Adam, traditionally considered the first man according to the Abrahamic religions, may also be considered the first mother in certain respects. While the term "mother" is generally associated with women, it can also be used to describe nurturing and caregiving behaviors, regardless of gender.
According to the Bible, Adam was created from the dust of the earth by God and was then tasked with caring for the Garden of Eden. He was also responsible for naming all of the animals in the Garden, which required a deep understanding and appreciation of the natural world.
Furthermore, when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and were subsequently banished from the Garden, Adam took on the role of provider and protector for his family. He worked the land to provide food and shelter, and he defended his family from danger and harm.
Adam's nurturing and caregiving qualities are also evident in his relationship with Eve. After Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs, the Bible describes Adam as "holding fast" to her and declaring that they were now "one flesh." This suggests a deep emotional connection and a sense of responsibility and protection for his partner.
In summary, while Adam is traditionally considered the first man, his role as caretaker, provider, and protector for his family suggests that he also possessed many qualities typically associated with motherhood. Therefore, he could be considered the first mother in certain respects.
Some interpretations of the creation story in the Bible suggest that Eve's creation from Adam's rib can be seen as a metaphorical type of birth. This perspective highlights the idea that Adam was the source of Eve's existence, much like how a mother is the source of a child's existence through birth.
In this sense, Adam's role in the creation of Eve could be seen as a kind of birthing process, which adds another layer to the idea that Adam could be considered the first mother. This interpretation highlights the importance of both male and female roles in the creation and nurturing of life.
It's worth noting that this interpretation of Adam's role in Eve's creation is not universally accepted or agreed upon within the Abrahamic religions. Some may argue that the metaphorical birth analogy is not appropriate, as it diminishes the unique and important role that women play in actual childbirth.
However, the idea that Adam could be considered the first mother highlights the diverse and multifaceted roles that individuals can take on in caring for and nurturing others. It also challenges traditional gender roles and stereotypes, encouraging us to recognize and value the full range of human capabilities and contributions.
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Sunday, March 12, 2023
Monday, January 2, 2012
God and Quantity
An interesting conclusion follows from the logical deduction of God in terms of Quantity. Anyone who knows how to count can easily follow my reasoning in this matter, let me illustrate my meaning. God is 1 thing, therefore It can’t be nothing, and must be something. However, to know of God, an observer must perceive either God’s form or God’s motion. Now this can follow with several conclusions concerning Quantity and God. First there must be at least 2 things, God and the observer. God is also known by Its form or motion, making at least 3 things. If we negate the statement, “God is also known by Its form or motion, making at least 3 things,” we still end with 3 things. For, at the very least, the observer is 2 or more things, observer qua observer(Form) and observer qua observing(Motion); less any observer as such denies this determination. Thus resulting in the outcome still ending in 3; God, the observer, and the observer observing; this being the case regardless if God is known or not.
Another odd conclusion follows from God as First Cause. Considering the concept of a 1st Cause, this cause in itself, in relation to quantity, necessarily is 1 thing. But, a cause, in itself, necessitates an effect, making 2 things. And if a cause has no effect, then it can’t be considered a cause qua cause, rather the concept(idea, event, phenomena, etc.) must be an effect itself, or nothing at all(non-existent). Effect as an necessity is one circumstance of a 1st Cause; a causeless cause, a cause resulting from no effect, is another, and a paradox indeed. For a causeless cause can only come from 2 things, nothing and itself. The result of this is drastic, for if the causeless cause came from nothing, then we would still have 2 thing; the causeless cause and nothing. But, if nothing does anything it will cease to be nothing, and become something. No longer being nothing, it would be a falsehood to say a causeless cause came from nothing.
The second circumstance results in the same case. If a causeless cause caused itself, then we have still 2 things. For the effect of the causeless cause is the causeless cause itself. This leads to the cause of the causeless cause being itself, and the effect of the causeless cause being itself. Therefore the causeless cause must be somehow outside itself to cause itself, i am not quite sure how this is done. One way is for there to be 2 causeless cause, problem with that is 1 causeless cause would end up as an effect. Another way would be to make the causeless cause cause only itself. But how could a causeless cause become anything more than a causeless cause if it can only cause itself; for a causeless cause only effect would be itself, itself being nothing more than a causeless cause. A causeless cause seems to have the ability to exist as a causeless cause, but as nothing else.
Let us say the causeless cause caused itself and a man. The causeless cause would have caused 2 things. The cause of the causeless cause being the causeless cause itself, therefore the causeless cause is either 1 thing or 2 things. But how could the causeless cause cause a man? A man is a complex of things, to keep it simple let’s say 10 things, how did the causeless cause acquired 10 other things? the causeless cause hasn’t become anything more in itself but a 1st Cause, at most it is 2 things, which are both causeless causes. And in itself, it is nothing more than 1 thing, itself. For a causeless cause can only come from nothing and itself, and in itself it is nothing more than a 1st Cause.
Unless the causeless cause causes something other than itself, it is essentially always close to nothing(non-existence or null-existence). In the case of the causeless cause causing itself and a man, it can only cause a man. For it being a causeless cause would force it to result in a man. But, man qua man is the configuration of many things, and each thing related to something else. So from where could the causeless cause have preceded from causeless cause to a man? For, if such a proposition were to stand without validation, it would be the same as a man coming from nothing and from nowhere. And this is a result we have concluded before, that a causeless cause can only be caused by nothing or itself. A man can’t be the cause of himself, but if a man is caused by a causeless cause, then he would be the cause of himself. The cause of the causeless cause would be man, and man would be caused by the causeless cause.
Another odd conclusion follows from God as First Cause. Considering the concept of a 1st Cause, this cause in itself, in relation to quantity, necessarily is 1 thing. But, a cause, in itself, necessitates an effect, making 2 things. And if a cause has no effect, then it can’t be considered a cause qua cause, rather the concept(idea, event, phenomena, etc.) must be an effect itself, or nothing at all(non-existent). Effect as an necessity is one circumstance of a 1st Cause; a causeless cause, a cause resulting from no effect, is another, and a paradox indeed. For a causeless cause can only come from 2 things, nothing and itself. The result of this is drastic, for if the causeless cause came from nothing, then we would still have 2 thing; the causeless cause and nothing. But, if nothing does anything it will cease to be nothing, and become something. No longer being nothing, it would be a falsehood to say a causeless cause came from nothing.
The second circumstance results in the same case. If a causeless cause caused itself, then we have still 2 things. For the effect of the causeless cause is the causeless cause itself. This leads to the cause of the causeless cause being itself, and the effect of the causeless cause being itself. Therefore the causeless cause must be somehow outside itself to cause itself, i am not quite sure how this is done. One way is for there to be 2 causeless cause, problem with that is 1 causeless cause would end up as an effect. Another way would be to make the causeless cause cause only itself. But how could a causeless cause become anything more than a causeless cause if it can only cause itself; for a causeless cause only effect would be itself, itself being nothing more than a causeless cause. A causeless cause seems to have the ability to exist as a causeless cause, but as nothing else.
Let us say the causeless cause caused itself and a man. The causeless cause would have caused 2 things. The cause of the causeless cause being the causeless cause itself, therefore the causeless cause is either 1 thing or 2 things. But how could the causeless cause cause a man? A man is a complex of things, to keep it simple let’s say 10 things, how did the causeless cause acquired 10 other things? the causeless cause hasn’t become anything more in itself but a 1st Cause, at most it is 2 things, which are both causeless causes. And in itself, it is nothing more than 1 thing, itself. For a causeless cause can only come from nothing and itself, and in itself it is nothing more than a 1st Cause.
Unless the causeless cause causes something other than itself, it is essentially always close to nothing(non-existence or null-existence). In the case of the causeless cause causing itself and a man, it can only cause a man. For it being a causeless cause would force it to result in a man. But, man qua man is the configuration of many things, and each thing related to something else. So from where could the causeless cause have preceded from causeless cause to a man? For, if such a proposition were to stand without validation, it would be the same as a man coming from nothing and from nowhere. And this is a result we have concluded before, that a causeless cause can only be caused by nothing or itself. A man can’t be the cause of himself, but if a man is caused by a causeless cause, then he would be the cause of himself. The cause of the causeless cause would be man, and man would be caused by the causeless cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)