Dark Night of the Soul

[Jeannieb43]

Quote:

Do such experiences constitute severe clinical depression, is there a contributing spiritual element, or is the spiritual desert more a result of the depression?

It was mostly a spiritual event in my case. The depression seemed to be caused by the spiritual desert. Following a most joyous conversion experience, I was plunged into the depths. The contrast was horrific. There was also as a contributing factor giving up an addiction to nicotine. But the patches mostly covered up most of that problem. My treatment was a caring pastor, and Zoloft. In a few months I was ok. Three years later there was a slightly less dark recurence, but it lasted longer. Still spiritual. I had some professional anxiety counseling. Then my doctors put me on ativan. Next another doctor took me off ativan and put me on Zoloft and Trazodone. After a year or so, I went off the Zoloft.

I'm so glad to hear that you had good professional help. I don't believe God intends us to shun the pastors and psychotherapists who are available to us during periods of darkness. My DH was the kindest, yet most intelligent and knowledgeable psychiatrist/psychoanalyst in the world. From him I learned that psychotropic drugs are appropriate to be used in certain circumstances and for certain periods of time, along with psychotherapy. I only wish he were still here. Before marrying him I had only limited knowledge of the good which can be accomplished through treatment by a good psychiatrist/M.D.

The only way I learned, however, was from people in our social circle who had asked DH for referrals, then they'd come back to us just praising their newfound freedom from depression (or whatever). DH never revealed patients' personal information to me. I learned this from other people when they talked to him in my presence.

God bless you.

[Amelia]

Quote:

That is very demeaning to women and certainly suggests that men are worth God dying to save, but women are replaceable and not worth saving without a man by their side.

I don't see it as unusual for some to see women this way. Society through the ages has had a demeaning/replacable attitude towards women. Even in the bible it's the woman who gets the short end in law.

[Amelia]

Quote:

From him I learned that psychotropic drugs are appropriate to be used in certain circumstances and for certain periods of time, along with psychotherapy

Yes they are. I wouldn't be the person I am today without medication for a genetic chemical imbalance. Tom Cruise is wrong.

[Jeannieb43]

Tom Cruise is under the mind-control of the Scientologists (which are NOT a religious body, by the way, but a business being conducted as a church for tax purposes only).

Scientologists are the ones who provide bumper stickers saying "Psychiatry Kills" -- and this is what they teach. The reason for that is that they are a brainwashing organization, so they teach their people not to go to psychiatrists.

Their members can't go to regular attorneys for help with a contract, for instance; they have to have the Scientologists prepare the contract for them first. Also, they are forced to donate all their money to Scientology. They don't have any money left for their own use; it all goes to the coffers of the organization.

Tom Cruise is a good example of their brainwashed members.

[Tom Wetmore]

Not to defend the scientologists, but it appears to me that Tom Cruise must be holding out a bit... I think he has kept more than a little of his money for himself...

[John317]

D.Allan said:

Quote:

Concerning the 'gender' of God: it seems to me the 'dangers' of referring to God as either male or female would be equal.

**snip**

There must be some other reason you consider it dangerous to do so.

I can't believe I'm reading this on a Christian forum.

I can think of a reason for referring to God as male. If you start invoking/praying/considering the Goddess instead of God, you truly do NOT know who you will be talking to /communing with.

Of course God has *female* characteristics - humans do too. That doesn't make everyone female.

.....oh man, I can't believe I'm reading this on a Christian forum.......

You're right about God exhibiting characteristics that humans normally associate with females.

For instance, God is very nurturing and communicative. Those are just two qualities that are usually thought of as female qualities or strengths. At least a lot of women and family counselors complain that men often are not nurturing or communicative.

It is not a put-down of women to say that God is always referred to as "Him" or as "Father," and not "her" or as "mother." No one should understand that as meaning that woman was not created as man's equal. The situation as it is in the world today is obviously not God's design. God would have women treated by men as their equals, although they have different roles in the family and in the church.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

...I understand the issue of the gender of God. I have thought about this for a long time...

We would be foolish if we thought that God had no good reason to inspire all of the prophets to refer to Him as male...

Blaise Pascal was quite correct - "God made man in his own image and man returned the compliment." The example of pagan gods is but an extreme to which mankind has ventured down the anthropomorphization of God. The issue here is not on the God side of the equation, but on the side of limited man trying to define God in human terms using the limitation of human imagery and human language. The divine paradox is that God is neither male nor female and yet is both at the same time. (Genesis 2:26-27 makes it quite clear that the image of God encompasses both male and female.)

Yes, I agree with you in this last statement about the image of God encompassing both male and female. You'll notice I said this before. However, as far as the defining God in human terms is concerned, please notice that the word of God defines God as "he", "him", and as "father." Jesus Himself used that terminology, and Jesus was and is God. How can we then say that it is due to the limintation of human imagery or language? We need to remember that Jesus came to reveal God to us (John 1:18; Hebrews 1:3) and He gave us a complete and true picture of Him. We cannot say that we know better than Jesus or that Jesus did not get it right. Don't you agree?

Quote:

However, human language doesn't account for person-hood in any other way than in terms of male or female. But the masculine forms of language are almost always inclusive of females, whereas the feminine forms are generally used to limit to females only. And more significantly, personal pronouns used in reference to God are limited to those two choices since there is not a divine personal pronoun. Since God is neither and both the male form comes closest, although inadequately so. But we should be careful about limiting God to man-made boxes, language or otherwise.

I can agree with you up to a point here. Language is very inadequate when talking about God. God is infinite and how can you talk about the infinite God in finite language? Yet when it comes to Bible doctrines, we have to stay with Bible language because it is all we can be certain of. When Jesus called God "my father" and "Him" and "He"-- and when we notice that Jesus did this consistently-- we have to trust that Jesus did it for a good reason. He gave us no reason to think that it would be acceptable to call God "our mother" or to refer to Him in feminine pronouns.

It isn't a question of whether God possess feminine qualities. Personally I like that about God. He is certainly not a male chauvanist. He is not afraid of what many humans consider femininity. I am not afraid of those either. Yet the Bible makes it plain that we are to keep the sexes clearly distinguished. It is God's word that prohibits men from wearing women's clothing and women from wearing men's clothing. There's a good reason for such prohibitions. Mixing the genders does damage to the image of God in human beings. (I know this personally because I have spent years struggling with gender dysfunction in my own life.)

Originally Posted By: John317

...Humanity fell when Adam sinned, not when Eve sinned. Jesus is the second Adam, not the second Eve. Had Eve alone fallen into sin, God would have allowed Eve to die, and He would have given Adam another woman...

Quote:

John, may I ask where you draw that conclusion from? That doesn't ring true to what I have understood for a very long time.

I'm going to write a separate post on this thread to answer your question completely, but let me make a few important points about this now:

1) God made the man first and placed him in the garden (Genesis 2:7, 15). Notice that Eve did not exist at this time.

2) God gave Adam the command concerning the tree (Gen. 2:16,17). (Notice God did not give the command to Eve, for she did not even exist yet.)

3) Woman was created for man, not man for woman (1 Cor. 11:9).

4) Since God gave Adam the command not to eat of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, and since God told Adam he would die if he partook of the fruit from that tree, it stands to reason that God meant what he said. He did not tell Adam that he would die if Eve ate of it.

Therefore, when Eve ate the fruit, what is reasonable and Biblical to assume would have happened if Adam had refused to eat of the fruit when Eve brought it to him?

Remember, Adam was the head of humanity and the head of woman (1 Cor. 11:3). Remember, too, that the Bible says that sin came into the world through one man (Romans 5:12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). It does not say it came through one woman, even though Eve was the first to sin. Why does it say this? Because the sin of Eve is not what condemned mankind. It was the sin of Adam that condemned mankind because only Adam was the head of mankind. That is, Adam represented mankind in a way that Eve did not. (But praise God, Jesus, as the second Adam, is the new head and representative of mankind!!!)

That was God's arrangement. God is totally free to make any arrangement He chooses. Who are we to cast blame on God or to say His arrangement is faulty or can be improved upon?

[D. Allan]

Quote:

I'm so glad to hear that you had good professional help. I don't believe God intends us to shun the pastors and psychotherapists who are available to us during periods of darkness. My DH was the kindest, yet most intelligent and knowledgeable psychiatrist/psychoanalyst in the world. From him I learned that psychotropic drugs are appropriate to be used in certain circumstances and for certain periods of time, along with psychotherapy. I only wish he were still here. Before marrying him I had only limited knowledge of the good which can be accomplished through treatment by a good psychiatrist/M.D.

Thank you, Jennie for your comments. I can see that you found a real treasure in your psychiatrist/M.D. I'm sorry he's not still with you.

I agree that people should not shrink from getting medical help in these cases. My psychiatrist/M.D. was from a background which gave him special insight into my problems. Providential? No doubt....

God bless you.

[D. Allan]

Ed Dickerson may the comment a few pages back the everyone has to go through a gesthemene, and a crucifiction experience. Today I realize that my 'dark night of the soul' was more like Jesus's time in the wilderness. After he was baptized the Spirit came upon him and he was 'driven into the wilderness by the Spirit.' That alway has seemed a strange phrase to me. To say that he was driven into the wilderness by the Spirit, suggests that it was an experience Jesus could not avoid, that He had no control over what was happening. A spiritual eruption/dark-night-of-the-soul thing? All the devils temptations appealed to the ego for self-glory or self preservation. Jesus was not tempted. Why? His ego had been shattered, by his own dark night of the soul. Nothing remained of ego and Jesus could look into his heart and see that his soul and the Spirit were now one. My father and I are one, he later said. Now I hear that Jesus had no advantage, used no power in his own interest that is not available to us also! This means that when the Spirit drives us in the dark night, into the wilderness, he is shattering our egos, our paltry self-concepts. We too will be able to look into our souls and see that they are one with the Spirit. We too will be able to say, My Father and I are ONE. This is not by our own efforts, no, it is a gift of the Spirit.

I also think of the parable of the man who found a treasure in a field and went and sold all that he had so he could buy the field and possess the treasure. That is like the 'dark night of the soul.' The Spirit is holding an auction and selling off the ego to the highest bidders. The paradox is that when we lose all then we have gained all! When we sell all, ALL has been given to us. He that would save his life will lose it and he that loses his life will save it! It hurts to die in this way, yet when it happens we find that the ego has been hiding a treasure from us. This is why Jesus said, 'You must be born again,' for in order to do that we must 'die' first. Dark night of the soul. We can't do it. Only the Spirit can do it for us.

Our ego still remains but it has lost its authority, or control over our soul, it has become a cracked pot, (to use the terminology of Saint Paul) containing the Spirit. And still we continue to 'die' everyday as Paul said. After the wilderness, Jesus too, still had gethesemene.

~d.allan

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

...I understand the issue of the gender of God. I have thought about this for a long time...

We would be foolish if we thought that God had no good reason to inspire all of the prophets to refer to Him as male...

Originally Posted By: John317

...Humanity fell when Adam sinned, not when Eve sinned. Jesus is the second Adam, not the second Eve. Had Eve alone fallen into sin, God would have allowed Eve to die, and He would have given Adam another woman...

John, may I ask where you draw that conclusion from? That doesn't ring true to what I have understood for a very long time.

The Genesis account makes it clear that they fell into sin together and that God pronounced judgment on them both after they both had sinned. The plan of salvation was promised because of both of their sins and as a remedy to save them both. The unfortunate implication of that last sentence is that had Eve alone sinned that God would have let her die without implementing the plan of salvation for her alone. That is very demeaning to women and certainly suggests that men are worth God dying to save, but women are replaceable and not worth saving without a man by their side. I hope that is not what you meant, but...

Tom

I don't mean anything here to be understood in any way demeaning to women or to suggest that women are not equal to men. Personally I can think of some ways in which women are superior to men, but that is only my personal opinion. I definitely believe that women ought to get equal pay for equal work.

But what I am concerned with here on this post is simply to present what the Bible says about the Fall and about Adam being the head of humanity, etc. Specifically, I'd like to answer the question what would have happened if Adam had refused to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But before I do that I think it's necessary to review some things the Bible says about the creation of both Adam and Eve.

1) God made the man first and placed him in the garden (Genesis 2:7,15).

2) God gave Adam alone the direct command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that stood in the middle of the garden. (There is no record of God's telling Eve. It was apparently Adam's responsibility to pass this command and warning on to Eve. Ellen White says that the angels also warned Eve against eating of the tree as well as against leaving Adam's side. See last point below.)

3) Eve was created as Adam's helper or helpmate or companion "fit for him" (Genesis 2:18). 1 Corinthians 11:9 emphasizes that woman was made for man, not man for woman. She was to complement Adam, that is, make him complete. There was a very real sense in which Adam was not complete without her. Adam, the man, could not be fulfilled without Eve, the woman. (Also, I believe that it required both a perfect Adam and Eve to be a perfect reflection of God's image.)

4) Eve was constructed from Adam's rib, or side, showing that she was literally a part of Adam. God intended that Adam would love her as Adam loved himself. Thus Adam said, "This is flesh of my flesh" (Gen. 2:23). Adam exclaimed, "At last!!!" or "Finally," or a loose paraphrase, "Wow--Momma Mia!!!" The original Hebrew shows that Adam was absolutely ecstactic when he first laid eyes on Eve. He thought she was perfect, exactly what he needed and wanted. She was everything he could have dreamed of. It was love at first sight. It was as if Adam realized instinctually that this creature could satisfy every desire of his being. The ish (man) finally was one with the ishshah (woman).

5) Woman was to be, and is, man's glory (1 Cor. 11:7).

6) Sin had its beginning through Eve, who was first decieved by Satan (Gen. 3:1-6; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14), although Adam freely chose to sin and thereby merited guilt and death.

7) Woman was subject to man's authority (1 Cor. 11:3).

8) The Bible says that sin came into the world through one man (Romans 5:12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). It does not say sin came through one woman, even though Eve was the first to sin. Why does it say this? Because the sin of Eve is not what condemned mankind. It was the sin of Adam that condemned mankind because only Adam was the head of mankind. That is, Adam represented mankind in a way that Eve did not.

9) Adam chose to sin because he could not stand the thought of losing Eve and living without her. (See Patriarchs and Prophets, page 56, paragraph 2.)

Consider: what would have happened if Adam had refused to disobey God? Would Adam have died? Remember, God did not tell Adam he would die if Eve ate of the fruit. He was told he must not eat of it. God had told Adam, "If you take of the tree, you shall die."

As pointed out in #8, the Bible says sin came into the world through Adam, not Eve, although Eve was the first to sin. The obvious fact is that the Bible attributes sin and death to Adam, for it was his sin that condemned humanity to suffering and death because Adam was the federal head of the human race. (See 1 Cor. 15: 42, 45.) That is because all humanity was "in Adam", i.e., in Adam's image (Gen. 5:3) and in Adam's loins (1 Cor. 15:22; cf. Gal. 3:16; Hebrews 7: 9, 10).

10) Patriarch and Prophets, page 56, 2nd paragraph: "He (Adam) did not realize that the same Infinite Power who had from the dust of the earth created him, a living, beautiful form, and had in love given him a companion, could supply her place. He resolved to share her fate; if she must die, he would die with her."

It is interesting to consider a few things that Ellen White says, which, although they are not in the Bible, do not contradict the Biblical record:

1) Eve was shorter than Adam (PP 45:3);

2) Adam was to "protect" Eve.

(We do not get the impression either from the Bible or from Ellen White's writings that Eve's reponsibility was to protect Adam or that women's responsibility is to protect men. On the contrary. See PP 46:2; 2 Tim 3:6; 1 Peter 3:7)

3) Angels had cautioned Eve not to seperate herself from Adam lest Satan would be able to tempt her when she was by herself. The record is that she unfortunately wandered away from Adam and that this was when she was deceived into taking of the fruit from the forbidden tree. (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 53, paragraph 5.)

I know full well how unpopular in today's world are the statements I've posted above, but then we need to keep in mind that the world is under the domination of the god of this world and that the Bible says that "in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils..." All I am saying is the the word of God should be our guide and our creed and not the customs of the world or its ways of thinking.

[Woody]

REgarding " The Bible says that sin came into the world through one man"

I would propose a different thought.

I would say that sin came through one man yes ... but that man was Lucifer. Is Lucifer man or Women ... I am not sure. Maybe someone can tell me.

[John317]

REgarding " The Bible says that sin came into the world through one man"

I would propose a different thought.

I would say that sin came through one man yes ... but that man was Lucifer. Is Lucifer man or Women ... I am not sure. Maybe someone can tell me.

The angels are neuter, that is, neither male nor female. We are male or female for the purpose of procreation. Obviously angels such as Lucifer don't procreate.

Besides, the Bible very clearly says that sin came through one man (henos anthropos), Adam. It is true that Lucifer was the first sinner and the first murderer, but the Bible is talking about sin "coming" in regards to humanity, ie., causing death. (Study Romans 5: 12-19.)

Angels have appeared as men before and no doubt still can. Some Bible verses even call angels "men" but that is only describing them as they appear, not as they really are in themselves. There are many such instances. One is in Gen.: 32:24 where the preincarnate Jesus is called "a man." Another is where the preincarnate Jesus Christ appears to be a fourth man when he walked in the firery furnace with the three worthies (Daniel 3:25). Daniel 9:21 refers to "the man Gabriel." But of course Gabriel was an angel flying from heaven with a message from God for Daniel. To understand this clearly one would need to do a complete study of what the Bible teaches concerning the nature and origin of angels.

[Tom Wetmore]

John,

As I read the Genesis account, #3 above from EGW does appear to contradict the Biblical record. Genesis 3:6-7 says, "...she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened..." The highlighted words indicate Adam's presence with Eve at the tree and that the consequences of their sin came upon both of them at the same time. There is no scriptural record of Eve wandering away and the immediate sequence shows no delay between her eating and handing some fruit to Adam. Also Eve's response to the serpent, quoting God implies she was told directly of the prohibition to eat of that tree.

Those ideas of the foolish, weaker Eve wandering away are not original with EGW. They were traditional ideas from the dark ages. They developed over time along with an increasingly low view of women. The earliest artistic depictions of the temptation of Adam and Eve showed them together, but later art showed Eve alone with the serpent. For a full blown depiction of these ideas, read Milton's Paradise Lost.

The question remains though, what would have happened to Eve if only she had eaten the fruit? The implication of what you posted was that she would have died and been as if she never existed. Adam would have gotten the replacement, Eve II and lived happily ever after.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Tim. 2:14)

So if they were together how could only she have been deceived?

[Woody]

Shane ... I think she was deceived but Adam sinned with his eyes opened and willfully sinned.

[there buster]

IN response to several themes on this thread.

Regarding depression: Yes, I am aware of clinical depression. I was not diagnosing. My only purpose was to indicate that nearly every real Christian I know personally had, at some point, to go through Gethsemane.

Regarding God as Male or Female: God always describes Himself as Male. In both OT and NT times, as is also true today, many of the most virulent forms of false worship involve a goddess. Referring to God as "she," which God himself never did, entails risks.

Regarding Adam and Eve and "who sinned first." One of the greatest evils of modern Feminism-- and there are many -- is putting men and women as competitors. In the Creation account, Adam and Eve are considered to be one.

1:27 So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

Men and women are equal before God, and should be equal before the law. But Feminism attempts to make "equal" into "identical."

Political Correctness forbid that we should ever say men and women have different aptitudes, as Lawrence Summers found out.

We place ourselves-- and especially others, as rudywoofs, I think, would concur-- in grave danger when, in pursuit of some specious tolerance, we decide that God can be Him or Her, or whatever pleases us.

[John317]

John,

As I read the Genesis account, #3 above from EGW does appear to contradict the Biblical record. Genesis 3:6-7 says, "...she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened..." The highlighted words indicate Adam's presence with Eve at the tree and that the consequences of their sin came upon both of them at the same time. There is no scriptural record of Eve wandering away and the immediate sequence shows no delay between her eating and handing some fruit to Adam. Also Eve's response to the serpent, quoting God implies she was told directly of the prohibition to eat of that tree.

Let's look at a few facts in the case:

(1) Adam was not deceived by the Serpent.

(2) There is no mention of Adam during the conversation between Eve and the serpent. In other words, the serpent does not address Adam in any way and Adam is absolutely silent during this extremely critical time.

(3) Your view, it seems to me, would require us to believe that Adam stands mute at her side the whole time the serpent is tempting Eve, and Eve does not talk it over with Adam. Instead, Adam watches in total silence, evidently completely passively, while he watches Eve take the fruit and eat it-- all the while he is totally aware of the trick being played on her and knows that it spells both his death (according to your understanding) as well as the death of his beloved Eve.

What is wrong with this picture?

I believe that given the Bible narrative and points #1, 2, and 3, we can logically assume that Adam was not with Eve at the tree. In fact, I don't know of any compentant Bible scholar that believes Adam was standing the whole time with Eve at the tree during the temptation, for the simple reason that it wouldn't make sense for an undeceived Adam to stand mutely as he watches a deceived Eve eat the fruit.

Please compare God's directive to Adam in Genesis 2:16 and Eve's misquoting of God in Gen. 3:3. Don't you think that if Adam had been there, he would have corrected her? But instead, according to your view, Adam stood mute while Eve not only misquoted God but also while she (blindly) and he (knowingly) listened to Satan tell lie after lie. And the serpent pays not the slightest attention to Adam, as if Adam wasn't even there. Why? Because, of course, Adam wasn't there!

Notice also that the record is that "the Lord God [Yahweh Elohim] commanded the man" (Gen. 2:16). (The Septuagint, or Greek translation, reads, "And the Lord God commanded Adam.") Again this was before the woman was created.

What, then, of your objections?

1) The words, "who was," are not in the original. The Hebrew may be translated either as, "..and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate" (RSV) or as, "...and she gave also some to her husband with her, and he ate." Concerning this verse, the SDA Bible commentary reads, "The statement that 'she gave also to her husband with her,' does not imply that he had been with her all the time, standing mute at the scene of temptation. Instead, she gave him of the fruit upon rejoining him that he might eat it 'with her' and thus share its presumed benefits."

Genesis 3:7 says "the eyes of both of them were opened" because they both ate of the forbidden fruit. It says nothing about Adam's being with Eve during the time Satan was tempting her to partake of the fruit. It simply says both their eyes were opened after they disobeyed God. They began to experience the sentence at the same time because it was Adam's sin that brought about the dire judgment. The judgment would not have fallen on Adam if he had refused to disobey God's command.

See above for clear Bible evidence that God gave the command to Adam before Eve was made. Gen. 2:16. God later repeats that He gave the command to Adam (Gen. 3: 11, 17.) At no time does God say to Eve that He had commanded her not to eat of the forbidden tree. Eve misquotes God in Gen. 3:3 and Adam supposedly utters not a peep to help Eve, even though the Bible record is clearly that Adam was not deceived by the serpent. It makes much more sense to conclude that Adam was not with Eve at the time of the temptation since he is not mentioned in any way while it is going on.

One last very important point, and I believe it is the clincher:

Please read Genesis 3: 12, 13. These verses prove without a doubt that Adam was not with Eve at the tree. Why? Because Eve blames the serpent and Adam blames the woman. Adam does not blame the serpent. Why not? Because Adam did not hear the serpent nor was he ever deceived by it like his wife was. Adam was persuaded to eat of it by his wife because of his love for her. That much is obvious.

Quote:

Those ideas of the foolish, weaker Eve wandering away are not original with EGW. They were traditional ideas from the dark ages. They developed over time along with an increasingly low view of women. The earliest artistic depictions of the temptation of Adam and Eve showed them together, but later art showed Eve alone with the serpent. For a full blown depiction of these ideas, read Milton's Paradise Lost.

The evidence as outline above speaks for itself. I don't see how anyone can avoid the conclusions I've reached if they study the evidence and consider the reasoning.

The later art showed Eve alone because people had time to consider the evidence just as I've outlined it above.

I enjoy reading Milton's Paradise Lost. It has the reputation of being the greatest epic written in the English language, and deservedly so. Milton was correct in his depiction because, as I've shown above, it corresponds perfectly with the Biblical record. (By the way, Milton was such a close student of the Bible that he was one of the few in his day to see that the Bible does not teach the popular belief in the immortality of the soul.)

Quote:

The question remains though, what would have happened to Eve if only she had eaten the fruit? The implication of what you posted was that she would have died and been as if she never existed. Adam would have gotten the replacement, Eve II and lived happily ever after. Tom

I think the Bible argument for that conclusion is inescapable if one looks at it objectively. Adam was the one whom God commanded not to eat of the forbidden fruit. This is stated in Gen. 2:16 and repeated in 3: 11 and 17. The New Testament's testimony is that death came upon all mankind as a result of Adam's sin, not Eve's, and that despite the fact that Eve was the first to sin. Finally, Jesus is called the last Adam, not the last Eve. And why? Because Adam was the head of humanity until the coming of the Messiah, who is now the head of humanity. We may be certain that if Adam had stayed true to God, he would not have died; to say otherwise means calling God a liar because Adam's (not Eve's) eating of the fruit is the only condition under which He told Adam he would die.

Would you say Adam would have died anyway even if he had remained faithful? For me, it makes much more sense and is much more according to the Bible record to say Eve would have died but Adam would have been given another companion through which he would make humans in his image. Eve alone would have died.

Now does that mean women are somehow less than men? No. It just means that according to God's arrangment, Adam was the representative, or head, of mankind. Now Jesus Christ is. That is God's marvellous plan and who can fault Him?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

**snip**

Regarding God as Male or Female: God always describes Himself as Male. In both OT and NT times, as is also true today, many of the most virulent forms of false worship involve a goddess. Referring to God as "she," which God himself never did, entails risks.

**snip**

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

Men and women are equal before God, and should be equal before the law. But Feminism attempts to make "equal" into "identical."

Political Correctness forbid that we should ever say men and women have different aptitudes, as Lawrence Summers found out.

We place ourselves-- and especially others, as rudywoofs, I think, would concur-- in grave danger when, in pursuit of some specious tolerance, we decide that God can be Him or Her, or whatever pleases us.

To hear someone refer to God as "She" sends chills up my spine....and I hear the echoes of menacing laughter of those with whom you do not want to make acquaintance.

Just as a note of general interest: in my experience it was ALWAYS the goddess who had the ultimate power - never the *god*....

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Ed Dickerson

**snip**

Regarding God as Male or Female: God always describes Himself as Male. In both OT and NT times, as is also true today, many of the most virulent forms of false worship involve a goddess. Referring to God as "she," which God himself never did, entails risks.

**snip**

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

Men and women are equal before God, and should be equal before the law. But Feminism attempts to make "equal" into "identical."

Political Correctness forbid that we should ever say men and women have different aptitudes, as Lawrence Summers found out.

We place ourselves-- and especially others, as rudywoofs, I think, would concur-- in grave danger when, in pursuit of some specious tolerance, we decide that God can be Him or Her, or whatever pleases us.

To hear someone refer to God as "She" sends chills up my spine....and I hear the echoes of menacing laughter of those with whom you do not want to make acquaintance.

Just as a note of general interest: in my experience it was ALWAYS the goddess who had the ultimate power - never the *god*....

I find that personally very interesting what you say about the goddess. It accords with what I've studied. I don't know if you are acquainted with any of Nietzsche's books, but he talks a great deal about the ancient, Greek cults, almost all of which involved the sex-worship of female goddesses. I'm not recommending that anyone read him if they haven't; I am just pointing out that what you say is well known among worldly philosophers. I think it's important that these are the kinds of things going on in the ancient world when God was communicating with the Bible prophets, and he made it clear that His people are to have nothing to do with their worship. God knows what a powerful attraction sex has over all people but especially over men.

[Tom Wetmore]

...In the Creation account, Adam and Eve are considered to be one.

1:27 So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

Men and women are equal before God, and should be equal before the law...

Yes, they were one, one flesh, a singular married unit. The literal Hebrew of verse 27 is "God created Adam in his image the image of God man and woman he created them." The woman (literally "of-man") was not separate from Adam until after sin. (She had no name until after the fall.) And sin has divided man from woman ever since. Sin broke that unity and mankind's unity with God.

The bottom line is that they were together in the garden and sinned together and sin separated them from God and started division between them. And we continue to distinguish them from each other and make them different from each other and pull them further apart.

Tom

[Tom Wetmore]

...Would you say Adam would have died anyway even if he had remained faithful?...

John, I never said nor even implied that Adam would have died had he not sinned. That makes no sense.

Quote:

For me, it makes much more sense and is much more according to the Bible record to say Eve would have died but Adam would have been given another companion through which he would make humans in his image. Eve alone would have died.

Of course Eve would have died. I am not saying she wouldn't have died. But I think it is speculation that God would have created Eve II and just walked away from and forgotten all about Eve after she died. How many times have we heard it said that Jesus would have come and died even for one person. What about Eve? Would the plan of Salvation been implemented for just Eve? What I find troubling is that it sounds like you are saying "No". That is the point that has been troubling me.

Tom

[there buster]

It's not just the Greek cults. Goddess cults all over the world are, paradoxically, quite degrading of woemn.

[D. Allan]

Quote:

I can think of a reason for referring to God as male. If you start invoking/praying/considering the Goddess instead of God, you truly do NOT know who you will be talking to /communing with.

Of course God has *female* characteristics - humans do too. That doesn't make everyone female.

.....oh man, I can't believe I'm reading this on a Christian forum.......

Don't worry, Pam/rudywoofs. I don't pray to a Goddess. In fact I have a hard time praying at all using words. Earlier i think you mentioned a 'dark goddess.' The word dark, I used only in reference to 'dark night of the soul.' Then I mentioned that I experience that female side of God. You, Ed and John have all concured God does have a 'female' side. I feel that my sentences have been taken apart and the words recombined even altered with suffixs to express an idea i never intended: worship of a dark-godess.

~d.allan

[D. Allan]

Dark Night Sites:

These two sites below have a very good explantion of the 'dark night of the soul.'

http://www.innerexplorations.com/forum/dark.htm (part 1)

http://www.innerexplorations.com/catjc/st3.htm (part 2)

Saint John of the Cross wrote his poem about the 'dark night' after he had endured it. It and his commentaries can be read here:

http://www.karmel.at/ics/john/dn.html

And here is a list of all his works:

http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ap85/John/index.html

d.allan

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I'm sorry, D.Allan, if I wrote something that offended you. Unfortunately, I tend to look at things from a *dark* and *mystical* POV, which is also a POV that can torture. It is only from my *own* experience that I comment on anything here.

For instance, the Stanzas of the Soul (see below) I find quite .........unsettling. I think it's a beautiful piece of poetry. I could also easily use it in a very evil context.

**shakes head**

God help me.

Quote:

Stanzas Of The Soul

By St John of the Cross

1. One dark night,

fired with love's urgent longings

- ah, the sheer grace! -

I went out unseen,

my house being now all stilled.

2. In darkness, and secure,

by the secret ladder, disguised,

- ah, the sheer grace! -

in darkness and concealment,

my house being now all stilled.

3. On that glad night,

in secret, for no one saw me,

nor did I look at anything,

with no other light or guide

than the one that burned in my heart.

4. This guided me

more surely than the light of noon

to where he was awaiting me

- him I knew so well -

there in a place where no one appeared.

5. O guiding night!

O night more lovely than the dawn!

O night that has united

the Lover with his beloved,

transforming the beloved in her Lover.

6. Upon my flowering breast

which I kept wholly for him alone,

there he lay sleeping,

and I caressing him

there in a breeze from the fanning cedars.

7. When the breeze blew from the turret,

as I parted his hair,

it wounded my neck

with its gentle hand,

suspending all my senses.

8. I abandoned and forgot myself,

laying my face on my Beloved;

all things ceased; I went out from myself,

leaving my cares

forgotten among the lilies.