(May 3, 2016 at 1:36 pm)abaris Wrote:(May 3, 2016 at 1:33 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Generally, the "serpent" is taken by most Christians as a slur against Satan, in describing him by his nature instead of his physical appearance, not as a literal snake. Of course, the snake is a common theme in pre-Judaic religions of the region, so it's hardly surprising to us to find it in the Genesis tale, since so much else in Genesis appears to have been borrowed from the Sumerian myths.
Very similar theme in the Gilgamesh epic, by the way. The snake, the garden, the temptress. Hmm, wonder where the Israelites got that from. Same as the flood and the boat, which is almost the same to the letter in Gilgamesh.
It was one of the things (the main was an unquestionable conflict with known science) that triggered my investigation, while I was still a devout Christian, into the literalist/inerrantist claims of my church, and which eventually led me away from the faith... I noticed while reading the Epic that, in that story, Utnapishtim also sent out three birds to look for dry land, except in his case it was a dove, a swallow, and a raven. Guess the Hebrews didn't approve of swallows.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/495e7/495e700480836bca117f07126df84337f2465544" alt="Wink Wink"
But in truth, it was the differences between the stories that made me really sit up and take notice. While it's pretty obvious that the Hebrews borrowed their version of the tale from the Epic, it does not involve only one Patriarch and one family. Also, it involves the gods themselves coming down and making Utnapishtim immortal, after he drinks and sacrifices to them the way Noah does in the other tale. It was obvious to me that the Hebrews were borrowing and editing the old tales in order to make it fit their narrow perspective. When I asked in church about this... well, you can guess the reactions!
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.