Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[robvalue]

I find it somewhat ironic that the only people who can’t fully appreciate bible stories as actual works in their own right are the people who value the book the most.

Some of the stories, although highly flawed, are very powerful pieces told almost constantly through an unreliable narrator. It ruins this perspective if you have to assume that this stuff really happened, or that it somehow represents things that actually happened. It would be a bit like finding out your favourite film is actually about your best friend killing a load of children for no good reason, while rationalising and lying about it.

I guess Christians would say that it doesn’t ruin it, and that they can view them as stories as well. But they seem to spend more time trying to convince themselves and others that they aren’t simply fictional.

[vulcanlogician]

Ok, next passage:

The Fall

Probably the first philosophically interesting passage. Who would like to give this an analysis? Doesn't matter what type of analysis, anything is fine.

I have some things to say about this one. I'm going to analyze the excerpt for its myth value here. That is to say, I'm looking for themes that adequately or accurately describe our predicament as human beings or illuminate some facet of human nature/human experience that is better expressed via symbols.

Take the story of Arachne from Greek myths. Arachne was a weaver who boasted that she could weave better than the gods. One day Athena challenged her to a weaving contest. Arachne won. Out of spite, Athena turned Arachne into a spider. This is a piss poor origin story for spiders, which is what it pretends to be on one level. (Evolutionary science does a much better job of explaining why spiders exist.) But, if you were mining the tale for truth/wisdom, you might arrive at "Never outshine the master" or, (if you went deeper) "a person is often held in contempt if she has extraordinary ability, regardless if she proves herself or not." C. G. Jung took this to a further extreme and said that myths were a symbology through which we can better understand ourselves and the world. 

Adam and Eve (and the Fall):

We were once innocent creatures of nature. Like the lion is blameless in the harm it causes to it's prey (ie not morally responsible), we were once in this state of innocence where we were at times interpersonally destructive and violent...... but never evil. To further elaborate on this, I could bring in the example of a mean neighborhood dog who bites a child and is subsequently put down. Nobody says the dog is evil. The dog is put down because it is dangerous. People might point to the dog's training, but nobody holds the dog morally responsible. Humans were once in this state of profound innocence.

But as we evolved to our current state and began to settle and practice agriculture, we found ourselves with free time in which we might reflect on our actions. Being "rational animals" we could recognize the destructive impact that some of our actions had. (ie. "We saw that we were naked," we became aware of good and evil). We saw that it was wrong to let children die of starvation, to murder, or to steal others' hard won goods. At this point we were "cursed" with moral responsibility and cast out of the paradise that we previously enjoyed. From then on, we had to toil in the fields and take part in society... though such an existence enslaved us to some degree. Society itself had it's fair share of goods and evils and we were cursed to recognize those evils when we saw them, becoming outraged. But we could also recognize the good too.

As the Bible story suggests, our eyes were opened at that point. And though our existence became a great burden, it also afforded us insight and autonomy that we previously did not have.

[Drich]

Dripshit, you are getting more like MK every day.  Page after page of pointless drivel.

You should get fitted for a towel on your head.  You'd make a great muslim!

I think it is time you be fitted with a diaper as you have been running around here without pants long enough.. Incontinence is no reason to just give up on waist down garments!!!

---

Steve complains that we're not reading deeply enough into the background of the text.  When we do, Drich comes along and complains we're ignoring the plain meaning of the text.  And then when we do, along come Neo and Catholic Lady to tell us it's all symbolic and we should ignore the plain meaning of the text.  You just can't win with these fuckheads.

There really aren't any words to describe the ignorance behind your insults. How SteveII, Drich, C/L, and I approach scripture are not mutually exclusive. You have no excuse for ignoring what has been clearly taught for 800 years. That just reveals how dishonest and disturbed you remain.

"I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves. So, whereas in every other science things are signified by words, this science has the property, that the things signified by the words have themselves also a signification. Therefore that first signification whereby words signify things belongs to the first sense, the historical or literal. That signification whereby things signified by words have themselves also a signification is called the spiritual sense, which is based on the literal, and presupposes it. Now this spiritual sense [also] has a threefold division. For as the Apostle says (Hebrews 10:1) the Old Law is a figure of the New Law, and Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i) "the New Law itself is a figure of future glory." Again, in the New Law, whatever our Head has done is a type of what we ought to do. Therefore, so far as the things of the Old Law signify the things of the New Law, there is the allegorical sense; so far as the things done in Christ, or so far as the things which signify Christ, are types of what we ought to do, there is the moral sense. But so far as they signify what relates to eternal glory, there is the anagogical sense. Since the literal sense is that which the author intends, and since the author of Holy Writ is God, Who by one act comprehends all things by His intellect, it is not unfitting, as Augustine says (Confess. xii), if, even according to the literal sense, one word in Holy Writ should have several senses." - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

A text can have meaning on multiple levels. It takes discernment and study to parse out those meanings. Holy Scripture will always be closed to ideological anti-Christian bigots....like you...and the rest of these...how did you say it "fucktards"...that have no other intention than to see the worst is what in sacred to others.

Good luck. Have a nice life.

I do agree that, my version your or even CL version are not mutually exclusive that all can hold truth to the origins as all view our origin through the lens of being unique individuals. My version shows how things could indeed work out literally as written if we do not assume time lines or hold to book chapter and verse denotation as a system of chronological order. while some people see 100% true in an allegory that reflects the nature of the plan of salvation that individual can indeed represent larger concepts reflected in the over all way salvation plays out in the real world. as we are all member of the same body and a foot may see the origins different or from a different perspective than an eye or a hand. We are the same body just different perspectives. I am leaing towards literal because most of these goons demand reconciliation of a literal and plausible interpretation. To which I have provided a path. however other may need more metaphysical, they may need to see a common thread tying Jesus of the NT to the God of the OT and if there is no common bond to them their can not be a Christianity. Well we have that base covered as well and both if not all can bee 100% truth from our various perspectives.

Why is that so hard for some to believe? because for 'some' religion fits a tiny tiny box in their world view and if religion made their world any bigger they would have to reconsider everything.. however pride demands they simply trim off any truth to religion they themselves are not smart enough to rectify, and because we push this truth they can not rectify they often times move to kill the messenger as a way to nix the message.

[Bahana]

I find it somewhat ironic that the only people who can’t fully appreciate bible stories as actual works in their own right are the people who value the book the most.

Some of the stories, although highly flawed, are very powerful pieces told almost constantly through an unreliable narrator. It ruins this perspective if you have to assume that this stuff really happened, or that it somehow represents things that actually happened. It would be a bit like finding out your favourite film is actually about your best friend killing a load of children for no good reason, while rationalising and lying about it.

I guess Christians would say that it doesn’t ruin it, and that they can view them as stories as well. But they seem to spend more time trying to convince themselves and others that they aren’t simply fictional.

I agree. I can still appreciate the literary value of some parts of the Bible as an atheist. I would go as far as to say that you trample on the original author's intent by trying to find a way to harmonize different books of the Bible together that have been written centuries apart. Fundamentalists, and inerrantists, invite scrutiny to the Bible by saying all these legendary tales literally happened. I was taught that Adam and Eve, The Tower of Babel and Noah's flood were all true events at my Christian elementary school.

[GrandizerII]

Ok, next passage:

The Fall

Probably the first philosophically interesting passage. Who would like to give this an analysis? Doesn't matter what type of analysis, anything is fine.

Talking snake, yeah right.  I don't buy that it's allegorical or metaphorical or whatever figuratively preposterous apologetic theists wish to attribute to it, because it's either a complete work of fiction or to be taken literally.  I'm not delusional, so I will go with the former.

This is sort of a false dilemma. The thing with allegories is that they contain symbolisms pointing/referring to events and observations that may be true, and these allegories can be in the form of clear fictional or mythical stories. The question is whether these stories, at the time of writing or later compiling, were intended as allegorical or not. If yes, then literalist Christians are not understanding these scriptural passages right at all. If no, then we can say that allegorical interpretations of these passages happen to be post-hoc interpretations rather than originally intended.

---

Ok, next passage:

The Fall

Probably the first philosophically interesting passage. Who would like to give this an analysis? Doesn't matter what type of analysis, anything is fine.

This has always struck me as - to put it mildly - a morally bankrupt story.  God punishes Adam and Eve for doing something they could not possibly have known was wrong.  Yes, he told them not to eat of the Tree Of Knowledge Of Good And Evil.  But until they gained that knowledge, they couldn't have known that disobeying God was an evil act.

Boru

My thought exactly.

Drich (I know, I know, it's effing Drich, lol) had this to say earlier:

You do not have to have knowledge of Good and evil to understand death. God said eat and this will kill you, he did and died for it. everything that he was.. was over all that was left was a primal husk of a almost defiable being.

To Drich, that's a satisfactory answer. But to me, it still doesn't address how committing an act out of a lack of knowledge of good and evil can warrant such a harsh consequence. Such a punishment doesn't seem to be just.

Of course, this is assuming a literal interpretation.

---

Thank you! That's what I needed!

What do you think...? I'd say the entry there doesn't rule out my preferred version. The full entry includes things like "to know by seeing," "to be acquainted with," etc. Which would include not just ideas popping into A&E's heads but knowing through experience. 

And it reminds me of the line from Isaiah, quoted in Handel's Messiah: "[He was] a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief." That might be relevant.......

That's not a bad way of looking at it. It's a reasonable interpretation at least.

---

I will make my own brief commentary on this passage soon.

[Minimalist]

You really are a lying, dishonest, unethical cunt, Neo.

But....jesus loves him, he thinks!

I think it is time you be fitted with a diaper as you have been running around here without pants long enough.. Incontinence is no reason to just give up on waist down garments!!!

Go fuck yourself and your god, dripshit.  Remember, moron,  of the two of us only one accepts as real childish fairy tales from antiquity and it isn't me!

[Mystic]

Stars, Sky, Sun, Moon, they have allegorical meanings, in Quran and hadiths, about the stations of the true Kings and leaders of Human and hidden sentient beings (jinn).


I think it's about the exalted ones who were the word of God when earth was formless, the ones the snake wanted to trick Adam to look with envy (eat of the tree) to be one of, of course the type of envy Adam had was not of hatred but love to be the rank and position of, but even that was forbidden.

The snake needs elaboration, and so I trust what the gospel teach about the rebellion of that Angel and fall of him.

I believe Adam despite his fall, the Torah still reveres him as an image of God, and image of God is for the likes of Enoch, and Seth, that is to be set by God and not by people.

[GrandizerII]

My simple thoughts on Genesis 3 (I'm going to do a bit of both literal and allegorical here):

In the last chapter, we found out how both man and woman came to be (sort of like an introduction to the story of humankind). Genesis 2 was basically a happy chapter, of youth and innocence and companionship and such, reflecting some of our heavenly fantasies and desires. Genesis 3 continues on from Genesis 2 but has a dark theme to it, whereby we are reminded of the suffering and cruelty of this world and how we are to be held accountable for the acts we commit. In this passage, there's a reminder of such things as temptations, betrayal, blaming, deception, fear, pain, punishment, and exclusion. These are things that happen in the real world all the time, and they lead to negative and severe consequences. We blame some of all this on the actions of our species, but others we attribute to the cruel impartiality of nature. The serpent, later to be seen as the devil himself by Jews and especially Christians, seems to represent the influential forces of nature that eventually led us to finally "open our eyes" and realize the harshness and evils observed in this world. At the start, you could say we were innocently "naked", we'd do things without realizing how bad they may be and without thinking of such things as the consequences of these actions, like the other animals. But as if to highlight the marked differences in cognitive capacities between humans and other animals, the passage seems to symbolically describe how we have awakened/evolved to become such cognitively advanced beings. Belaqua and Vulcan already made several of these points, so I won't restate them here.

Nevertheless, we should also look at this whole passage as an attempt to explain/justify more specific/literal things as the traditional patriarchical structure of marriage (whereby the man is deemed the head of the woman and their offspring), slavery and mandatory hard work, how we have traditionally viewed women as the ones with the tendency to cause troubles (very unfortunate but a reality of life), the killings of other animals, the human enmity towards snakes, the pains of pregnancy and giving birth, and the limits of our lifespans.

Other thoughts (and questions to ponder):
I want to go back to the first verse in this chapter, where a distinction is made between the serpent and the other animals. I find this rather curious, because what did the ancients see that was so special about a serpent? Why was the serpent considered craftier than the other animals? I think it may have something to do with how we've often subconsciously viewed these creatures. To us, they seem so sinister and devilish that they may as well have been remnants/descendants of some evil entity in the distant past.

Another thing about the serpent in the passage is that it seems like it initially had legs or something, and then it was doomed later to be without limbs because of what it did. But it's not completely clear that this was the implied meaning of Genesis 3:14.

Christians also tend to point to a Messianic passage in this very chapter, specifically: Genesis 3:15. But, in this case, it really feels like this is indeed simply a post hoc interpretation after the Christian church was established, especially as you have to disconnect this specific verse from the surrounding verses to "see" some Messianic interpretation in it. I could be wrong, though. And perhaps the Jews also saw this as a Messianic verse, can't remember. Will have to google this later on.

Genesis 3:21 I find interesting. It gives you one specific example of what happened as a result of what Adam and Eve did. Animals can now be slaughtered for the benefit of man and woman. Note that they previously covered themselves with fig leaves (and in an earlier passage, it was noted that all living beings were basically vegetarians), but now they get to be covered with the skins of lions and God helps them with that (even with the Fall happening). And we see later that God indeed grants permission to slaughter animals for food and clothing.

Another thing that I find interesting: it seems like, literally speaking, man and woman had to continually eat from the tree of life in order to live forever. I guess this could be interpreted as immortality being intrinsically a property of the divine only, but that the divine can reward mortals with conditional mortality.

We also see, once again, reference to God as a plural being. Now there are many speculations on that one, and you can read all about that in your favorite scholarly article or book or whatever. I'm not going to dwell on this here.

From a very literal perspective:
Yes, that serpent sure talked. Yes, God is just a very super version of man who likes to walk in the cool of the day and doesn't seem to know everything that can be known. Yes, it mentions cherubims and a revolving(?) flame sword. No, the fruit wasn't necessarily an apple or a pomegranate.

All in all, another chapter that I enjoy reading. After all, this is where it all started to fall.

[vulcanlogician]

So (literal interpretation mode) anyone have a clue why an omniscient god would be asking Adam and Eve questions like that? ...as if he didn't really know what was going on? He does it throughout the Bible. It's annoying.

I'm pretty sure in "the pilot episode" the writers of the script had not yet worked out that they wanted God to be omniscient. He was just some really smart deity guy with exceptional creative powers. But in a later episode, they needed to make him that way because they were adding some new plot elements, like the Final Judgement. Who wants to be judged by somebody who doesn't know what the fuck is going on? Nobody.

[Minimalist]

"God" is constantly surprised in the OT.

He's something of a schmuck.