The snake (of the trouser variety) tempts Eve with the forbidden fruit (hanky panky) that she shares with Adam. The consequence of which is painful childbirth.

They’re even specifically stated to be naked for this situation.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It was an update of Prometheus.

    He gave fire to humans

    Lucifer (the lightbringer) brought humans the knowledge of agriculture. And humanity left behind the “garden”. Which was an allegory for hunter/gather society.

    Which led to the concept of land ownership, vasly increases how much personal property someone could accumulate, and was pretty shit for the average human.

    Having them be naked was more to make people think of pre-agriculture as pre-human.

    Can you imagine how hard it was to convince people to work 10-14 hours a day for someone else’s profit when for thousands of years their ancestors had a much easier life?

  • PoastRotato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Nah, the nakedness was meant to symbolize humanity gaining self-awareness, which separates them from the purity and innocence of other animals. After Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, they realize they’re naked and feel instinctively ashamed of that (as most people would, but regular animals wouldn’t), so they cover themselves with leaves. In fact IIRC, the fact that they’re covering themselves up is what tips off God that they ate the fruit.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Which begs the question what the actual intention behind the allegory was.

      I suspect that pursuing knowledge is bad and you should not do it and trust in god instead? It fits with the church’s then (and partially now) stance I suppose.

  • ExperimentalGuy@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem with interpretation is that, if you can make a convincing argument about why something should be seen a specific way, youll have people see it that way. Same thing here. I agree that it’s a possible interpretation, but it also just depends on who you’re talking to. Point being others in the comments with wildly differing views, but with justifications that are equally as valid. Who knows what’s the right interpretation, your guess is as good as anyone’s.