Freethought & Rationalism Archive

7thangel · 03-13-2003, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach
I have long regarded the Genesis myths and original sin from a different point of view. Rather than dismissing it all a primitive superstition, as do most Atheists and Agnostics, I take a different view.

To me Genesis is the story of mankind�s ascent not a fall. It begins with the Garden of Eden metaphor. It was the remembered stories of Hunter-gathering. In the garden (hunter-gatherers) man and woman could just pluck fruit from the trees. There was no need for work. It was truly a paradise in the memories passed down. To a stone age farmer tilling the soil in Iraq under the hot sun, sweating, wearing blisters on his hands with the plow handles, it must have seemed that we lost something. There were the stories passed down for ages about the Hunter-Gatherer days. In retrospect those memories of hunter gathering must have seemed like paradise. No need to till the soil, just live off of the land's abundance.

Why did we lose that? It must have been a magic garden. We are now tilling the hot dusty soil to survive. We must have screwed up to be kicked out of that ancient garden. Forgotten were the harsh realities of hunter gathering life, starvation, and limited populations. The "Good Old Days" are always better in the memory than in reality. Golden ages are never quite so golden when inspected closely.

Man must have been kicked out for some reason. It must have been some offence to the gods or God. What would offend the gods the most? Attempting to be as smart as the gods or to become gods? The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is the challenge to the God severe enough to be kicked out of the magic garden. Man then had to fend for himself.

The Cain and Abel story is the second fall of man. It incorporates the memories of the second stage of human culture, pastoralism and the third stage, settled agriculture. Abel represents the golden age of pastoralism. Cain is the farmer. Pastoralism was also remembered by the Jews and Amorites as a happy go lucky lifestyle. Just follow the herds and guard them from wolves. But no serious work apart from moving with the herds to pastures. It wasn't as good as the ancient garden of Eden but it wasn't bad, compared to the drudgery of farming.

So now this farmer sees his terribly hard life of pushing a wooden plow behind oxen if he was lucky, as the result of us screwing up sometime ago. Cain the tiller of soil murders Abel the shepherd, destroying the golden pastoral life. God's punishment is for man to live by the sweat of his brow, plowing the hard rocky ground of Iraq.

So, I view Original Sin as the metaphor for the tribal memories of the transition from hunter-gatherers to pastoralists to dirt farmers. It was actually cultural advancement, supporting larger populations and permitting civilisation to evolve. But to the poor bloke behind the plow it must have seemed like man had lost two golden ages by sin (Original Sin and the murder of Abel by Cain.)
I think that by the time it was all written down in the books of Genesis, the writers might have actually believed it. Naturally later believers tended to believe it also, and perhaps for the reasons outlined above. Eden is the metaphor for hunter gathering, and original sin is why we lost it.

It is very interesting because it tells us much about the ancient people who devised the stories some 6-8 thousand years ago.
Interestingly the Marxists viewed the Hunter-Gatherer Stage as an idyllic time when all men and women were equal and no one was exploited. And man "fell" into civilisation based on the exploitation of man by man.

Christian/Jews and Marxists fail to realise that hunter gathering is a very tenuous life style. They were often victims of predators. They could not store or preserve food. When the game was scarce or drought occurred many died. It was no Christian or Marxist paradise. But Judeo-Christianity and Marxism each had its own Original Sin. The former was challenging God. The latter was exploiting other men.

Fiach

Nice guess! But does not people need authority? Just say, God told me so, and you will be greatly admired. Without saying so, you will sound more worst than the fanatic Christians.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 03-13-2003, 04:39 PM

Mageth,

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

A very emotional way to put it, I admit, but for the most part without biblical support that I know of. Got any?

Yeah. All the scripture you quoted.

I think we need to outline our positions Mag...I'm getting confused.

We both agree that God gave man ritual law that included sacrifice.

We both agree that this sacrificial law was for the benefit of man and not God.

We both agree that this was how man made atonement for his sins.

We both agree that Jesus death on the cross is symbolic of a sacrificial Lamb.

Where are we disagreeing?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Hawkingfan · 03-14-2003, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas
Does this clarify things?

It doesn't clarify anything. I think it's sick. You missed my points. Why should someone remember their sin by commiting something much more reprehensible? It sort of defeats the purpose.

It's not any different than those pagans who sacrificed virgins in order to "remember their sin". It is extremely selfish to kill someone else for your own benefit.

I'm glad I'm not around Christians any time they feel guilty about their "sins" and want to experience catharsis and make themselves feel pain--innocent people start dying.

Hawkingfan · 03-14-2003, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas
Mageth,

Yeah. All the scripture you quoted.

I think we need to outline our positions Mag...I'm getting confused.

We both agree that God gave man ritual law that included sacrifice.

We both agree that this sacrificial law was for the benefit of man and not God.

We both agree that this was how man made atonement for his sins.

We both agree that Jesus death on the cross is symbolic of a sacrificial Lamb.

Where are we disagreeing?

I agree on all points, but the problem concerns points 2 and 3. The question is not "Does sacrificial law benefit man?" but rather "WHY does sacrifice benefit man?" which leads to a question "Why does god need bloodshed in order to forgive?"

Point 3 is similar. The question is not "How are sins atoned for? (by sacrifice)" but rather "WHY is sacrifice a requirement for the atonement of sins?"

The reasons are completely arbitrary why god craves blood in order to forgive. You have not answered "Why?"

Mageth · 03-14-2003, 07:32 AM

Where are we disagreeing?

I think the disagreement is, as HawkingFan indicates, on the "why"? My interpretation of the scripture is that God required, even foreordained, that the "shedding of blood" (death) is a required payment or result of sin. Jesus' death was necessary - no death, no remission. It's the shedding of Christ's blood, the death itself, that allows us to be reconciled to God. You seem to be saying that it wasn't necessary, that God could have just forgiven sin without all the bloodshed.

However, I may be wrong on my interpretation of what you've said here.

And back to the chickens: I bet you never killed a chicken that volunteered to die to save the rest of the chickens in the yard.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 03-14-2003, 10:53 AM

Hawkingfan,

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkingfan
I agree on all points, but the problem concerns points 2 and 3. The question is not "Does sacrificial law benefit man?" but rather "WHY does sacrifice benefit man?" which leads to a question "Why does god need bloodshed in order to forgive?"

The answer to the question: Why is sacrifice beneficial to man? is that sacrifice
A-encouraged man to not forget his sin.
B-encouraged man to realize the seriousness of his sin.
C-encouraged man to repent for his sin.

It's not that 'God needs bloodshed in order to forgive' as much as according to law the process for man to atone for his sins required sacrifice.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkingfan

Point 3 is similar. The question is not "How are sins atoned for? (by sacrifice)" but rather "WHY is sacrifice a requirement for the atonement of sins?"

Sure...good question. See above.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawkingfan

The reasons are completely arbitrary why god craves blood in order to forgive. You have not answered "Why?"

As mentioned above it's not that 'God craves blood'...its that the process by which man atoned for his sins included sacrifice.

This most definetely is not arbitrary for reasons pointed out above. Sacrifice, first and foremost illustrates that sin equates to death. It also made man aware of his sin, its consequences and encouraged repentance.

Does this clarify things?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonata

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 03-14-2003, 11:22 AM

Mageth,

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Where are we disagreeing?

I think the disagreement is, as HawkingFan indicates, on the "why"? My interpretation of the scripture is that God required, even foreordained, that the "shedding of blood" (death) is a required payment or result of sin.

I'm with you here...death is certainly the result of sin. And by law this was how one atoned for their sin.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
[
Jesus' death was necessary - no death, no remission. It's the shedding of Christ's blood, the death itself, that allows us to be reconciled to God. You seem to be saying that it wasn't necessary, that God could have just forgiven sin without all the bloodshed.

Yes, that is what I am saying. I am saying that God gave the law to man for man's benefit (like all law is). God was under no obligation to mans law. God could have simply revoked the law and declared everybody off the hook. But he didn't because, like always...sacrifice is for the benefit of man.

So where do we stand?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Mageth · 03-14-2003, 11:28 AM

I guess it's just a difference in interpretation. I think the scriptures indicating that Christ's sacrifice was foreordained are pretty strong evidence that god established an obligation that the sacrifice was necessary, and thus god (after such an establishment) could not simply "revoke the law" and forgive without the sacrifice.

Hawkingfan · 03-14-2003, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas
The answer to the question: Why is sacrifice beneficial to man? is that sacrifice
A-encouraged man to not forget his sin.

That makes no sense. I'll say it again. IT MAKES NO SENSE TO "FORGET SIN" BY COMMITING FURTHER REPREHENSIBLE ACTS!!

Quote:

B-encouraged man to realize the seriousness of his sin.[/B]

BY DOING SOMETHING MUCH WORSE????

Quote:

C-encouraged man to repent for his sin.[/B]

How about trying to do something good instead?! There is no better way to say your sorry than by doing something good. Sacrificing chickens, virgins, innocent people is far worse than the average "sin". Why can't you understand that?

I find your defense of human sacrifice sickening.

Hawkingfan · 03-14-2003, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas
I'm with you here...death is certainly the result of sin.

That is an unjustified conclusion that has no basis. I do not believe in "sin". Death is not a result of "sin". Do plants sin?

The concept of "sin" is all in your head.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-14-2003, 07:32 AM	#125
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Where are we disagreeing? I think the disagreement is, as HawkingFan indicates, on the "why"? My interpretation of the scripture is that God required, even foreordained, that the "shedding of blood" (death) is a required payment or result of sin. Jesus' death was necessary - no death, no remission. It's the shedding of Christ's blood, the death itself, that allows us to be reconciled to God. You seem to be saying that it wasn't necessary, that God could have just forgiven sin without all the bloodshed. However, I may be wrong on my interpretation of what you've said here. And back to the chickens: I bet you never killed a chicken that volunteered to die to save the rest of the chickens in the yard.

03-14-2003, 11:28 AM	#128
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I guess it's just a difference in interpretation. I think the scriptures indicating that Christ's sacrifice was foreordained are pretty strong evidence that god established an obligation that the sacrifice was necessary, and thus god (after such an establishment) could not simply "revoke the law" and forgive without the sacrifice.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.