The topic is Adam, Eve, Eden, and the Apple. Why did Adam eat it? Who's fault is it? Really now, it all reads like a Disney movie. Heck, I'd go so far as to say that if Adam had had a mother, he'd never had eaten that apple. Everyone knows that in every Disney movie where the child--the star of the movie--is to have an adventure, the mom has to get killed off first: Bambi, Nemo, heck, even Bluthe studios agrees and kills off Fivels' mom in the first 5 minutes of his movie. You can't have an adventure with a mom around. She's too good at what she does. Dads, however, are bumbling idiots that let their kids get into all sorts of trouble. All of Hollywood tells us so. Any mom would have kept that tree out of reach of her children. It's dangerous! Nope. Would never have happened if Adam had had a mom. So really, could it be that God put that tree there for them to take when they were ready? When they grew up enough to go out on their own? When you can take the pebble from my palm, sorta thing? Or was it a test of love, and how well he made that divine emotion?
What is the nature of love? It's been a topic that has not left my mind for months now. It started with my questioning of religion, and wove itself up into a neat little package on our trip to Germany.
This was a birthday gift to my husband.
What is the nature of love? Is it possible that such a basic human emotion has somehow changed over time? Our friends from Germany would have us think so. They say that the idea of our modern romantic love is a very new concept. That love, that burning need to be with someone, is new to humanity. People used to be married to complete a contract between families. Love was not what made a good marriage. Preserving the family wealth and status was what drove them.
I countered with the idea that that was what affairs were for. You fulfilled your contractual obligations to your family; producing heirs, and assuring that your family's good name remained respected. You and your husband had full lives outside of each other. If you were lucky, fondness grew between you. More than likely, you had very discreet affairs. Probably more true that the man had affairs, and the woman threw herself into society, or some hobby to help dull the empty feeling she had to have had, but may not have known how to name. Her position was far more tenuous than a man's and she had her children to protect. I say that these affairs or hobbies were an attempt to fill that aching need to love, and be loved: To be as one with another. To find more than simple friendships, which are a dilute cousins to love. Our German friends simply felt that affairs were just dalliances, with no meaning to them beyond the physical delights they provided. This may be true of some, but if you look at the enduring folk tales, myths and landmark authors, I cannot believe that there were not those who felt that aching need to be with the one that they love, as far back as humanity's need to bury their dead--an act of love--was born.
I can take you right to the Old Testament for proof. The old testament is indeed...old. It predates the middle ages, the supposed dawn of romantic love, as our German Friends assert. It is the story of Adam and Eve I want you to consider. Why is it that Eve is blamed for all of humanity being cast out of Eden? This is the basis, I think for the three branches of monotheism treating women so poorly. It ranges from requiring woman to basically put a bag over their heads (in the Muslim branch of the faith), because men cannot control themselves, to more subtle requirements of hair covering, and modest dress in Judaism, to the subtler still difficulties in equal pay and work for women in the Christian faiths. I say that this assertion is false. it is NOT Eve's fault.It is simply another misunderstanding of The Word.
Don't believe me? All you need to do is ask any mother what she would have said to Adam if she had caught him taking a bite of that infamous apple. Any mom would have said, while wagging her finger close to her boy's nose, "And if she jumped off a bridge, would you have jumped too? OY! I could Kill you!" There is a huge lack of accountability in Adam if you simply say that Eve enticed him to eat the apple. It would be akin to him saying "Well judge, that car was just so pretty, that I could not help but steal it. It was too enticing." No. Sorry. That makes men out to be automatons and women some sort of all-powerful sorceresses. Neither thing it true. The assertion is one that would be made by a teenager, who is inexperienced in life.
What possible motive could Adam have had to have followed Eve down the path out of Eden? Love. The deep, and all consuming need to be with her, no matter where she went. Ah, you say that this is still simply enticing Adam; beguiling him. No. That cannot be. This sort of deep need and trust cannot be nurtured if both parties do not feel that bond. Not even unrequited love will follow over a bridge, since the person left up on the bridge knows that he is not part of his love's life. He is an outsider. He watches from afar, and his deeds will, as always, go unnoticed..
This lover's bond was their undoing. Eve had tasted the apple, and having done that, Adam knew the outcome, and could not bear to be without her. He had to follow, not out of enticement, but out of his love for her. He would have followed even if Eve had not given him the apple to eat. He would have grabbed it from her and swallowed it whole, to be assured that he would share her fate. Any other explanation of this story, leaves men as us less playthings, and women, superhuman. I do not accept these assertions to be true, simply because they are patently false. If women are so powerful that all one has to do is swing her hips, lick her lips, and say "Hello big boy" why is it that all but a tiny portion of the countries of the world are run by men? Why are not all of our major corporations run my women, or run by a puppet man, with a woman doing the reaping of benefits? It is because women to not hold such power.
So, why then, are we--the world--misunderstanding the text? Why are our friends denying that this sort of love is a basic human gift? Could it be that though it's what makes humans divine, like divinity, it's rare? It's so rare, that most people never feel it? I could continue with the religious metaphors and say that like being sainted, everyone has the seed of sainthood in them, but not everyone achieves it. Perhaps they are simply not lucky enough to find it. Or could it be that they don't want to feel it? To their defense, it can be painful, it can be difficult to even breathe when one comes across real love. Like achieving sainthood, It's powerful, it's overwhelming, some may even think that they are not worthy. It truly changes one's life, and one's perception of oneself and everything around him. It's huge. It's giving over oneself to another, and trusting that he will keep you safe.
Not everyone will want this, but that does not make it non-existent? There are saints. There is true love: the all-consuming breathtaking love that has been written about through the ages: Abelard And Heloise, Aspasia And Pericles, Lancelot and Guinevere, or King Edward and Wallace Simpson. We don't choose who we love, but when it comes, it is the courageous who will live it and own it. It is the courageous who will see it for its true worth, and know that it is the most precious thing humanity has. Not everyone will feel it, because not everyone has the courage. Our German friends only see the superficial parts of the world, because they discount its most powerful part as a new "idea", not a well-rooted thing that defines humanity. Most of the world necessarily sees as they do, because they have not felt that bond, so of course they feel confident in their beliefs. All we can do is love well, and teach our children the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment