As I cited yesterday, Nancy Leigh DeMoss wrote,
I have often wondered why food is such an issue with so many women. I'm convinced it has something to do with Genesis 3. After all, what was the very first sin? It was the sin of overeating.She also wrote on page 137, in reference to Gen. 3,
The protection the woman had been granted under her spiritual "head" was removed, and the independent spirit she had exerted toward God now displayed itself toward her husband, leaving her vulnerable to greater deception, sin and attack.However, the statistics show that married women actually weigh more on average than single women. Being married, and being in a Christian marriage, and being in a conservative Christian marriage, may tend to make a person weigh more, rather than less.
I am not altogether convinced that all of the above is true, but statistics do suggest it. However, I am going to propose that a hypothesis could be made that male headship does not protect a woman from the sin of Eve, that of overeating.
In fact, I speak of this matter from the lofty heights of being in the lowest weight class of them all. As a single Canadian female, I am about half as likely to be overweight or obese, as a male American member of the clergy. It is true, alas, that, as some say, I am trying to punch above my weight class.
Now that I have written this, I am going to rededicate it to my very own sister, to whom it was suggested that she read this book.
11 comments:
deconstructing the myths of Eve,
this belief that Eve usurped the authority of Adam, etc etc etc,
IF the sin [and it doesn't mention sin in Genesis and Paul refers to it as transgression that btw means an entirely different thing that 'sin'] but anyway,
if the sin had been eating, and if it was all about Eve's usurping/against the authority of Atom [yes I said Atom],
then, why then, after the serpent [allegory obviously] told her, [she had ability to Reason then, as she pondered the fruit of the tree, that arsenic wrapped in cotton candy, as if Any parent here would do that to a child, something Else to think about, to the free thinkers out there],
told her she would be 'like the gods',
then, with all this bashing-hating on Eve, why did she Then, give to Atom who was with her?
If Eve was this evil, power driven wanting to usurp Atom's authority, uh,
then any one with any common sense [not brainwashed in the patriarchal delusions] knows, One with power, who wants to usurp authority of another ruling over them, does not in turn, give the keys of that power [in this case wisdom] to the authority,
but would instead have kept Atom dumb so therefore She could rule over him.
If I am under a despot, and I am shown a computer code with a 'key' to unlock the mystery that will make me able to overthrow this despot or at least, free me from his tyranny,
would I Then, turn and give that code once I got it, to the very despot or to one of is little lords?
Of course not!!! I would take that code and run with it,
leaving ole Atom there to sulk in his 'lack of wisdom'.
So not to say that this 'breach' didn't happen [it's in all ancient religions though varies in style] but alas,
this whole taking it and turning it into some imagery of this evil tempestuous woman seeking ultimate Power over the men [men who are obviously terrified of the womb/their own sexuality or vulnerability as a result of and why they are power-rape obsessed]
is getting a tad old, we would think at least in this modern age that Some of these medieval folks would see the fallacy of such interpretation of the Genesis 3. I tend to believe that it's more about the created 'slaves' to the gods [or their reps] who took of a tree that had some time of sorcery power or illumination that Adam [Atom] was just as privy to as Eve was, to be like 'the gods',
which of course, granted them punishment [the curse, etc.] and another thing odd, if you take of the tree you surely die, serpent says you won't die, God says you will die/turn back to dust [we know maggots eat us instead but another topic],
and then later, it says, they now know good/evil like US [sure because Eve was the one they did Evil too, pay attention to that story],
Lest they take of the tree of life and LIVE FOREVER,
take of tree surely die,
lest they take of tree they live
take of tree surely die
lest they take of tree they live,
in other words, they were GOING TO DIE ANYWAY...
figure it out folks,
to the diet [DIE + T] patriarchal parrot woman [this Nancy whoever] with her Eve and Overeating,
try to go lean on some of that ultra patriarchal 'godbag' teachings there, the ole brain gets a heavy with that sort of misogynist brainwashing.
just saying
Excellent point, JDT! If Eve wanted to usurp Adam's alleged power/knowledge/authority, giving him the fruit would have been the LAST thing she'd do.
I've long challenged male supremacists to justify their "Genesis 2-1/2" story where Eve begins to waver before the serpent ever shows up, or that she was hiding in some dark corner of the Garden when she encountered it, or that what Adam "listened to" was Eve's alleged temptation of him, making HER the tempter and Adam the victim! But of course, the challenge remains unanswered. The best they can do is circular reasoning: Gen. 2-1/2 is real because Paul referred to it, and Paul referred to it because it's real.
"protection the woman had been granted under her spiritual "head" was removed"
Where in the bible does it ever say anything like women are under the protection of a spiritual head? I know all the NT head verses and none of them even suggest such a concept. Talk about pulling arguments out of thin air? Sheez
Nancy's spiritual head is covering her from the Holy Spirit which cannot penetrate that thick and dense covering she so loves to be under. Geeze wheeze.
Another Genesis 3 mis-interpretation this week at Kyria and Christianity Today website by Joanne Kraft.
Although her article has some validity, the hermenutics don't.
I'm very thankful to be freed from this thinking.
JaneDoeThreads wrote:
...IF the sin [and it doesn't mention sin in Genesis and Paul refers to it as transgression that btw means an entirely different thing that 'sin'] but anyway,
It seems to me that Paul uses αμαρτια and παραπτωμα and παρακοης and παραβασις somewhat interchangeably in Romans 5 where he's discussing what Adam did in Genesis 3. I.e., the terms seem to have some (or maybe much) semantic overlap.
[two reply due word count] Well I don't know the Greek translations, of all the research I've done on the make-up of the Bible & early church plus the ancient religions/pagan and Judaic and the assimilation of other beliefs [and the debate is wide there and no mistaking there IS enough evidence to warrant questioning on several findings there], and the allegories of OT that I've come to understand, [I have eccentric not mainstream beliefs so forewarning]
to me, transgression yes is sin but it's the stepping out of the 'place' God has designed, where as sin is rebellion, willful or via ignorance [and Paul mentions this], deceitfulness of sin, so forth,
and from what I've gathered of Genesis [from a allegorical rather than the traditional 'literal' man version that is already heaped in false piousness, misogyny and religiosity and materialism], and YES my take on it
for most would be heretical, no doubt. But to me it's several things, but what stands out the most to me is the disconnect/separation that happened as a result of several things,
that actually we All deal with on a day to day basis [if we are honest] in our relation to God, to the order of Creation meaning, how creation itself is interconnected and dependent upon each other for LIFE [I lean heavily to Native Indian beliefs there and I've seen enough allegory in OT and NT that reinforces to me at least, those parables, e.g., Elijah & John the Baptist for one], our desire to create/for power-curiosity and like children, wanting to do but not having the Wisdom nor Patience nor Understanding of spiritual responsibility and duty that it all requires,
that getting ahead of ourselves, our Comparing to other's place [which is what Eve did do, why serpent says, "you'll be as the gods" [KJV, it says gods, not God--also numerous references in OT on this spiritual governance, what I term it and Ancient Judaism DID believe this way until Monotheism], obviously this was not just some unseen event, due to numerous scriptures in OT, [and in ancient in stone stories similar], now as to WHY? I don't know, I've wrestled with this one for year now, numerous 'theories' on this of course, all have merit,
but to me, well I've summed it up like this, in the first creation story, there isn't a Let US until the fifth day/let US make man, that is after fish/birds [interestingly fish/birds dying now], before this it is only GOD, second creation story is LORD GOD and there ARE differences between those two [which give the ancient Sumerian & Egyptian story credence], I've ripped these apart, and sure enough, there IS difference,
first one, there is all trees/herbs with NO instruction to those made in the image of GOD to not eat, when the LORD GOD creates Adam/Eve there is THEN the tree of knowledge and tree of life, created to 'till the ground' with the instruction to NOT eat,
the animals could not till the ground, there is something there, that I believe is significant to the garden/and the decision between Adam & Eve, anyway, the earth grows herb/bears seed [the mist], the generations of...this is 7th day, then the LORD GOD creates Adam & Eve to till the ground, this would make possible for the multiplication of herb/seed for the animals [and first creation, I question if that first was the Sons of God/Angels?],
anyway, this would explain why serpent [allegory] says, 'you'll be AS the gods', [con't]
[Con't]
therefore, IF this was reason [and it couldn't have been, again, what many spew, this child innocence not knowing BECAUSE EVE had to have some brain capability to be able to 'reason' that the fruit looked pleasant to the eye, taste, and desiring to give wisdom, to be able to DO THAT, ONE HAS TO HAVE ABILITY TO REASON, so this version that she is just some lobotomized child like zombie with no reason and that it's sexuality is just ludicrous,
Not only that, they were naked before, then after they realized they were naked, they HAD to have something to 'compare' like a reference point to be Conscious of them being naked, this could be the gods or animals, gods as in angels, who knows...Again I'm theorizing here, not a Thus saith the Lord [but I'm not closed minded to think this isn't possible],
we see references to naked again in Rev, which refers to shame/being naked internally, not naked physically, it has to do with knowing the place, knowing the spiritual/physical, lacking in something,
so taking this, there HAD to have been some kind of consciousness [which is why the story is always still relevant to US every day as far as consciousness comes, this has a lot to do with jealousy I think/mistrust of God] but anyway, that they differed but that when they Both took of the fruit, they immediately knew, they 1. were naked so they became aware/conscious of their place AND that they had trangressed that place,
[Jude, the angels didn't keep their place],
now this may not Seem like a big deal, but in Nature, when [and if we are awake] we mess with the ecological balance/placement [and in physics/Einstein] that GOD has placed, it messes up with everything, it throws off the balance, which IN TURN
creates competition/disharmony [the immediate separation between Adam and Eve/the blame/power struggle began There] between all life forces, animals, etc., because NOW it's about competition for power/resources, to live,
animals eat animals now, rather than herb [the animal skin/tunic after the confession/sentence with Adam, Eve, etc], and so then now we see the unraveling begin,
but WHY? Maybe the lesson to be learned, [Native Indians/Ancient prophecies say this] that WE are not just here for ourselves, nor to just have dominion-rape for gold-]mammon [notice mammon-mammal, pillage in that aspect, but that WE were to till the ground/and the first creation was to have dominion [and maybe they abused that--the serpent, going back to Jude, who knows???? numerous ancient in stone say this],
in LIFE God takes care of All creation and there is an order that is interdependent/and mathematical connected-physics that is balanced, in all of it's forces, this I believe shows a lot of the mother side of God,
this takes knowledge, of forces, that tree,
in the WRONG HANDS however and with no WISDOM OR LOVE, that knowledge becomes sorcery, for power/abuse of power, control over others, with NO desire to take Care of, but rather to LORD Over,
the Hierarchy, Pyramid so to speak,
but mountains are a pyramid, they give Water to the green then to the desert, to all living animals, micro organisms, and then they filter to the oceans, the oceans breath life, fish, the cycle and it's Very complex,
and intricately done, I believe Jesus refers to this a lot, as does Paul when he talks about the food sacrificed to idols, the blood, the abuse of world/perishing, etc.,
con't
[see top two/word count had to divide]
so many are focused on the Gender, the Power dynamic which IS btw the hierarchy of the Rome establishment assimilated with Egyptian, Pagan and well, numerous beliefs [that CAN go either way],
animals keep their Place, whales do not fight to go to the desert, Lions do not fight to go or strive to the ocean,
they keep their place, they rely on God, they Can evolve/change but ONLY when mankind messes with environment or natural crisis but Even then, they return to their place,
where as, People, humanity, wanting to be 'as the gods' continues to not only not Stay in their place/harmony with the planet and in obedience to God, with each other in harmony, as Nations/Tribes,
they are stepping over each other, killing each other, raping their own,
for placement that they were not to have Because, if they CAN'T love man/Women/their own children whom they Can see,
how in the HELL are they going to take care of an Earth [new earth] and love/obey God whom they Can't see?
[John]
to transgress,
well, that's my take on it...what the Spirit has shown me, it's not traditional Christianese,
but there ya go. If anything, it makes one think, of just how serious, our violations Against God and His Creation, ARE.
Another interesting note too, well two of them, one, the Lord God tells Eve I will Multiply your sorrow,
not, I will 'give' you sorrow, that has to then mean, there was already sorrow, to Multiply there has to be a product,
already....and someone mentioned to a board once, I thought this was Highly interesting,
in the first creation story, Notice this too,
Genesis 1:28 KJV, And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea...etc etc etc
to Replenish something, means to refill what ONCE WAS THERE,
some one mentioned this on a philosophical board [mix of believers of various faiths] and well, that Really get's interesting,
Especially if you look at the 'time' element, like when God moved back the time in OT [which just happened recently BTW, the sun, etc], and with what we know with time lapse photography today/and time differences of plants compared to humans, even the cells in our body,
it's just universe within universe within universe,
so, Yea, it's cool, I mean the possibilities, it's just really neat to just 'consider',
if you're into that kind of thing which I am,
so yea, I no longer think inside the proverbial 'Constantine/male dominated for Rome governing-Hellenic world box to Protestant jealous child wanting gold-Christianese anymore,
and so like, yea I think when we look at those other things, it just sheds a whole different meaning on the relationship/dynamics of gender/and gender constructs and Adam and Eve,
not that I know the answers, not what I am saying, but I see so much that well, leaves a lot to be considered,
I think they DID see it in the day so Paul because they were more connected with those beliefs/ancient ways,
where WE are so disconnected, we miss it, a lot. Just my opinion...
Love, Jane
Love,
Jane
"She also wrote on page 137, in reference to Gen. 3,
The protection the woman had been granted under her spiritual "head" was removed, and the independent spirit she had exerted toward God now displayed itself toward her husband, leaving her vulnerable to greater deception, sin and attack."
Ok, So WHO is Nancy's spiritual "head". She is single.
Or did she get married?
More lies: Paula alerted me to the NLT version of 1 Cor. which renders verse 16 as "no OTHER custom" , and make verse 10 as "...a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority..."
When you cannot win an argument, re-write the Bible.
Post a Comment