’ because neither disobedience nor sin are mentioned in the story), then his 1st Adam - 2nd Adam theory also fails (i.e. ‘falls’, because a lie)

39.3.1.1.1.1 … The solution, and which the Lord God Himself provides (in verse 41), is that the man is ‘sent forth’ from the garden as a mortal peer (i.e. ‘as one of us’, i.e. as one of the ‘gods’, i.e. as one of the elohim) and not as an evil or wicked man condemned to a life of misery ending in death (after 900 years), as claimed by Augustine and Luther. However, this solution, namely that (the) man lives beyond the garden as a mortal, albeit foolish god - since he has quite obviously not acquired the knowledge of good and bad (but merely the experience of nakedness), and which is why the Lord God later needs to invent His (10 plus n) commandments - would not have served the fanatic cult founder Paul’s need for an absolute whipping stick (i.e. endemic sin and/or guilt)1

39.3.1.1.1.1.1 … Endemic (or inherent) sin (hence guilt), first suggested by Paul and later firmly established by Augustine, is their most creative and productive, albeit malicious contribution to Christianity. The theory of endemic sin, namely that each and every child is born a criminal because corrupted by Adam’s sin, allows the Church to proclaim: ‘A person (man or woman) is guilty until proven innocent’, in contrast to the civilized (indeed Roman, indeed pagan) view that ‘A person is innocent until proven guilty.’ Proof of innocence, if not proof of the ability to achieve innocence, derives, according to Paul, in a person’s faith (i.e. faith in Paul’s (but not Jesus’) version of the Chrestos cult1). However, Augustine claims that proving (indeed recovering) lost ‘innocence’ (hence righteousness) lies solely within the power of the God, i.e. in the sanctifying grace (and which was another of Augustine’s weird and wonderful inventions) and which God gives according to His (unknown and unpredictable) reason. According to Augustine, a person has no chance of proving his or her innocence any effort on their part. Neither ‘keeping the law’ nor ‘faith’ nor doing ‘good works’ suffices to induce God to declare a person born of a male’s semen innocent. The notion (later dogma) that all human’s are guilty (i.e. criminals at birth) together with the notion that humans cannot their innocence produces the perfect rationale for the nigh irresistible protection racket which the Christian Church eventually establishes all over Europe

39.3.1.1.1.1.1.1 … Resistance to or loss of faith in Paul’s  (and Augustine’s) highly speculative opinion, later accepted by the Church as dogmatic fact, decides to declare himself infallible, results in the robbery, torture and murder of millions of innocent humans. The lives of countless humans, in particular woman, are blighted, indeed wrecked by Paul and Augustine’s (and later Luther’s) sin and guilt obsessed religious fantasies. It seems that no one dared, nor dares to touch these saintly conmen whose crooked and malevolent (personal) opinions led (and still lead) Christian clerics to indulge in worldwide crimes against humanity, in particular crimes against female humanity

39.4 … The man does not call the woman ‘Knowledge’ or ‘Smart’ or ‘Clever,’ and which he would have done - following the practice of deriving a personal name from an individual’s primary function - had she acquired knowledge, i.e. by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. By naming her ‘Life’, the storyteller (or the redactor who ‘planted’ this verse, introduces massive ambiguity into the story1

39.4.1 … It is not clear why the storyteller has the adam re-name the woman ‘Life’ and, to make her function absolutely clear, that she is (or will be) ‘the mother of all living’, thereby increasing the ambiguity of the story, widening the range of the story’s (or oracle’s) solutions, and preventing a clear cut moral from emerging. Is he suggesting that the pair did not after all eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad but of the tree of life, since neither died, as the Lord God had predicted (at least for the man), and when the woman’s life giving faculties might have been started up?1,2,3

39.4.1.1 … This is precisely what Augustine suggests when he speculates: “For in the first stirring of the disobedient motion (read: arousal, possibly erection) which was felt in the flesh of the disobedient soul (the soul is not mentioned in the story, my insertion) and which caused our first parents to cover their shame (in fact they covered their nakedness, my insertion), one death indeed is experienced, that, namely, which occurs when God forsakes the soul.” This statement is pure fiction and full of intentional disinformation. Augustine uses this fictional detail to support his theory of Original Sin (or guilt), and which is then accepted as fact (to be turned into dogma) by the pope and the whole Christian Church, notwithstanding a few dissidents, who are then quickly dispatched (i.e. excluded and then exterminated) by the Church

39.4.1.2 … It is interesting to note that in the Middle Ages it gradually becomes accepted, a least by painters, that Eve ‘tempts’ (or seduces) Adam with an apple. The apple (possibly derived from the fact that the Latin term malus (meaning bad) also describes the genus term given to the apple, i.e. malus) is a symbol of female fertility. Obviously someone (else) realized that quite possibly the woman and the man ate from the tree of life and not from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. The storyteller does not state that the man and the woman indulged in sexual activity after they. The Lord God does not accuse or condemn the man and the woman of sexual misconduct

39.4.1.3 … The God of the Arabs, Allah, when speaking through his Prophet Mohammad, may his name be praised, clearly states that the man and the woman ate of the tree of immortality, hence of the tree of life. And who would doubt the word of Allah, let alone his Prophet,1 on pain of getting assassinated

39.4.1.2.1.1 … The message of Allah’s prophet to Arabic speakers is clear: (Surah 20.120) “But the Shaitan (i.e. Satan, not mentioned in the Hebrew version of the story, my insertion) made an evil suggestion to him; he said: O Adam! Shall I guide you to the tree of immortality and a kingdom which decays not? (20. 121) Then they both ate of it, so their evil inclinations1 became manifest to them, and they both began to cover themselves with leaves of the garden, and Adam disobeyed his Lord, so his life became evil (to him)…” Mohammad, speaking for Allah, does not mention the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. It does appear that Allah’s version of events corroborates the Hebrew storyteller’s account given in verses 25 and 26. Recall that the woman merely states, “The serpent beguiled me”, but does no specify the tree from which she ate. And the man merely states, “and I ate’, but does not admit to having eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad

39.4.1.2.1.1.1 … It would, of course, have been helpful if Allah had described the type and range of those evil inclinations

39.5 … The new name the man gives to the woman appears to be derived from the functions he observes, or anticipates, in the woman, though she has not yet activated her reproduction, i.e. life giving, functions. However, he does not disclose the reason why he names his help-as-counterpart ‘Life’. Whether or not his statement about the woman (i.e. as ‘mother of all living’1) amounts to praise or blame is not disclosed in the story. Neither the Lord God nor the storyteller comment on the woman’s change of function and of name

39.5.1 … Mad Martin, it appears, is truly baffled by this verse. So he sets about inventing some facts (and which is pretty poor academic, though excellent theological procedure) in support the traditional view He writes, “But you will ask: “Why does he call her ‘mother’ when she was still a virgin and had not yet given birth?” He does this, too, to bear witness to his faith in the promise (what promise?, my insertion); for he believes that the human race is not to be cast away or to be destroyed, but is to be preserved. And so this name expresses a prophecy of the future grace (Wow? that’s not in the story, my insertion) and points to the comfort which is necessary against the temptations of Satan (he’s parroting Paul, my insertion) in the continual misfortunes (no fortunes at all?, my insertion) of this life (whose life? all of it?, some of it?, my insertion). Moreover, it is possible that this delightful assignment of the name, which is a superb witness of Adam's faith (Wow!. my insertion) and of his cheerful spirit, prompted the holy fathers later on to regard as more festive and joyful the day on which an infant was circumcised (he’s lost me here!, my insertion) and named than the one on which it was born.’1

39.5.1.1 … Once again, dizzy with misguided passion, Diddy (Bonhoeffer) needs to go one up on mad Martin. Bonhoeffer fantasizes, “There is a wild exultation, defiance, audacity, and triumph (I could not find this bit in the original text, my insertion) when Adam now gives to his woman, the very woman on whom this curse has fallen (no curse fell on the woman, my insertion), the name ‘the mother of all that lives’. It is as though, like Prometheus, he boastfully (??, great rhetoric, my insertion) insists on his claim to have pulled off a robbery against his Creator (Razinger, now Pope Benny 16, will later call the man’s acquisition of the knowledge of good and bad a rip-off, German; entreissen, my insertion)); and now, with his booty (what booty ?,  my insertion), this woman of his to whom he is bound in a new way, in defiance of the heavy fate that the curse has laid upon them both (a curse was not laid on the man or the woman, my insertion), he renounces all ties with the Creator.’ It is not stated in the story, nor, indeed, in the other one (Gen 1 and 5), that the man renounces all ties with the Creator. Bonheoffer is lying. The problem with dizzy Diddy (Bonhoeffer) is that he reads too much of Augustine and Luther and does not check the facts provided in the original story and use them, rather than Augustine’s and Luther’s malevolent fantasies, to support his over-the top apologetic

39.6 … There is no indication at this point in our story of the world’s first family squabble. It appears that the man accepts (i.e. is man enough1 to accept) the new reality without resorting to blaming, and, indeed, to denigrating2

39.6.1 … It appears that the woman resorts to blaming, for she appears to try to shift the blame for her alleged transgression (and she is not told by the Lord God precisely what her transgression was, i.e. the Lord God simply says: “what is this (unspecified, my insertion) that you have done?”)1

39.6.1.1 … The blame shifting interpretation changes if the Hebrew term nachash, and which can mean serpent (Strong 0517) or enchanter (or deceiver or diviner, to wit, whisperer) (Strong 05172) or enchantment (i.e. as deception or divination) (Strong 05173) is translated as enchanter. If nachash is translated as enchanter, then the woman merely states the obvious, namely that the enchanter (i.e. whisperer or hisser) enchanted her (i.e. ‘caused her to forget’), and the notion that she is blaming disappears

39.6.1.2 … Paul, the Christos cult founder, is certainly given to blaming.1 He writes, “Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me”. Elsewhere Paul claims (i.e. without proving, or even seeing the need to prove his case) that Adam (actually, the nameless groundling) is responsible for sin (unspecified, and absolutely or universally endemic in ‘all’, though here and there only some humans’). In short, Paul is inventing the adam as a fall guy. Paul is not prepared to take the rap for his own failing (Greek: hamartia, Hebrew: chattah). What Paul is actually saying is that Adam, i.e. the 1st Adam, got him into the mess he is in (so that he is not personally responsible), and that Christ (alone), i.e. the 2nd Adam, will get him out of it (and for which act of deliverance he too is not responsible, unless he has ‘faith’, maybe). Of course, that’s not what Jesus says. Jesus seems occasionally to incline to the opinion that individuals are, or become righteous (hence justified) if they adhere to the Law (+ do good works, + love their neighbours + pay their taxes and so on)

39.6.1.2.1 … Likewise (the married!) Tertullian, Church Father extraordinaire, and who is not present when the events in the garden unfold, and is, therefore, not a witness, though he speaks as an expert anyway. He heaps sheer awful blame and abuse on the woman,1,2 indeed, following Paul’s lately developed proclivity to universalise, on all women. Tertullian castigates all women, i.e. for being the daughters of ‘Life’: “Do you not believe that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives on even in our times and so it is necessary that the guilt should live on, also. You are the one who opened the door to the Devil, you are the one who first plucked the fruit of the forbidden tree, you are the first who deserted the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the Devil was not strong enough to attack. All too easily you destroyed the image of God, man (WoW!!, my insertion). Because of your desert, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die.” Wow! So Eve is responsible for Jesus’ death, and his death was not a voluntary act of self-sacrifice? Elsewhere he gives his misogynistic extremism free reign: “You (i.e. every woman, my insertion) are the devil’s gateway… you are she who persuaded him whom the devil dared not attack. Do you not know that every one of you is an Eve? The sentence of God on your sex lives on in this age; the guilt, of necessity, lives on too.’ Tertullian’s brutal, merciless denigration, indeed demonization of all women is without grace, compassion and love. This malevolent, hate-filled religious blackguard should have been condemned and fired, if not on a pyre, then at least from his job. Sadly, though Tertullian’s wholly un-Christian opinion did untold damage to women, he is still revered as one of the Church’s finest. Still, it’s not too late to declare at least this piece of Tertullian’s religious crap anathema

39.6.1.2.1 … Thomas Aquinas, the angelic Doctor, one of the Christian Church’s more creative and respected religious fantasy writers, though playing the dummy to the ventriloquist Aristotle, has this to say about (the) woman: “As regards the individual nature, woman (i.e. generic woman, i.e. all women, my insertion) is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence.” Words fail me! How an intelligent man, and one who presumably has faith in the Lord God’s absolute goodness, could even think such horrendous nonsense beggars belief. That the Church accepted, and apparently still accepts Aquinas’ psycho-pathological delusion, and which led and still leads to the most cruel psychological abuse of women worldwide, speaks volumes about the Christian Church’s inability or unwillingness to clean up its act and change its fundamental attitude to women

39.6.1.2.1.2 … Augustine expresses his derogatory opinion of women succinctly. He writes, “What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children.” Apparently the Lord God did not share Augustine’s opinion. After all, He ‘made’ the woman as a help-as-counterpart rather than as a ‘bearer of children’

39.6.2 … Following Paul’s disparaging comments on the adam’s help-as-counterpart, the Early Church Fathers gradually dragged the Christian Church into full-blown misogyny. In short, neither they nor the later Church (despite its invention of Mariolatry (and which concerns itself with the virgin Mary, i.e. as God Mother and/or God Bearer, and not with old Mary (and woman as such), the mother of several children in her role as life giver) had not a good word to say about Eve (i.e. generic woman) and her countless daughters, even though the adam had declared her to be ‘the mother of all living’. How could the Christian Church get it so wrong? How could the Church condemn rather than praise giving birth to children, indeed to life giving in general, when the Lord God had clearly stated (and on several occasions after the pair had left the garden and the Flood) that the physical life He had created was good1 and, moreover the man and the woman should multiply (to wit: copulate) and be fruitful? How could the Church blame the woman (i.e. Eve) for Christ’s death and not praise her for His birth? After all, if the Christian assumptions about life in the garden in Eden are accepted, then reproduction would not have happened (since reproduction requires not only desire (forbidden by Paul as sinful) but also sexual activity, deemed sinful by the Early Church Fathers, in particular by Augustine) and you would not be reading these words. The Christian Church’s misogyny, indeed, misanthropy was, and still is, staggering. No love there for the human (in particular for human women). The damage it did to humans, in particular to women, is legion

39.6.2.1 …Even if death is considered bad, and that depends on who is doing the considering, since the Lord God appears to believe it is good, at least for him, life, i.e. life giving, is certainly good. To be sure, death ends life; but life has to emerge before death can happen. Life, i.e. physical live, the life of the flesh, is a wonderful gift, even though it comes at a price. The Lord God created human life last, possibly as His highest creative achievement, i.e. because of its widest range (or freedom) of experience, hence of consciousness. That might suggest that every life form prior to human life was less of an achievement, and that would include God’s life too, at least that’s the conclusion to which the Indians, both Hindus and Buddhists, came

39.7 … Life, alias Eve, conceives 3 children after she leaves the garden.1 It is not stated that she has increased sorrow during her very few conceptions and/or childbirths. Indeed, it is not stated that she experiences any sorrow at all. Yahweh’s prediction, namely that she will have her conceptions multiplied, appears not to come true. But then, Yahweh gets His predictions wrong almost every time

39.7.1 … The other story of the Life of Adam does not mention the adam’s wife by name; nor does it mention the births of Cain and Abel. The other story confirms the birth of Seth, i.e. when the adam is 130 years old, after which it states that he has several more sons and daughters. The story does not state that the adam is forcefully evicted from the garden in Eden for wrongdoing. Indeed, it does not mention the Garden in Eden. That suggests that either the Garden in Eden story is a ‘plant’, i.e. between Genesis 1 and 5, and which purport to describe human beginnings; or the Garden story is authentic and the other story is a fake. Take your pick

 

Return