Ok, so Hannah finally talked me into participating in National Novel Writing Month this year. It's this November and the goal is 50,000 words by the end of the month. My subject? Atheism of course. While I'm here I figured I'd type out a little synopsis.
The title?
Leaving The Flock: My Journey To Atheism
here's a little bit of what's going to be covered (so far):
This is a non-fiction book designed to explain my experiences and a
wide range of reasons why I have left the faith of my family. My goal is
to make people understand what atheism is, and to understand why
someone may have this point of view. I want to stress very much that
this is not meant to insult anyone or to be taken as offensive. It is my
own honest reasoning of why I believe(or dont), the things that I do.
So far there will be five sections: Introduction, History, The Bible,
Followers and Final Thoughts.
The introduction will explain what atheism is, and what common
misconceptions there are about it. I will also describe my own
indoctrination into Christianity, why I am specifically talking about
Christianity even though my same thoughts apply to all religions and why
I would want someone to understand where I am coming from.
Under the first section ( History) I will be covering things such as the pagan roots of certain traditions, ways in which the religion has spread, Eurocentric ideas, the protestant reformation and of course how each of these things influence my beliefs.
Under the second section (The Bible) I will be covering things such as how the bible was written/compiled, books that have been added/removed, Bible Stories/Teachings that I find immoral or outdated, Old Testament vs. New, mistranslations (Greek to Hebrew to English), how it is irrelevant today, contradictions, lack of proof/confirmation and inconsistencies from a scientific point of view.
Under the third section (Followers) I will be talking about how Christian’s view God, views on other beliefs including different sects within Christianity, evil done in the name of god (in real life as well as the bible), indoctrination, miracles (debunking them) and arguments made to prove that there is a god (debunking them).
The last section (Final Thoughts) I will be relating this to my life, how I see other religions in the same way and how we can have morality without religion.
I'm adding stuff as I go along so I dont think I'll have too much of a problem reaching my goal. Hannah said she'd help me edit when I am finished, so I'll be putting excerpts up on my blog when they are done.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Blind Nationalism
you know, It drives me up the wall when I hear people say that people in the military risk their lives for the rights of the common people to vote. It's complete utter bullshit. Our own government denied it's citizens the right to vote, not some foreign threat. If you are a black American man, a woman of any ethnicity, or an 18-20-year-old, you didn't have the right 141, 92, and 41 years ago, respectively.
It's equally frustrating when people say that our soldiers are fighting for our rights in general. Under any context it isn't true. We have been at war or in some sort of conflict for almost every year since the revolutionary war.
but that was the last real time we have been in a war because our rights have been infringed upon. every war other then a select few...and there has been a lottttttt..have been about foreign policy, or some made up shit like defending ourselves from terrorist by finding the nuclear weapons that arnt there in the first place. i just..i fucking hate that people have this godlike respect for the military branch of government.
most people join the army because they need the money, or they cant fucking cut it doing anything else. i know so many people who dropped out of high school..and knocked up some chick..so they went into the army. i know people who are horrible fucking people, who frankly, just wanted to see some combat. its disgusting.
that isn't being a patriot..its blind nationalism and we defend that idea when its coming from America, but we are scared to death of the idea if its from somewhere else. if a foreign country are nationalist...communists or anything else WE think we have to defend our selves from it. what the hell is wrong with our country were have have only been at peace for a hand full of decades.the reason for this blind reverence towards our troops? its unavoidable. its easier to make them into a hero then to protest. We just simply dont have to think about it.
It's equally frustrating when people say that our soldiers are fighting for our rights in general. Under any context it isn't true. We have been at war or in some sort of conflict for almost every year since the revolutionary war.
but that was the last real time we have been in a war because our rights have been infringed upon. every war other then a select few...and there has been a lottttttt..have been about foreign policy, or some made up shit like defending ourselves from terrorist by finding the nuclear weapons that arnt there in the first place. i just..i fucking hate that people have this godlike respect for the military branch of government.
most people join the army because they need the money, or they cant fucking cut it doing anything else. i know so many people who dropped out of high school..and knocked up some chick..so they went into the army. i know people who are horrible fucking people, who frankly, just wanted to see some combat. its disgusting.
that isn't being a patriot..its blind nationalism and we defend that idea when its coming from America, but we are scared to death of the idea if its from somewhere else. if a foreign country are nationalist...communists or anything else WE think we have to defend our selves from it. what the hell is wrong with our country were have have only been at peace for a hand full of decades.the reason for this blind reverence towards our troops? its unavoidable. its easier to make them into a hero then to protest. We just simply dont have to think about it.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
A Little Lesson On Responsiblity In The Business World
People in certain positions need to start taking more responsibility for their choices and actions. I've spent most of my adult life looking for work, and I think this is one of the best lesson's I've learned.
I've recently had a job interview for a company that I have prior experience working for. During the interview, the employer was looking into my records and reviews that my previous boss for the same company left for me.
Now, when I worked there before, it was my first job and I had no idea how the world of employment actually worked so I think its pretty obvious that I wasn't the best of employees, so..the review was a little negative. One of the comments was that I didn't take initiative and because of that, they took it as me being unmotivated. The thing is though, I did my job..I did what I was told to do. That, in my mind, was my only requirement. I thought it made me a good worker...hell, I even worked more overtime then most people in my position!
Had my boss at the time told me any of this..I would have become a better person for it. I would have done better work..I mean, it really would help me in future endeavors. I just feel that since I was unaware of this, it was my boss's job to direct me. I'm not hard to talk to..I DO take advice so..if your my boss and you think I'm not doing something right...fucking tell me. that makes YOU bad at your job...not me. That's just how I feel about that.
I dont understand..what's hard about being honest with someone and taking responsibility? I would have taken responsibility for my actions..so why cant you, my direct supervisor? Do your job and direct me.
Here is another example:
I also hate it (and I've had plenty of experience with this), I hate when you apply somewhere and they tell you they'll call you...then that's it. You dont hear anything. Whenever I hear "we'll call you", I take it as a no for now on because they dont..they dont take responsibility and let you know that you didn't get the job. Instead they leave you hanging. Fuck..I mean, I've only had two places tell me that I didn't get the job..and I respect that a hell of a lot more. I'd rather hear that I didn't get the job, and not get my hopes up. I mean...it means more to me that you told me that I didn't get it. It means probably more to me then if I would have gotten the job anyway!
Anyway, the lesson that I've taken away from these experiences is that it is important to be honest with people from the beginning. Take responsibility for the choices you make. Even if you work for a large corporation...please, dont hide behind it.
I've recently had a job interview for a company that I have prior experience working for. During the interview, the employer was looking into my records and reviews that my previous boss for the same company left for me.
Now, when I worked there before, it was my first job and I had no idea how the world of employment actually worked so I think its pretty obvious that I wasn't the best of employees, so..the review was a little negative. One of the comments was that I didn't take initiative and because of that, they took it as me being unmotivated. The thing is though, I did my job..I did what I was told to do. That, in my mind, was my only requirement. I thought it made me a good worker...hell, I even worked more overtime then most people in my position!
Had my boss at the time told me any of this..I would have become a better person for it. I would have done better work..I mean, it really would help me in future endeavors. I just feel that since I was unaware of this, it was my boss's job to direct me. I'm not hard to talk to..I DO take advice so..if your my boss and you think I'm not doing something right...fucking tell me. that makes YOU bad at your job...not me. That's just how I feel about that.
I dont understand..what's hard about being honest with someone and taking responsibility? I would have taken responsibility for my actions..so why cant you, my direct supervisor? Do your job and direct me.
Here is another example:
I also hate it (and I've had plenty of experience with this), I hate when you apply somewhere and they tell you they'll call you...then that's it. You dont hear anything. Whenever I hear "we'll call you", I take it as a no for now on because they dont..they dont take responsibility and let you know that you didn't get the job. Instead they leave you hanging. Fuck..I mean, I've only had two places tell me that I didn't get the job..and I respect that a hell of a lot more. I'd rather hear that I didn't get the job, and not get my hopes up. I mean...it means more to me that you told me that I didn't get it. It means probably more to me then if I would have gotten the job anyway!
Anyway, the lesson that I've taken away from these experiences is that it is important to be honest with people from the beginning. Take responsibility for the choices you make. Even if you work for a large corporation...please, dont hide behind it.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Grammar Nazi's Are Annoying.
People overlook the actual point you are trying to make just because you make a typo. I've been told its for my benefit..it "helps" me...but look..if you go out of your way to correct me and not even listen to what I'm saying when I'm making a sincere point and I'm not willfully being ignorant; then your just an ass.
i have no problem admitting that my grammar isn't the best it can be, but in very many instances, yes...they are ignoring the point. prove that they dont and ill change my opinion.
hell, i can understand correcting misconceptions or misunderstandings when it comes to the way you actually express your view..but when it comes to simple mistakes...fixing it doesn't add anything to the conversation.
do you get some sort of ego boost when you correct others for such minor mistakes? it might seem helpful to you, but to others you just come off as a pretentious snob.
minor mistakes happen; if its from a simple typing error, or a misuse of a word, granted..you should know how to use words, but if its not something that you cant figure out form the context clues, or if i used the word effect instead of affect...then then is when i can see correcting someone.
for simple words that are so often misused, really it just means that you have a certain pet peeve that you feel obligates you to be pretentious.
If I thought most pages on the internet were the appropriate forum for perfect grammar then I'd be more careful about my writing.
i have no problem admitting that my grammar isn't the best it can be, but in very many instances, yes...they are ignoring the point. prove that they dont and ill change my opinion.
hell, i can understand correcting misconceptions or misunderstandings when it comes to the way you actually express your view..but when it comes to simple mistakes...fixing it doesn't add anything to the conversation.
do you get some sort of ego boost when you correct others for such minor mistakes? it might seem helpful to you, but to others you just come off as a pretentious snob.
minor mistakes happen; if its from a simple typing error, or a misuse of a word, granted..you should know how to use words, but if its not something that you cant figure out form the context clues, or if i used the word effect instead of affect...then then is when i can see correcting someone.
for simple words that are so often misused, really it just means that you have a certain pet peeve that you feel obligates you to be pretentious.
If I thought most pages on the internet were the appropriate forum for perfect grammar then I'd be more careful about my writing.
Sexism In The Bible
First let me just say that these are only a few examples, there are other passages that command exactly the same thing.
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. *1 Cor.11:7
(this is pretty self explanatory, woman have to cover their head because they are not as "glorious" as men.)
...If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days.
But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks. *Leviticus 12:2-5
(if a women gives birth to a girl she is considered to be unclean for a longer amount of time).
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. *Corinthians 11:14-15
(men shouldn't have long hair because it is meant to cover the head of a women. covering, as shown by other passages is shameful.)
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. *Corinthians 14:34-35
(women are not allowed to speak in church, therefor if they have any questions they must ask their husband afterwords)
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church *Ephesians 5:23
(it seems the order of importance is christ, men, then women because women are to obey their husband, not the other way around because the husband is the head of the household)
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. *Timothy 2:11-14
(women are not allowed to teach or have authority over man and must remain quiet. this is because Eve was deceived..not Adam. which is odd considering there are verses in the bible that say that children are not held accountable by God for the sins of their parents; for example Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20).
he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. *Deuteronomy 22:29
(this verse is about rap. If a man rapes a women he has to pay her father for her hand in marriage. not only does she have to marry her rapist, her father gets paid for it)
If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins. *Exodus 22:17
(not only is a women her father's to give wither she agrees or not, she is bought. A few passages in the bible tell us how much a wife costs. if she is a rape victim its 50 sheckles of silver. There is also a reference to paying with animals if the male suitor can not afford 50 sheckles)
Genesis 4:19,Genesis 16:1-4,Genesis 25:6,Genesis 26:34,Genesis 28:9,Genesis 31:17,Genesis 32:22,Ex.21:10,Dt.21:15,Judges 8:30,1Sam.1:1-2,2 Sam.12:7-8,1 Kg.11:2-3,1 Chr.4:5,2 Chr.11:21,2 Chr.13:21,2 Chr.24:3,Mt.25:1,Titus 1:6-7 ALL of which men have more then one wife, however, NOWHERE is it mention that a women can have more then one husband.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
What Makes America The Best Country In The World?
Is America the best country in the world? What makes it the best? Is it all of the freedom that we enjoy? We know that we arnt the only country in the world who has some sort of document that sets up government in a way that protects the citizens rights..and we certainly arnt the only country that has a democratic system..
Maybe its the attitude of its citizens. We all support the "American dream". What IS the American dream? The American dream, is being able to make something out of yourself, no matter what social class you come from. Is this really possible, and are there really no other countries like that?
I'll use our past presidents as an example. The American dream means that ANYONE could be anything they wanted regardless of class, even the president of the united states. So, why is it that there were only seven out of forty four presidents who were anything less then a lawyer or teacher who ran our country? you might say, but that's ridiculous..all lawyers and teachers arnt successful...No, but do you know how much money it takes to go to school to become a lawyer? More then an average working class person of that time could afford, and that's just not something a lower class citizen could identify themselves with.
Speaking of the attitude of our citizens, is a countries nationalism really proof of anything? If that's the case, why is it that we are skeptical of other countries that support blind nationalism?
Maybe we are the best country in the world because we do the most good for our citizens. How well are our citizens taken care of?
Here are a few figures, that show us how we rank with other countries in the world:
7th in literacy.
27th in math.
22nd in science.
49th in life expectancy.
178th in infant mortality.
3rd in median household income.
4rth in labor force.
4th in exports.
Now, compare that to the things that we lead the world in. Here are two that I am the most ashamed of:
1st in incarcerated citizens per capita.
1st in defense spending..which is more then the next twenty six countries combined.
Now, of course we do have programs such as social security, medicare and medicaid to name a few, but most people will agree that there are aspects of these programs that need reform.
Looking at these few examples, I think its safe to say that we dont have the right to call our selves "the best country". Are we a good country? yes, I think everyone should be proud, but at the same time, realize that when there is something to be critical about, the best thing to do is to fix the problem, not ignoring it by blind nationalism.
Maybe its the attitude of its citizens. We all support the "American dream". What IS the American dream? The American dream, is being able to make something out of yourself, no matter what social class you come from. Is this really possible, and are there really no other countries like that?
I'll use our past presidents as an example. The American dream means that ANYONE could be anything they wanted regardless of class, even the president of the united states. So, why is it that there were only seven out of forty four presidents who were anything less then a lawyer or teacher who ran our country? you might say, but that's ridiculous..all lawyers and teachers arnt successful...No, but do you know how much money it takes to go to school to become a lawyer? More then an average working class person of that time could afford, and that's just not something a lower class citizen could identify themselves with.
Speaking of the attitude of our citizens, is a countries nationalism really proof of anything? If that's the case, why is it that we are skeptical of other countries that support blind nationalism?
Maybe we are the best country in the world because we do the most good for our citizens. How well are our citizens taken care of?
Here are a few figures, that show us how we rank with other countries in the world:
7th in literacy.
27th in math.
22nd in science.
49th in life expectancy.
178th in infant mortality.
3rd in median household income.
4rth in labor force.
4th in exports.
Now, compare that to the things that we lead the world in. Here are two that I am the most ashamed of:
1st in incarcerated citizens per capita.
1st in defense spending..which is more then the next twenty six countries combined.
Now, of course we do have programs such as social security, medicare and medicaid to name a few, but most people will agree that there are aspects of these programs that need reform.
Looking at these few examples, I think its safe to say that we dont have the right to call our selves "the best country". Are we a good country? yes, I think everyone should be proud, but at the same time, realize that when there is something to be critical about, the best thing to do is to fix the problem, not ignoring it by blind nationalism.
Why God's First Words to Adam Was A Lie: By Rosa Rubicondior
Now here's a funny thing.
Browsing my King James Bible, I came across this curious tale. Maybe you've heard of it. It's the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. It makes you wonder just what sort of god the author was writing about. It soon becomes all too obvious why he was writing it in the first place though - and I do mean he.
Firstly, this god is supposed to have created the Garden of Eden, complete with fruit trees for food, and put Adam into it.
Genesis 2:8-9 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
He then tells Adam that he can eat the fruit on all the trees except for the [fruit of the] tree of 'knowledge of good and evil' otherwise he will surely die.
Genesis 2:15-17 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 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.
So this god has put temptation in the Garden of Eden yet poor Adam does not yet have knowledge of good and evil so he doesn't yet know it's wrong to disobey this god. The words 'set up to fail' spring to mind.
But maybe that threat that Adam would die would do the trick, though we aren't told if this god has actually told Adam about death yet, and he can't have heard about it from anyone else.
God then makes all the animals and birds, etc, out of the ground, apparently hoping that Adam could use one of them as a 'help meet'
Genesis 2:18-20 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Okay. So, this god decides to make Adam a 'help meet' and creates a whole lot of birds and animals to see if any of those would do, but fails to make a suitable one - which is strange really, what with being omniscient and having created Adam in the first place.
So, he has another go and creates a woman for him. For some reason, although he could create a man from dust and all the animals and birds 'out of the ground', he needs a piece of man from which to make a woman, but that's by the by. Maybe he was losing his touch or the magic was running out along with his omniscience.
Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Well, obviously! With no knowledge of right and wrong, why would they feel shame?
And now the tale starts to get really bizarre, as though it weren't bizarre enough already.
Apparently, this god had included a talking, reasoning and cunning snake when he created all the animals and birds 'out of the ground'. It turns out too that this snake knew that the god had lied to Adam before it was even created, but we aren't told how it got this knowledge. Obviously someone must have told it because it wasn't there when the god told Adam the lie.
The lie was of course about dying if they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or even touched it (though the god apparently forgot to mention the touching part).
So, here we have an incompetent god who tells lies, and a clever serpent who tells Eve the truth. And Adam, who was told personally by this god that he would surely die, decides to take his chances with Eve and the serpent instead.
Perhaps he wasn't too impressed by this god either, having seen his bungling over the 'help meet' fiasco. But of course, Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong, so they can't be held responsible for doing a 'wrong' thing, can they?
Anyway, they then eat the forbidden fruit, gain the knowledge of right and wrong through some mysterious process, and don't die, just like the serpent says, and contrary to what the god had said.
God had lied to them.
So, was this knowledge of right and wrong the knowledge that this god is a liar and did Adam and Eve get their morals from a talking snake?
But it doesn't stop there.
A bit later on, Adam and Eve, who had mysteriously found a needle and thread and made some simple cloths to cover their newly-discovered naughty parts, heard this god walking about in the Garden of Eden so they hid from it.
And the god couldn't find them so he had to call out to Adam and ask him where he was.
Genesis 3:8-9 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
They hid from an omniscient, omni-present god!
Moving on...
And it's only then that this omniscient god discovers that they have eaten the forbidden fruit and now know right from wrong!
Genesis 3:10-13 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
So, this omniscient god now needs to be told what happened and falls for Eve's lie. The serpent hadn't deceived her at all. The serpent was the one who told them the truth and the only person who could have told the serpent the truth in the first place was the god. They touched and ate the fruit and didn't die like this god had told them they would; instead they lived, like the serpent had said they would.
It was Adam who had been deceived by the god.
It all smacks of a set-up to me.
But it maybe all becomes clear in the final few of verses of the tale:
Genesis 3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life
So the poor serpent gets punished for doing what he was made to do and for telling the truth which it can only have been fed by the god. And of course, as we all know, snakes eat nothing but dust to this day!
Then the sucker punches, and the reason the entire tale was made up in the first place, even at the expense of making the god sound like an incompetent fool and a liar. The god who rigged the whole thing in the first place decides to punish Adam and Eve even though they didn't know right from wrong until after they had done the naughty thing. Not only that, but this was the worst crime imaginable and one for which all Adam and Eve's descendant were to be punished too.
And this is supposed to be an omni-benevolent god!
Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Yep! Women are to be the chattels of men!
Genesis 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
And the best a man can hope for is a life of toil and drudgery and labouring in the fields.
Except of course for the priests and the ruling classes, who just happen to own the fields and need a compliant labour-force who know their place and believe they deserve nothing better from life.
And that's the women put in their place too! Sod all that seduction and foreplay stuff and wanting a say in everything! A man should be master in his own house!
This is how you can tell that the Bible was written by men for the masters they served and how the god in it is a utility god who is made to be whatever suits the rulers at the time. Later on it will be a brutal, genocidal god, or a capricious, threatening one, or even one who sides with the underdogs - up to a point of course.
Browsing my King James Bible, I came across this curious tale. Maybe you've heard of it. It's the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. It makes you wonder just what sort of god the author was writing about. It soon becomes all too obvious why he was writing it in the first place though - and I do mean he.
Firstly, this god is supposed to have created the Garden of Eden, complete with fruit trees for food, and put Adam into it.
Genesis 2:8-9 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
He then tells Adam that he can eat the fruit on all the trees except for the [fruit of the] tree of 'knowledge of good and evil' otherwise he will surely die.
Genesis 2:15-17 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. 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.
So this god has put temptation in the Garden of Eden yet poor Adam does not yet have knowledge of good and evil so he doesn't yet know it's wrong to disobey this god. The words 'set up to fail' spring to mind.
But maybe that threat that Adam would die would do the trick, though we aren't told if this god has actually told Adam about death yet, and he can't have heard about it from anyone else.
God then makes all the animals and birds, etc, out of the ground, apparently hoping that Adam could use one of them as a 'help meet'
Genesis 2:18-20 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Okay. So, this god decides to make Adam a 'help meet' and creates a whole lot of birds and animals to see if any of those would do, but fails to make a suitable one - which is strange really, what with being omniscient and having created Adam in the first place.
So, he has another go and creates a woman for him. For some reason, although he could create a man from dust and all the animals and birds 'out of the ground', he needs a piece of man from which to make a woman, but that's by the by. Maybe he was losing his touch or the magic was running out along with his omniscience.
Genesis 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Well, obviously! With no knowledge of right and wrong, why would they feel shame?
And now the tale starts to get really bizarre, as though it weren't bizarre enough already.
Apparently, this god had included a talking, reasoning and cunning snake when he created all the animals and birds 'out of the ground'. It turns out too that this snake knew that the god had lied to Adam before it was even created, but we aren't told how it got this knowledge. Obviously someone must have told it because it wasn't there when the god told Adam the lie.
The lie was of course about dying if they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or even touched it (though the god apparently forgot to mention the touching part).
So, here we have an incompetent god who tells lies, and a clever serpent who tells Eve the truth. And Adam, who was told personally by this god that he would surely die, decides to take his chances with Eve and the serpent instead.
Perhaps he wasn't too impressed by this god either, having seen his bungling over the 'help meet' fiasco. But of course, Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong, so they can't be held responsible for doing a 'wrong' thing, can they?
Anyway, they then eat the forbidden fruit, gain the knowledge of right and wrong through some mysterious process, and don't die, just like the serpent says, and contrary to what the god had said.
God had lied to them.
So, was this knowledge of right and wrong the knowledge that this god is a liar and did Adam and Eve get their morals from a talking snake?
But it doesn't stop there.
A bit later on, Adam and Eve, who had mysteriously found a needle and thread and made some simple cloths to cover their newly-discovered naughty parts, heard this god walking about in the Garden of Eden so they hid from it.
And the god couldn't find them so he had to call out to Adam and ask him where he was.
Genesis 3:8-9 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
They hid from an omniscient, omni-present god!
Moving on...
And it's only then that this omniscient god discovers that they have eaten the forbidden fruit and now know right from wrong!
Genesis 3:10-13 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
So, this omniscient god now needs to be told what happened and falls for Eve's lie. The serpent hadn't deceived her at all. The serpent was the one who told them the truth and the only person who could have told the serpent the truth in the first place was the god. They touched and ate the fruit and didn't die like this god had told them they would; instead they lived, like the serpent had said they would.
It was Adam who had been deceived by the god.
It all smacks of a set-up to me.
But it maybe all becomes clear in the final few of verses of the tale:
Genesis 3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life
So the poor serpent gets punished for doing what he was made to do and for telling the truth which it can only have been fed by the god. And of course, as we all know, snakes eat nothing but dust to this day!
Then the sucker punches, and the reason the entire tale was made up in the first place, even at the expense of making the god sound like an incompetent fool and a liar. The god who rigged the whole thing in the first place decides to punish Adam and Eve even though they didn't know right from wrong until after they had done the naughty thing. Not only that, but this was the worst crime imaginable and one for which all Adam and Eve's descendant were to be punished too.
And this is supposed to be an omni-benevolent god!
Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Yep! Women are to be the chattels of men!
Genesis 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
And the best a man can hope for is a life of toil and drudgery and labouring in the fields.
Except of course for the priests and the ruling classes, who just happen to own the fields and need a compliant labour-force who know their place and believe they deserve nothing better from life.
And that's the women put in their place too! Sod all that seduction and foreplay stuff and wanting a say in everything! A man should be master in his own house!
This is how you can tell that the Bible was written by men for the masters they served and how the god in it is a utility god who is made to be whatever suits the rulers at the time. Later on it will be a brutal, genocidal god, or a capricious, threatening one, or even one who sides with the underdogs - up to a point of course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)