I've picked up this book I got when I was 15 -I bought it while doing a biogenetics course in secondary school; the lecturer still tries to hit on me very occasionally, despite being attached to a long time Christian Virgin girlfriend, not to be confused with the virgin Christian girlfriend-. I couldn't understand it very well then, but while reading Guns, Germs and Steel, I felt like it was something I should dig out for the library and take a look at again, four years after I had purchased it.
There's this most peculiar paragraph in it:
'Taking sex (i.e. gender, intercourse and re-production) seriously as the basic underlying force in history throws everything into question; it obliges us to rethink all of history and see it from a new perspective, one that places primary emphasis on areas that have been almost completely ignored by historians. It does not simply change the case of characters; it totally revises the plot line.
From this perspective, the most significant historical events took place before or outside the usual field of vision of historians. The climax of the drama [...] took place in what might be considered Act 1, Scene 2, at a time when conventional history has not yet raised the curtain' -Eve's Seed, Robert McElvaine
Act 1, Scene 2 is Genesis Chapter 2.
In Chapter 1, Verse 27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God, he created him; male and female he created them. Verse 31: ... and there was evening, and there was morning - The Sixth Day.
... So both Adam and Eve are created on the same day.
In Chapter 2: When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth...The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground...God said ' it is not good for the man to be alone, I will make a helper suitable for him'... Now the Lord God formed all the beast of the field...But for Adam no suitable helper was found... So the Lord caused the Man to fall into a deep sleep...took one of the man's ribs...made a woman from the rib'
... So now God created Man, then he created all the beasts of the Earth, than against subsequent biological laws of the universe, a woman was consequently created from the man.
I'm personally not into the whole feminist dig, but that proves there's really more to any ancient religious text then we had been taught in Sunday School. Anyway, if you read Umberto Eco, you'll know how scribes from the Middle Ages were always fucking about with the scripts. Matthew might have written the gospel under the divine intervention of God, but the Monks the subsequently copied it were people too, and they were constantly reinterpreting it in they're own way. Little bit by little bit, as languages evolved, and as it was translated from Hebrew to Latin to English.
The whole idea of the fall of Man is completely weird. If you think about it, it really is this wonderful myth that artists throughout the ages loved playing about with -I particularly like Hieronymus Bosch- and I'm sure artists were not the only ones. Sedition is just easier to spot in images because graphical representation of anything always incites a quicker reaction than literary representation. Thats why erotica in literature is easily available to under 18s I bought my first at a book fair in a Catholic church-, but not erotica in film.
But I think its completely crazy to believe that God would judge love based on the eating of a fruit. Or on disobedience. If hes so great and loving, than he would love us anyway. I mean, even human beings have more compassion for their children, and theyre disobedient all the time. You know, Im currently predisposed to believe that Man hasnt in fact fallen. It is the perception that we are fallen that causes a great deal of the problems we experience now, and a great many of the problems we have experienced previously in history.
The contemporary concept of free choice as an explanation by Christians whenever a non-believer asks them if God is so wonderful, why didnt he just not create the tree of knowledge ironic, since wed still be monkeys without consciousness without knowledge- doesnt hold water.
Because you need to love God freely, you need to choose him consciously for it in order to be love. And when you do, you are granted Eternal Life.
Like I have said previously, it really isnt a choice. There is no choice when it comes to your consciousness, really. One day, you will die, and you have no choice in that. So what makes it likely we have a choice in that which is after death. Future choices are dependent on current choices, if choice is stopped at death, than I find it hard to see how we can actually choose between heaven or hell. But then again, I never even really believed in Heaven or Hell when I was a Christian, only that I will die someday and that whatever happens isnt for me to comprehend right now in life.
Back to why it doesnt hold water is the Love Adam and Eve (i.e. mankind) shared/shares with God so simplistic as to depend on the one factor of obedience and subordination? Not that we should believe ourselves superior to God, but that we should know that not only God is superior over us as men, but that we are also in control of ourselves; our fates and our destinies.
If Gods love is unconditional, than why this one condition?
Oh, oh wait, I know. Its only because of this one condition that his love can be unconditional.
You know, if you believe in Jesus Christ or whatever Saviour A, B, C or D, you will have his unconditional love. Otherwise, youre damned man. Man you are dammmmmmned.
I personally like to believe that he has given us free choice within our realm to eat either vanilla or strawberry ice-cream, and for me to love Richard or to go back to my bleary eyed party lifestyle, to stay in school or to drop out, but that the choices beyond human comprehension (before birth and after death) are not for me to choose.
*laughs* Of course all that shit doesnt matter. Im going to die anyway, we all are, but I get such a kick out of finding out how I had been wrong all this while.
Maybe one day Ill eat my words and say that I am wrong now to believe the things I do, but what does it matter. The whole point of free choice is so that you can change your mind, innit.
There's this most peculiar paragraph in it:
'Taking sex (i.e. gender, intercourse and re-production) seriously as the basic underlying force in history throws everything into question; it obliges us to rethink all of history and see it from a new perspective, one that places primary emphasis on areas that have been almost completely ignored by historians. It does not simply change the case of characters; it totally revises the plot line.
From this perspective, the most significant historical events took place before or outside the usual field of vision of historians. The climax of the drama [...] took place in what might be considered Act 1, Scene 2, at a time when conventional history has not yet raised the curtain' -Eve's Seed, Robert McElvaine
Act 1, Scene 2 is Genesis Chapter 2.
In Chapter 1, Verse 27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God, he created him; male and female he created them. Verse 31: ... and there was evening, and there was morning - The Sixth Day.
... So both Adam and Eve are created on the same day.
In Chapter 2: When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth...The Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground...God said ' it is not good for the man to be alone, I will make a helper suitable for him'... Now the Lord God formed all the beast of the field...But for Adam no suitable helper was found... So the Lord caused the Man to fall into a deep sleep...took one of the man's ribs...made a woman from the rib'
... So now God created Man, then he created all the beasts of the Earth, than against subsequent biological laws of the universe, a woman was consequently created from the man.
I'm personally not into the whole feminist dig, but that proves there's really more to any ancient religious text then we had been taught in Sunday School. Anyway, if you read Umberto Eco, you'll know how scribes from the Middle Ages were always fucking about with the scripts. Matthew might have written the gospel under the divine intervention of God, but the Monks the subsequently copied it were people too, and they were constantly reinterpreting it in they're own way. Little bit by little bit, as languages evolved, and as it was translated from Hebrew to Latin to English.
The whole idea of the fall of Man is completely weird. If you think about it, it really is this wonderful myth that artists throughout the ages loved playing about with -I particularly like Hieronymus Bosch- and I'm sure artists were not the only ones. Sedition is just easier to spot in images because graphical representation of anything always incites a quicker reaction than literary representation. Thats why erotica in literature is easily available to under 18s I bought my first at a book fair in a Catholic church-, but not erotica in film.
But I think its completely crazy to believe that God would judge love based on the eating of a fruit. Or on disobedience. If hes so great and loving, than he would love us anyway. I mean, even human beings have more compassion for their children, and theyre disobedient all the time. You know, Im currently predisposed to believe that Man hasnt in fact fallen. It is the perception that we are fallen that causes a great deal of the problems we experience now, and a great many of the problems we have experienced previously in history.
The contemporary concept of free choice as an explanation by Christians whenever a non-believer asks them if God is so wonderful, why didnt he just not create the tree of knowledge ironic, since wed still be monkeys without consciousness without knowledge- doesnt hold water.
Because you need to love God freely, you need to choose him consciously for it in order to be love. And when you do, you are granted Eternal Life.
Like I have said previously, it really isnt a choice. There is no choice when it comes to your consciousness, really. One day, you will die, and you have no choice in that. So what makes it likely we have a choice in that which is after death. Future choices are dependent on current choices, if choice is stopped at death, than I find it hard to see how we can actually choose between heaven or hell. But then again, I never even really believed in Heaven or Hell when I was a Christian, only that I will die someday and that whatever happens isnt for me to comprehend right now in life.
Back to why it doesnt hold water is the Love Adam and Eve (i.e. mankind) shared/shares with God so simplistic as to depend on the one factor of obedience and subordination? Not that we should believe ourselves superior to God, but that we should know that not only God is superior over us as men, but that we are also in control of ourselves; our fates and our destinies.
If Gods love is unconditional, than why this one condition?
Oh, oh wait, I know. Its only because of this one condition that his love can be unconditional.
You know, if you believe in Jesus Christ or whatever Saviour A, B, C or D, you will have his unconditional love. Otherwise, youre damned man. Man you are dammmmmmned.
I personally like to believe that he has given us free choice within our realm to eat either vanilla or strawberry ice-cream, and for me to love Richard or to go back to my bleary eyed party lifestyle, to stay in school or to drop out, but that the choices beyond human comprehension (before birth and after death) are not for me to choose.
*laughs* Of course all that shit doesnt matter. Im going to die anyway, we all are, but I get such a kick out of finding out how I had been wrong all this while.
Maybe one day Ill eat my words and say that I am wrong now to believe the things I do, but what does it matter. The whole point of free choice is so that you can change your mind, innit.
VIEW 4 of 4 COMMENTS
*laughs* Of course all that shit doesnt matter. Im going to die anyway, we all are, but I get such a kick out of finding out how I had been wrong all this while.
Wait a second, that's not funny. That's not funny at all!
And I figure that the apple was just an apple and that it was the act itself that was important.
I don't think God has free will because he can see the future. He never really gets to make a choice because he knows what he's going to do beforehand (predestination). You could argue that he could make a choice, but at the same time he's perfect and therefore everything he does is perfect. If he were to do anything that wasn't perfect and diverge from the series of perfects acts he sees himself performing until the end of time, then he wouldn't be perfect and he'd just be some schmuk.
Meanwhile, there are humans. We can't see the future so we actually make decisions. Perhaps what God is doing is testing the value of free will. He gives us a paradise and an apple tree we can't touch because he forbids it. We have a choice, paradise or defiance of God's will and whatever may follow. We choose the apple. In choosing the apple, we're rejecting God and taking free will. So then God kicks us out and gives us all this misery, maybe to give us a better understanding of what free will entails (or just to be a prick).
So now us, Adam and Eve's descendants, have this choice. We can reject free will as best we can and instead choose to live as God intends us to (WWJD?). In doing so, we get a perfect paradise to go to. On the other hand, we can live life as we see fit and defy God's commandments. You don't know what you'll get from that, but it'll definitely fall short of perfect (and therefore heaven). At the same time, however, you don't know what to expect from the hell you choose to live in. This is kind of appropriate considering how there's like jack shit about hell in the bible (though Dante's Inferno was kind of rad, though I couldn't enjoy it because I didn't get any of the references).
So I guess you can see human existence as one big test. You go through life and, at some point, you're expected to decide if you'd prefer a stagnant, beautiful paradise or a flawed hell rich with possibilities. Maybe at the end they'll tally the results.
You could also go so far as to question why God created humans and try to derive an answer based on what I just made up. What I come up with is God, as a perfect being, encompasses pretty much everything positive that you can imagine. There's no badness in him (death, stink, whatever). Badness isn't possible through God and can only be attained through free will. Free will, however, isn't a bad thing. This makes God worry. He's perfect, and yet there's one thing called free will which isn't bad and which he cannot ever have or perhaps even hope to understand. That's why he needed to create humans and give them a choice between free will and Godliness. It's a contest between perfection and free will to determine if perfect is really perfect at all. In actuality, it's God versus humanity.
Sorry, I can't resist giving my load of imagination to anyone who even bothers to bring up the topic of religion.