Today I was reading the Book of Matthew, and an interesting revelation was revealed to me from the education in High School English. I don't want to give it away so I'll just give some examples FIRST before explaining the point I'm getting at.
Legend tells us that Matthew was written by the disciple called Matthew. So lets see how his version of Jesus life unfolds.
Matthew 1
Joseph's dream about Jesus are quoted word for word.
Matthew 2
Prophecies told to herod by magi word for word.
Another dream of Joseph word for word.
Matthew 3
Words of John the Baptist word for word
Matthew 4
Jesus led into desert alone, conversation word for word with devil.
Words of jesus preaching and calling of first disciples.
Matthew 5-9
Continues to quote entire speeches word for word, specific events in different downs, even quotes others responses.
Matthew 9
Matthew finally called. Not traveling with him, but sitting at tax collector booth.
Matthew 17
Quotes word for word event in which only Peter, James, and John were with Jesus.
Matthew 26
Judas and the priests quoted word for word.
Jesus in Gethsemane, Jesus goes away with Peter James john, but they fall asleep, but Jesus prayer gets quoted word for word.
Jesus speaks with Sanhedrin and quoted word for word.
Matthew 27
Judas conversation with priests and priests words amongst themselves.
Jesus comments with Pilot quoted word for word.
Pilots discussion with priests after crucifixion.
Now, I sited some very specific examples that all have something in common. Have you already figured it out? Thats right, all these stories are told in the third person. But not just in the third person, an all knowing all seeing third person. In English and Literature this is called "narrative mode". That is when you tell the story as an omniscient call knowing narrator of a story. It is used to convey the plot to an audience. In narrative mode, the author can move the story along and fill in every point and close the gap to anyone reading the story. This is a much easier way to fill in the reader without complex plots that slowly show the reader whats going on.
This, however, is not the way people convey real events that they experienced. But there are some other problems here. Matthew details conversations that he himself admits he couldn't know. How could he possibly know the words used in Josephs dream? How could he know of any of the events before he was called to be a disciple, never mind know the conversations word for word. How would he know, word for word, the conversation between Jesus and the Devil? He quotes word for word what happened between only three other disciples and Jesus. He quotes conversations between jesus and pilot, Jesus and the Sanhedrin, and Jesus and the priests when Jesus is the only one there. Matthew quotes the conversation Judas has with the priests, on two different occasions!
Perhaps the most ridiculous part of the book is when Matthew describes Jesus prayer in the garden. He goes to great lengths to let us know that only three disciples were invited, and they fell asleep. So no one is with Jesus, yet Matthew quotes his prayer? This type of story telling happens in all three gospels. Not a one escapes the ridiculous proposition of the all seeing omniscient narrator.
But we know this type of story. The type of story in which every single word spoken, every dream, every silent prayer, thought, and conversation is known to the narrator. It is called a fairy tale. A work of fiction in which the entire plot is laid out line by line, with every dark corner of thought and dream are known and laid bare.
Matthew is laid out like any good piece of fiction, complete with good guys, bad guys, negative plot turn, and finally, the happy ending. We know this format, we call it fiction, or fairy tale. Because there is absolutely no way Matthew could have known most of the events I listed above. The very fact that events where recorded that no one could have known about, and done word for word, should tip us off to the fact that this is nothing more than a good story. Whether a real Jesus figure ever existed is made moot by the fact that this story that describes his life is clearly a work of fiction.
Any one familiar with fiction should be able to spot this work of fiction. In fact, all of the gospels are written in the same fashion, all of them claiming an all knowing third person who is able to see peoples dreams and hear words spoken when no one is around. But then, thats what happens when you take stories handed down orally, grandly embellished over many decades, then try to make a cohesive story. And there is nothing wrong with that if you just like to read great stories, like that of Odessius. But this is what people are living their life by. You might as well take the moral teachings from a Strawberry Shortcake book as read the new testament for guidance!
Friday, November 13, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Cursing, Swearing, using Bad Words, NO BIG DEAL! REALY!
Cursing, Swearing, using Bad words, no big deal! Really!
I have always held that there are no such things as bad words. As such, I will use many of them in this post. If you get offended by such words, then please, stay, because this is for you. I will address the use of swear words in as many forms as I can remember and show why they are no big deal.
There are three ways in which swears words are considered bad.
1. Words are socially unacceptable
2. Words are hijacked from original meanings to mean something deragatory
3. And most commonly, they are "bad" words because of ones faith or religion
All three purposes are simply not valid and I will show why. And for number three, I will show why it is not valid to say one particular word is bad, biblically. Oh yes, I can argue from the bible as well.
1. Some words are bad because they are socially acceptable.
I have to admit, this is possibly the worst argument I have ever heard. When I was a christian, I still had a major problem with this. Why? Because words have meaning, and meaning is what is important, no particular word. If I were to call you a mother fucker, you would likely be highly offended. But what if I said "you enjoy intimate relations with your mom"? Now, you would likely think about it for a moment then be upset, but it doesn't have the same power as "mother fucker" because you believe that some how "mother fucker" is a bad word.
If I say "fuck you", you will inherently get more upset than if I were to say "screw you" or "violate you" or "do you in the rear". The last two are likely to illicit a law instead of anger. But why? They mean the same thing, and have the same linguistic value as "fuck you" does. When you give words more power based on the sound it makes coming out of someones mouth, you denigrad the meaning and value of words by making one word better or worse than another. You wouldn't the term "they" is better than "them" would you? They mean virtually the same thing. We should apply the same logic to all words. Instead of specific sounds being offensive, we need to look at the meaning of a word. I assure you I can say much more offensive things without the so called "bad words". There is nothing more ridiculous than completely insulting someone without one cuss word then having them get upset at "fuck you". We get upset at these particular words and not others because we UNDERSTAND what they mean. Other language is often not fully understood and doesn't convey the feelings to people any more, like cuss words do.
Thus, in society, we decided that, since we don't like these feelings being conveyed, that we can demonize the words that convey them. Whats worse, words in a society, and in meaning, change over time. If you went back 200 years ago and told King George "Fuck You" he wouldn't have the slightest idea what you were talking about. Phrases that have to universal meaning cannot be held as bad. In 100 years, we won't know what the phrase means either. So what you are doing is picking one set of words that convey a specific meaning in any given society time table, and deciding they are bad. That simply is not acceptable. Meaning is important. Meaning and the feelings conveyed are more important than the actual words used. Which leads me to point number 2.
2. Some words are bad even though they have valid definitions of use.
Bitch, bastard, ass hole. All these types of words have valid meanings associated with them. A bitch is a female dog. A bastard is a son born whose father is not known, and ass is an animal. But they have been hijacked, once again, for the feelings they convey, and by consequence, making them "bad words". Not long ago, I did a random test on some people I knew. I didn't tell them at first, but I did after words. I told one of the women she was a bitch. She immediately got upset at me. Didn't slap me, but she wanted to. I told another woman separately that she was acting like a female dog. She laughed and said she supposed she was. (she happens to be one that thinks swearing is wrong). I did the same with some male co-workers with "bastard". The one called bastard felt hurt and got upset, the one who I used the definition on, said he had no father, didn't even blink. And finally, I called one of my friends an ass hole in anger, and the other a butt hole in anger. You guessed it, the one who I called butt hole just apologize (he didn't need to, I set him up) and the one I called ass hole immediately got defensive and angry.
Words have meaning. That meaning is why we get upset. But in place of discerning what someone is saying, we have put in a set of words that are considered "bad words" so that we know what feelings are being conveyed and know when to properly get upset or offended. The problem is that now the words themself are offensive separate from their meanings. If I call you a donkeys butt, or a butt hole, or an ass hole, all three should illicit the same response, but that simply doesn't happen. The demonizing of specific words has, in a way dumbed down our society. Or perhaps, it is just a symtom of that dumbing down. Either way, in the case of these type of words, they cannot be bad words because they are still valid in use of very real things. If I say bitch, why should that get someone more angry than a female dog? They are the same thing, and bitch is still used in dog shows and by dog trainers today. Another word, hell, is sometimes demonize, like when someone says "what the hell" or "go to hell". How can a word be a "bad word" when that word is in the bible? The bible is the most widely read book among those of faith in our country today. Yet most who read it would list "hell" as a bad word. That doesn't even make sense. It is the feelings conveyed, the idea conveyed, that should be what gets to people, not specific words, and especially not words that have actual common uses.
3. Swear words are bad because the bible says so.
Now, this one is one of my favorites because it is simply a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge that causes this belief. Now, I could go into the myriad of ways in which "using gods name in vain" is specifically bad in the bible. I could go on about how "in vain" doesn't mean the same thing it does now, and that "in vain" is not as good a translation as "in a falsehood" according to the direct hebrew translation bible. This would mean that swearing in gods name, that is, making an oath in gods name, is what it is prohibiting. But thats not nearly as relevant. Why? Because, GOD is a generic term not used in the bible. God and Lord are not the names of God. In the Old Testament, God is given the name El half of the time, and Yahweh the other half of the time. Those of the Yahweh persuasion deemed his name so holy that it couldn't be written or spoken. Thus, in the original OT text, YHWH is written, not Yahweh. These are the names of god, and those are what you should not say in falsehood. God damn it, could mean any god or gods. God is a generic term used for any and every other deity. In english, we capitalize the word to mean THE god, by which we mean the christian god. This capitalization in no way indicates that this is the name of god. It is ignorant to say so! Thus god damn it cannot be taking "the name of the lord your god in vain" because you aren't using "the name of the lord your god in vain".
Moving to the new testament, christians like to quote Ephesians 4:29 "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.".
Now, to many, this means, no swearing. However, we have already discussed the problem with that. I can say something so foul and insulting that you should be left embarassed with out ever saying a "swear" word. So, is it okay to say something nasty as long as I don't swear? I have met many christians who seem to think so. They never swear but they sure say some mean things about people and too them. Surely you can't think that the christian god is so lame and shallow as to think that only words deemed socially bad are things you can't say? No, that is a ridiculous premise. And until christians stop saying bad things about people in a nice or non-swear word laden way, they cannot claim this scripture for anything, especially swear words. The simple reality about this is this. If I say you are the best damn piano player in the whole fuckin world, that is a nice thing I just said about you. Nothing unwholesome was said of you. Yet if you are a christian, you are likely going to be offended. But I clearly didn't violate any religious principles in the bible. What I violated was your self installed, socially generated sense of what particular words are acceptable. And that is not enough to decide that one particular word, rather than what the words mean, is bad or offensive.
Conclusion:
In the conclusion I want to address one further complaint about swearing. It is usually given by people who consider them selves intellectuals or intelligent. They like to say swear words are only used by those who aren't smart enough to articulate their feelings. That intelligent people don't need to use swear words. Well, I call them like I see them. And that is bull shit. As long as society views specific words as "bad" then they will continue to have a bigger impact on people than spelling out the actually feeling or action you wish to convey. If I say "I am very angry and am not going to do what you say no matter what you tell me so just leave me alone" it doesn't have the power that "kiss my ass!" does. As well, it shortens the discourse considerably when using swear words to convey feelings either in anger or in jest. Simply using one word over another, as long as it is in proper usage, does not make on inferior or less intelligent. Fact is, if I don't use swear words, many people simply don't understand what I just said. So in some ways, it is easier to communicate with people using swear words.
If we want to advance in our society, we must learn to get past such pettying labeling as "bad words". Words are just words. What I am MEANING is much more important than the actual words used. Words are a tool that, in and of themselves, cannot be inherently bad or good, they simply are. They are there to use when we need them to convey actions, requests, feelings, desires, pain, pleasure and so much more. The sooner we learn thes, the sooner we can move on to actually discussing issues that really matter, and give a big FUCK YOU to people whose only recourse in a discussion is to demonize the actual words you use, in place of real discussion.
I have always held that there are no such things as bad words. As such, I will use many of them in this post. If you get offended by such words, then please, stay, because this is for you. I will address the use of swear words in as many forms as I can remember and show why they are no big deal.
There are three ways in which swears words are considered bad.
1. Words are socially unacceptable
2. Words are hijacked from original meanings to mean something deragatory
3. And most commonly, they are "bad" words because of ones faith or religion
All three purposes are simply not valid and I will show why. And for number three, I will show why it is not valid to say one particular word is bad, biblically. Oh yes, I can argue from the bible as well.
1. Some words are bad because they are socially acceptable.
I have to admit, this is possibly the worst argument I have ever heard. When I was a christian, I still had a major problem with this. Why? Because words have meaning, and meaning is what is important, no particular word. If I were to call you a mother fucker, you would likely be highly offended. But what if I said "you enjoy intimate relations with your mom"? Now, you would likely think about it for a moment then be upset, but it doesn't have the same power as "mother fucker" because you believe that some how "mother fucker" is a bad word.
If I say "fuck you", you will inherently get more upset than if I were to say "screw you" or "violate you" or "do you in the rear". The last two are likely to illicit a law instead of anger. But why? They mean the same thing, and have the same linguistic value as "fuck you" does. When you give words more power based on the sound it makes coming out of someones mouth, you denigrad the meaning and value of words by making one word better or worse than another. You wouldn't the term "they" is better than "them" would you? They mean virtually the same thing. We should apply the same logic to all words. Instead of specific sounds being offensive, we need to look at the meaning of a word. I assure you I can say much more offensive things without the so called "bad words". There is nothing more ridiculous than completely insulting someone without one cuss word then having them get upset at "fuck you". We get upset at these particular words and not others because we UNDERSTAND what they mean. Other language is often not fully understood and doesn't convey the feelings to people any more, like cuss words do.
Thus, in society, we decided that, since we don't like these feelings being conveyed, that we can demonize the words that convey them. Whats worse, words in a society, and in meaning, change over time. If you went back 200 years ago and told King George "Fuck You" he wouldn't have the slightest idea what you were talking about. Phrases that have to universal meaning cannot be held as bad. In 100 years, we won't know what the phrase means either. So what you are doing is picking one set of words that convey a specific meaning in any given society time table, and deciding they are bad. That simply is not acceptable. Meaning is important. Meaning and the feelings conveyed are more important than the actual words used. Which leads me to point number 2.
2. Some words are bad even though they have valid definitions of use.
Bitch, bastard, ass hole. All these types of words have valid meanings associated with them. A bitch is a female dog. A bastard is a son born whose father is not known, and ass is an animal. But they have been hijacked, once again, for the feelings they convey, and by consequence, making them "bad words". Not long ago, I did a random test on some people I knew. I didn't tell them at first, but I did after words. I told one of the women she was a bitch. She immediately got upset at me. Didn't slap me, but she wanted to. I told another woman separately that she was acting like a female dog. She laughed and said she supposed she was. (she happens to be one that thinks swearing is wrong). I did the same with some male co-workers with "bastard". The one called bastard felt hurt and got upset, the one who I used the definition on, said he had no father, didn't even blink. And finally, I called one of my friends an ass hole in anger, and the other a butt hole in anger. You guessed it, the one who I called butt hole just apologize (he didn't need to, I set him up) and the one I called ass hole immediately got defensive and angry.
Words have meaning. That meaning is why we get upset. But in place of discerning what someone is saying, we have put in a set of words that are considered "bad words" so that we know what feelings are being conveyed and know when to properly get upset or offended. The problem is that now the words themself are offensive separate from their meanings. If I call you a donkeys butt, or a butt hole, or an ass hole, all three should illicit the same response, but that simply doesn't happen. The demonizing of specific words has, in a way dumbed down our society. Or perhaps, it is just a symtom of that dumbing down. Either way, in the case of these type of words, they cannot be bad words because they are still valid in use of very real things. If I say bitch, why should that get someone more angry than a female dog? They are the same thing, and bitch is still used in dog shows and by dog trainers today. Another word, hell, is sometimes demonize, like when someone says "what the hell" or "go to hell". How can a word be a "bad word" when that word is in the bible? The bible is the most widely read book among those of faith in our country today. Yet most who read it would list "hell" as a bad word. That doesn't even make sense. It is the feelings conveyed, the idea conveyed, that should be what gets to people, not specific words, and especially not words that have actual common uses.
3. Swear words are bad because the bible says so.
Now, this one is one of my favorites because it is simply a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge that causes this belief. Now, I could go into the myriad of ways in which "using gods name in vain" is specifically bad in the bible. I could go on about how "in vain" doesn't mean the same thing it does now, and that "in vain" is not as good a translation as "in a falsehood" according to the direct hebrew translation bible. This would mean that swearing in gods name, that is, making an oath in gods name, is what it is prohibiting. But thats not nearly as relevant. Why? Because, GOD is a generic term not used in the bible. God and Lord are not the names of God. In the Old Testament, God is given the name El half of the time, and Yahweh the other half of the time. Those of the Yahweh persuasion deemed his name so holy that it couldn't be written or spoken. Thus, in the original OT text, YHWH is written, not Yahweh. These are the names of god, and those are what you should not say in falsehood. God damn it, could mean any god or gods. God is a generic term used for any and every other deity. In english, we capitalize the word to mean THE god, by which we mean the christian god. This capitalization in no way indicates that this is the name of god. It is ignorant to say so! Thus god damn it cannot be taking "the name of the lord your god in vain" because you aren't using "the name of the lord your god in vain".
Moving to the new testament, christians like to quote Ephesians 4:29 "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.".
Now, to many, this means, no swearing. However, we have already discussed the problem with that. I can say something so foul and insulting that you should be left embarassed with out ever saying a "swear" word. So, is it okay to say something nasty as long as I don't swear? I have met many christians who seem to think so. They never swear but they sure say some mean things about people and too them. Surely you can't think that the christian god is so lame and shallow as to think that only words deemed socially bad are things you can't say? No, that is a ridiculous premise. And until christians stop saying bad things about people in a nice or non-swear word laden way, they cannot claim this scripture for anything, especially swear words. The simple reality about this is this. If I say you are the best damn piano player in the whole fuckin world, that is a nice thing I just said about you. Nothing unwholesome was said of you. Yet if you are a christian, you are likely going to be offended. But I clearly didn't violate any religious principles in the bible. What I violated was your self installed, socially generated sense of what particular words are acceptable. And that is not enough to decide that one particular word, rather than what the words mean, is bad or offensive.
Conclusion:
In the conclusion I want to address one further complaint about swearing. It is usually given by people who consider them selves intellectuals or intelligent. They like to say swear words are only used by those who aren't smart enough to articulate their feelings. That intelligent people don't need to use swear words. Well, I call them like I see them. And that is bull shit. As long as society views specific words as "bad" then they will continue to have a bigger impact on people than spelling out the actually feeling or action you wish to convey. If I say "I am very angry and am not going to do what you say no matter what you tell me so just leave me alone" it doesn't have the power that "kiss my ass!" does. As well, it shortens the discourse considerably when using swear words to convey feelings either in anger or in jest. Simply using one word over another, as long as it is in proper usage, does not make on inferior or less intelligent. Fact is, if I don't use swear words, many people simply don't understand what I just said. So in some ways, it is easier to communicate with people using swear words.
If we want to advance in our society, we must learn to get past such pettying labeling as "bad words". Words are just words. What I am MEANING is much more important than the actual words used. Words are a tool that, in and of themselves, cannot be inherently bad or good, they simply are. They are there to use when we need them to convey actions, requests, feelings, desires, pain, pleasure and so much more. The sooner we learn thes, the sooner we can move on to actually discussing issues that really matter, and give a big FUCK YOU to people whose only recourse in a discussion is to demonize the actual words you use, in place of real discussion.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
God in the Garden: The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
This is a new series I'm starting that will examine curious parts about the book of Genesis, specifically the beginnings of mankind before, during, and shortly after the Garden of Eden.
For the first post in this series I would like to discuss the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Lets read the verse referring to this to begin with.
Lets ignore the last part for this moment as I'm sure that "surely die" can be interpreted different ways. But rather, lets take a look at the actual command and circumstances around that command. What do we know from previous verses about the situation?
1. Adam was newly created.
2. Adam was just put in the garden.
3. Eve was not yet created. She was created in verse 18.
Taking the first bit of knowledge listed. Adam was newly created. Now assuming he was created as an adult, which the bible doesn't say, but for the sake of argument, lets say he was an adult out right. He was still a child of mind. He had not experienced anything at all up to this point. The bible is clear. He was created, but into the garden god created, and told not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He would have been completely naive. Some things we take for granted would be foreign to him. Death, disobedience, right and wrong, sin, suffering. As a child, these terms would have no meaning to someone who has not experienced them. A child is not born knowing he must obey his parents, he learns it.
Being just put in the Garden, he would likely have been curious. Having never seen trees, or animals or anything before. Like a child, he would not have a concept of punishment or discipline. Curiosity would likely over come commands to not do something, as often is the case in children. If you have children then you understand that when you tell a child to NOT do something or NOT touch something for their own good, you can't just leave them to their own devices. If you tell them NOT to touch something, they will likely feel the need to touch it. You must constantly supervise them. There is no reason to believe that Adam would have been any different as his situation was just a like a childs newly brought into the world.
Eve was in an even worse situation. She was created AFTER this command, and thus was given the command second hand. She would also have been naive and unaware of the concept of right and wrong. As we move to Chapter 3, we can see that Eve is not just naive, but, likely any gullible child, easily confused.
Now, Eve, being child like, would not have been able to defend against this argument. Why? Because god gave no reason, and her information was second hand any way. So like any child, when the fruit was dangled before her, with the promise of being good and that she would learn and know more, she fell for the trick. A child falling for a trick? Today, we call that child exploitation, because we understand that children are not adults, they don't have the capacity or experience to sort through such things on their own. For Eve it was even worse as she would not have any concept of good and evil, right or wrong.
She ate the fruit, gave it to Adam, and he ate as well. Now their eyes were opened. It is only now that we see them realize they did something wrong, AFTER they ate the fruit. We see not hesitation on their part BEFORE eating it. Why? Because they didn't know it was wrong, because they had no knowledge of right and wrong. But after eating the fruit, they did. They grew up essentially.
So, like any good parent, god took them aside, chastised them and made sure this was a learning moment in which they learned a valuable lesson and they moved on right? After all, they are just children. Right? Wrong.
God punishes them by putting them out of the garden, introducing them to pain, suffering, death, and turmoil. I'm sure they learned a valuable lesson that way.
God put two children in a garden, put temptation right in front of them, allowed the "father of lies" (satan by most christians beliefs) to go into the garden to tempt them, then punished them vilely for falling for it. What? In the real world, we call this setting someone up to fail. God is supposedly all knowing. So he put them in the garden, and put temptation in the garden, and allow the master deceiver in the gardern, when he absolutely knew the outcome. What kind of parent would put a bowl of pudding on a table, tell the kids not to eat it, leave the room, send someone in that room to coax them into eating the pudding, then storm in and punish them for eating it?
Sound cruel and awful? It is. But that is exactly what god did. He set them up to fail. How can someone claim love of another when they set them up to fail, KNOWING they will fail, then punish them? Can you name another human being you would love or respect if they did such a thing?
The lesson we can learn from this is a hard one. If god exists, he is not a nice being. He is cruel, spiteful, and will punish even the most naive of persons for just about anything. He will set you up to fail marvelously because he knows exactly what it takes to make you fail.
This is one of the first lessons we learn about God in Genesis. If he exists, watch out, because he is looking for ways to trip you up, and he has the upper hand.
For the first post in this series I would like to discuss the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Lets read the verse referring to this to begin with.
Genesis 2 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
Lets ignore the last part for this moment as I'm sure that "surely die" can be interpreted different ways. But rather, lets take a look at the actual command and circumstances around that command. What do we know from previous verses about the situation?
1. Adam was newly created.
2. Adam was just put in the garden.
3. Eve was not yet created. She was created in verse 18.
Taking the first bit of knowledge listed. Adam was newly created. Now assuming he was created as an adult, which the bible doesn't say, but for the sake of argument, lets say he was an adult out right. He was still a child of mind. He had not experienced anything at all up to this point. The bible is clear. He was created, but into the garden god created, and told not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He would have been completely naive. Some things we take for granted would be foreign to him. Death, disobedience, right and wrong, sin, suffering. As a child, these terms would have no meaning to someone who has not experienced them. A child is not born knowing he must obey his parents, he learns it.
Being just put in the Garden, he would likely have been curious. Having never seen trees, or animals or anything before. Like a child, he would not have a concept of punishment or discipline. Curiosity would likely over come commands to not do something, as often is the case in children. If you have children then you understand that when you tell a child to NOT do something or NOT touch something for their own good, you can't just leave them to their own devices. If you tell them NOT to touch something, they will likely feel the need to touch it. You must constantly supervise them. There is no reason to believe that Adam would have been any different as his situation was just a like a childs newly brought into the world.
Eve was in an even worse situation. She was created AFTER this command, and thus was given the command second hand. She would also have been naive and unaware of the concept of right and wrong. As we move to Chapter 3, we can see that Eve is not just naive, but, likely any gullible child, easily confused.
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
Now, Eve, being child like, would not have been able to defend against this argument. Why? Because god gave no reason, and her information was second hand any way. So like any child, when the fruit was dangled before her, with the promise of being good and that she would learn and know more, she fell for the trick. A child falling for a trick? Today, we call that child exploitation, because we understand that children are not adults, they don't have the capacity or experience to sort through such things on their own. For Eve it was even worse as she would not have any concept of good and evil, right or wrong.
She ate the fruit, gave it to Adam, and he ate as well. Now their eyes were opened. It is only now that we see them realize they did something wrong, AFTER they ate the fruit. We see not hesitation on their part BEFORE eating it. Why? Because they didn't know it was wrong, because they had no knowledge of right and wrong. But after eating the fruit, they did. They grew up essentially.
So, like any good parent, god took them aside, chastised them and made sure this was a learning moment in which they learned a valuable lesson and they moved on right? After all, they are just children. Right? Wrong.
God punishes them by putting them out of the garden, introducing them to pain, suffering, death, and turmoil. I'm sure they learned a valuable lesson that way.
God put two children in a garden, put temptation right in front of them, allowed the "father of lies" (satan by most christians beliefs) to go into the garden to tempt them, then punished them vilely for falling for it. What? In the real world, we call this setting someone up to fail. God is supposedly all knowing. So he put them in the garden, and put temptation in the garden, and allow the master deceiver in the gardern, when he absolutely knew the outcome. What kind of parent would put a bowl of pudding on a table, tell the kids not to eat it, leave the room, send someone in that room to coax them into eating the pudding, then storm in and punish them for eating it?
Sound cruel and awful? It is. But that is exactly what god did. He set them up to fail. How can someone claim love of another when they set them up to fail, KNOWING they will fail, then punish them? Can you name another human being you would love or respect if they did such a thing?
The lesson we can learn from this is a hard one. If god exists, he is not a nice being. He is cruel, spiteful, and will punish even the most naive of persons for just about anything. He will set you up to fail marvelously because he knows exactly what it takes to make you fail.
This is one of the first lessons we learn about God in Genesis. If he exists, watch out, because he is looking for ways to trip you up, and he has the upper hand.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Chris Mattews flays 'Birther' G. Gordon Liddy - Chew on that evidence Birther idiots!
Okay okay okay, so I originally just wanted to have the video up. But this is to much. This guy is a complete fool. He REPRESENTS what is wrong with the entire birther movement. Ignorance. Plan and simple. This evidence was easily researchable, and many people have gotten it just by asking. Yet some how, the birthers don't ever seem to get to the relevant data. They lie and say that the records are sealed, that they aren't allowed to see it, what ever. Its clearly NOT TRUE as the media has all the evidence they seem to be asking for! Its ignorance and deception, and its a hallmark of the far right wing nut establishment! These looney bins are the same ones that gave up the "Tea Parties". What a crock! How can you be taken seriously when you lie about stuff and get caught on national television lying about it?
Liddy said that you can't use the BC that Obama showed to get a passport. It was a straight up made up lie. Its not true. In fact, that is EXACTLY what you use to get your passport! Is he a liar or just ignorant?
In fact, if you are a birther, answer me that question. Are you a liar or just a ignorant fuck? The evidence you asked for and claim has been denied you was presented in this video. All the evidence and people like you birthers simply revert back to some old kenyan ladies comment? Really? So tell me, are you stupid or a liar? The evidence you asked for is there, in plain view, so which is it? Are you just to stupid to get it, or are you a lying sack of crap trying to destroy someone?
Which is?
Stupid or Liar?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
