Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hinduwoman · 06-03-2003, 06:50 PM

http://www.indiacause.com/OL_030526.htm

Quote:

The crux of Christian theology is the concept of �original sin�. If there is no �original sin�, Jesus Christ is a paper saviour. From what does he save us, if not from the �original sin�? The Christian belief is that humans are convicted to fiery hell from their origins and one needs to baptise and come into the grace of the son of god in order to circumvent this punishment and gain eternal life in heaven.
�
Having had the saviour, it was tough going for the early fathers of Christianity to decide on what exactly was the �original sin� from which their saviour had saved them. After internecine battles, each calling the other heretic, everyone settled for the authority of Paul, the writer of the �Epistles� in the New Testament. He points out that the �original sin� is the "disobedience of one man", which alludes to Adam�s rejection of the �Lord God�s� command to avoid the "fruit of the tree of knowledge", and which offence is alleged to have become binding to the whole human specie. I shall illustrate the sequence from the Bible, so that one can judge for oneself with total objectivity.
1. "And the �Lord God� commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." � Genesis 2 : 16-17.
2. "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die; For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." � Genesis 3 : 4-5
3. "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." � Genesis 3 : 6
4. "And the eyes of them both were opened . . . ." � Genesis 3 : 7
5. "And the �Lord God� said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever. . . .So he drove out the man . . . " � Genesis 3 : 22-24
(The biblical quotes are all from the King James Version)
The "knowledge of good and evil" comprises the whole range of knowledge.
Statement 1 is made by the �Lord God�, the supposed father of Jesus.
Statement 2 is made by a serpent who is portrayed as an antagonist of the �Lord God�. Statements both 1 and 2 pertain to the same topic, but are opposing prognoses of the effect of eating the forbidden fruit.
Statement 3 indicates that the woman proceeded to pluck and eat the fruit after making an evaluation for herself, like any other woman who would go to an orchard and pick fruit, eat and then share it with others.
Statement 4 affirms that the statement-2 prognosis is correct with regard to the effect of eating the forbidden fruit and endorses the serpent�s version as the correct one.
Statement 5 which is a statement made by the �Lord God� himself, once again endorses the view of the serpent and he "drove out the man" so that he does not eat the fruit of the tree of life and live forever. From this admission of the �Lord God�, it is apparent that without eating the fruit of knowledge, it would be impossible to reach for the fruit of life and live an eternal life. Unwittingly, he also admits that he is only "one of us", which means he is "one" of many "gods".
Before we examine whether the human act constitutes a disobedience, we have to understand the circumstances (the setup) which created it, so that we can relate to it in order to judge it. It means that we have to compare it with something already existing prior to that. We have to evaluate the dramatic setup with the scale of our prior experience in order to make head or tails out of a truly bizarre scenario.
The said Christian correspondent writes in the same letter, "When God created man, evil was already present."
The "evil" the correspondent speaks about is the serpent who was already existent, when the �Lord God� was manufacturing humans, and who divulged information to the woman, the verity of which is endorsed by its opponent the �Lord God� himself (statement 5). Therefore, in order to truly understand the �original sin� setup, we have to identify and place the serpent in our consciousness, because it was already existent prior to the genesis of �original sin�. That is, it was already existing in human consciousness
�
The �original sin� of the human beings is the consumption of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. In any secular court of law, this act cannot be proved to be disobedience, since the �Lord God� lied about the effect of consumption of the fruit, and his bogus command in the first place was made with an ulterior motive. Now we have a new concept on our hands based on a false assumption; a whole specie condemned for eternity because their ancestral mother exercised her essence of �thinking� and defied a god who lied about a certain fruit. Any system of thought based on an illusory concept is itself fundamentally flawed. In Christian theology, this problem is cunningly circumvented by making the �Lord God�, the culprit himself, the Supreme Judge. In every discussion, therefore, he has the last word.
It is also very clear that the charge of �original sin� is baseless, unwarranted and engineered to create havoc among human beings by suppressing their very essence of �thinking�. If one cannot accept this spurious �original sin� posited by Christians, there is no room for any Jesus Christ. When somebody puts forward a case, there should be some evidence that backs it up, and that evidence has to stand up to human experience and logic. "If fifty million people speak a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing" � Bertrand Russel.
�
Christians deify power, the great symbol being the bearded father sitting in heaven eternally punishing and rewarding. True to "thy kingdom come on earth", one may see this �punishing and rewarding� principle active in western international relations with respect to their enemies and allies. As such, the Christian West can never be objective especially where the non-baptised are involved, nor be spiritually progressive as long as it is in the clutches of this bearded father in heaven.

Biff the unclean · 06-03-2003, 07:04 PM

Oh good.

A Hindu pot calling a Christian kettle black
:banghead:

Marduk · 06-04-2003, 04:42 PM

Hinduwoman is only her username, she is an atheist.

Biff the unclean · 06-04-2003, 06:06 PM

But the person who wrote the article is not, if you'll read the whole thing.

hinduwoman · 06-05-2003, 05:36 PM

Biff, why is the criticism of someone belonging to a non-Abrahamic faith not good enough merely because he believes in another type of God? The writer is saying what he finds objectionable with this specific founding myth of Christianity. Is his critique valid or not?

Also the writer was a SouthIndian Christian. He found Christianity unsatisfactory on these points and swtiched onto Hinduism. That should make an interesting titbit in debate with xians.

HaysooChreesto! · 06-06-2003, 08:31 AM

At the very least, Eve was the first person inspired to think critical thoughts. To me, that's a mark in favor of the ladies.
And according to the Bible she was the first person with ambition what with wanting to have knowledge, become as a god and whatnot. Surely she saw Adam much the same way my wife sees me on the couch with the remote on Sundays; content to do nothing while watching football while she thinks of something more productive to do.
Sure she had the influence of the serpent to get her going, but lazy assed Adam certainly wasn't going to provide the impetus for bigger and better things.

So I say to Eve "Way to go, woman".

Jimmy Higgins · 06-06-2003, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lamma
At the very least, Eve was the first person inspired to think critical thoughts. To me, that's a mark in favor of the ladies.
And according to the Bible she was the first person with ambition what with wanting to have knowledge, become as a god and whatnot.

But what was of the motive? Eve was also the first person to suffer from pride and lie as well, saying that they'd die if they even just touched the tree. The question is why did Eve eat the fruit? To impress god, to impress herself, to become a god?

I've read commentaries that say that in reality, they ate the fruit in order to judge for themselves what was the best. IE, not trusting god's judgement.

Quote:

Sure she had the influence of the serpent to get her going, but lazy assed Adam certainly wasn't going to provide the impetus for bigger and better things.

So I say to Eve "Way to go, woman".

The master question for midrash, why does the serpent tempt the woman, and not the man?

HaysooChreesto! · 06-06-2003, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins
The master question for midrash, why does the serpent tempt the woman, and not the man?

That question would seem more appropriate for Freud, no?

Really though, it amounts to nothing more than ancient man bashing the ladies. It's an obvious testament to the times in which the Bible was written.

Jimmy Higgins · 06-06-2003, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lamma
That question would seem more appropriate for Freud, no?

Really though, it amounts to nothing more than ancient man bashing the ladies. It's an obvious testament to the times in which the Bible was written.

My study of Genesis hasn't gotten that deep to know such a thing. Is it just a jibe at women in general?

The way I see it, The Fall is a very very very old story. It originally took place atop of a mountain in the Garden, which is also where all the waters for rivers originated. There were many gods, including the bible god and a serpent god. Someone creates man and woman. God is jealous of them and lies to them about the Tree of Knowledge, saying it will kill them. The serpent comes around and dispells this lie. The man and woman eat of the fruit, and become more like gods, though still lack the immortality. God somehow has power and throws them out of the garden before they "become like us". A guard is set to keep them from getting back into it.

Throughout Psalms and Isaiah (the name I spell differently every time I type it

) you'll find hints of these additions to The Fall. So the question for me becomes, does the woman eat the fruit first in the original story? If so, why? If not, why the change? I don't know if I'd jump to the conclusion of the story giving the woman the rap of messing it up for the rest of us. Depending on who you read, the err of the woman was very childish (humans were not yet mature) to very arrogant (they didn't trust the word of god). I can see both sides and of the argument.

BOOM!

All of a sudden a new light has just on me about the woman's exaggeration. The serpent goes to Eve and deliberately asks a false question, in which the serpent should know what the truth is regarding the tree. The serpent asks about God saying the man and woman could not eat of any tree. The woman says, oh no, we may eat anything, but can't touch the Tree of Knowledge good and evil. I wonder if there is a hint of another ancient twist of the original story. I ponder... What if the original question from the serpent isn't actually a question, its a statement, but it is also reverse, he states, "You may eat of any tree in the garden." Then the woman responds, but God told us we couldn't touch the tree in the middle, lest we die. I wonder if the woman's exaggeration in The Fall about not touching, is actually a remanent of the original story. God stated that they could not touch the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Therefore, when the woman says they can't touch it, she isn't lying, it was an unconscious error of the redactor.

Following, the serpent, who now knows what God told them, responds, "The heck you'd die. Its the best stuff. Eat it! EAT IT! You'll become like us and stuff." This is pretty much what the serpent says in the existing story of The Fall. I've always felt an incongruity in the story there. I wonder if this is the solution.

Biff the unclean · 06-06-2003, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hinduwoman
Biff, why is the criticism of someone belonging to a non-Abrahamic faith not good enough merely because he believes in another type of God?

It's not good enough because, as every religion does, he is finding fault with the "Christian" society and assuming the superoity of his own while turning a blind eye to the fact that his suffers from exactly the same failings he was complaing about. I didn't say he was a pot calling a kettle black because he is a Hindu. I said it because he is hypocritical. Hyprocricy transcends religion.

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

06-03-2003, 07:04 PM	#2
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Oh good. A Hindu pot calling a Christian kettle black :banghead:

06-04-2003, 04:42 PM	#3
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	Hinduwoman is only her username, she is an atheist.

06-04-2003, 06:06 PM	#4
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	But the person who wrote the article is not, if you'll read the whole thing.

06-05-2003, 05:36 PM	#5
hinduwoman Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: India Posts: 6,977	Biff, why is the criticism of someone belonging to a non-Abrahamic faith not good enough merely because he believes in another type of God? The writer is saying what he finds objectionable with this specific founding myth of Christianity. Is his critique valid or not? Also the writer was a SouthIndian Christian. He found Christianity unsatisfactory on these points and swtiched onto Hinduism. That should make an interesting titbit in debate with xians.

06-06-2003, 08:31 AM	#6
HaysooChreesto! Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: SoCal USA Posts: 7,737	At the very least, Eve was the first person inspired to think critical thoughts. To me, that's a mark in favor of the ladies. And according to the Bible she was the first person with ambition what with wanting to have knowledge, become as a god and whatnot. Surely she saw Adam much the same way my wife sees me on the couch with the remote on Sundays; content to do nothing while watching football while she thinks of something more productive to do. Sure she had the influence of the serpent to get her going, but lazy assed Adam certainly wasn't going to provide the impetus for bigger and better things. So I say to Eve "Way to go, woman".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.