Why was Eve Tempted

Even though the story of Adam and Eve is an Abrahamic as opposed to Pagan tale, I must point something out something about Women's clear superiority over man. So now I pose this question: Why Eve? Why oh Why was Eve the one the Serpent tempted? Some people would dictate that to represent how foolish Eve was compared to Adam. I feel that Eve was a more threatening figure to the Serpent than Adam was. Eve considered the consequence of eating the forbidden fruit, but it does appear that Adam did. He seemed to take it without question. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

I ask that you comment on this new theory.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Starfeather on January 23, 2009 at 2:05pm: I don't think it was a matter of how foolish Eve was supposed to be, but how susceptible to the powers of evil. Women over time have always been portrayed as conduits for evil, or the more morally corruptible.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Blodeuwedd on January 23, 2009 at 2:28pm: I believe women are protrayed this way because when a man is "interested" in a woman he is at a weakened state. When a man loves and dotes on his wife, and forsakes his buddies because of this, the man is protrayed as whipped. While a man is kanoodling a woman his defenses are down and a foe could get the jump on him at that moment (back in the cowboy days - lol).; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by bkyrdwtch on January 23, 2009 at 3:19pm: I think it was because eve was 'God's' finishing touch. The very last thing placed in the garden. With The Fallen Angel, who know what his name really was, so pissed off that he got demoted why wouldn't he try for the very essence of god's vision of perfection.

And it really was adam's fault. He gave her bad information. God told Adam don't eat it or you'll die. Adam told Eve don't eat or touch or you will die. Not the same thing. (paraphrasing of course)

His fault. That's why in proverbs 31 guess who gets to educate the children. That's right. NOT the sons of Adam. The daughters of EVE; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ajani1love on January 23, 2009 at 4:01pm: i think we need to re-read the story with an open eye of understanding instead of believe it as it was taught to us. i think the whole story is misunderstood. in my opinion the fruit was not only the fruit of Knowledge of good and evil but a fruit of knowledge. first question one should ask is why would the god of the bible deny man Knowledge?? when it was as easy to get as eating a fruit, why did he not want man to have KNOWLEDGE?? the serpent understood and spoke the truth"ye shall not die but will become as gods knowing good from evil" the god of the bible told an UNTRUTH say"on the day you eat of this ye shall surely DIE, which they didn't,.. they didn't even get sick,..lol. which brings me to Why Eve, it is the instinct of the mother to know what to feed the child. the serpent knew that woman was wiser than man who seems to simple do what other men say or what god said or what men say that god said man should do.the serpent first spoke to the woman of wisdom who thought it over and found it to be truth, than share this truth with man, who than openly blamed woman for thinking and being the one who figure out this truth thus bring mankind knowledge,... knowledge of good and evil,.. and man has being trying to cover up the fact that women have a better ability to think matters thru. not that woman are smarter but man is more physical and act first,( Adam ate the apple without thinking about it), women rely less of physical strength so they think matter over longer. in any case we would be without knowledge and simple animals if not for the wisdom of a Woman,; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by KaliSara on January 24, 2009 at 4:44pm: This is my take. It isn't that woman was tricked. Woman was the one who craved knowledge. She's the one who decided that the pain and penalty of knowing was still worth the knowing. And let's face it: ignorance is bliss - but I'm not looking for euphoria.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by peace lily on January 24, 2009 at 7:47pm: I like that theory!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rev. Shadowulve on January 23, 2009 at 4:13pm: Actualy, the serpent was Lilith in disguise. (As told in olde books of hebrew gnostisism) The reason Lilith did this was to open Eves eyes. Eve was treated as Adams inferior, dominated and subjicated by both Adam and God. Lilith was Adams first "help-mate" and had Her own spirit, and would not be subjicated or dominated. She was trying to help Eve, and in the end, Adam as well.
Lilith was not, and is not the deamon/succubus She has been made out to be.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Awen on January 23, 2009 at 4:14pm: Not really on-topic:)
I used to get into debates about the bible with christians & I always REALLY PISSED THEM OFF WITH: Adam & Eve, fine & they have kids, fine... who did their children marry?:)
I think that the woman was/is the 'weaker' sex, hence, her weakness to temptation. Odd too that more women are scared of snakes then men:); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ajani1love on January 23, 2009 at 4:34pm: physical strength has nothing to do with ones mental ability to rationally think or understand, the serpent did not force nor sway Eve, he simple spoke a truth that made sense to her. temptation was first made when god said thou shall not,.. that makes it tempting; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Starfeather on January 23, 2009 at 5:02pm: Weakness doesn't have to be physical. I think Awen was referring to mental or emotional weakness, or just a general lack of the inner strength it takes to deny the presented temptation.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Awen on January 23, 2009 at 5:59pm: Yes! I was not talking about the strength of being physical. Mental weakness, hence females being called 'the weaker sex'; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by KaliSara on January 24, 2009 at 4:46pm: A tendency towards emotional thought does not make one "weak". And a tendency does not make it a truth for even a majority of a demographic.; ▶ Reply to This