Agent Monkeysee on 7/6/2006 at 23:40
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Horseshit.
You need to look at the story in context. The scriptures were developed to keep people faithful and contributing money to the coffers. The moral of the story of Adam and Eve is: don't question authority and don't try to raise yourself above your "betters" by acquiring knowledge.
Obedient, dumb people are easier to control.
I'm not sure what you're raging against here exactly. I'm no mythology scholar but the banishment from Paradise story is just another permutation of the standard origination myths popular among most of those cultures back then; a combination of hubris in acting against the Gods and "things were better back in the old days".
Not exactly progressive values, sure, but it's hardly goose-stepping propoganda.
But that's not really the point anyway. The text is just text. It's the interpretation that matters and the fact is there are very few people that actually interpret the Fall of Man as "Knowledge bad. Submission to authority good." There are numerous and varied interpretations, some more liberal than others, and I don't understand how exactly you can say NO THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS AND IT SUX RAWR when you're pointing at what is at best a minority interpretation. Religious text is what people make of it and if very few people are making the worst case scenario out of it, the mere fact that you CAN interpret it that way doesn't really mean anything beyond the mental exercise itself.
SD on 8/6/2006 at 00:36
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
But that's not really the point anyway. The text is just text. It's the interpretation that matters and the fact is there are very few people that actually interpret the Fall of Man as "Knowledge bad. Submission to authority good." There are numerous and varied interpretations, some more liberal than others, and I don't understand how exactly you can say NO THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS AND IT SUX RAWR when you're pointing at what is at best a minority interpretation. Religious text is what people make of it and if very few people are making the worst case scenario out of it, the mere fact that you CAN interpret it that way doesn't really mean anything beyond the mental exercise itself.
They found a prehistoric portrait recently; at 27,000 years old, it's one of the earliest ever made by human hands. Art critics were falling over themselves to compare its minimalist stylings with work by Picasso, Modigliani, Braque and Brancusi. I just figured its features were simplistic because the guy who drew them was, well... simple.
See, I don't care what clever interpretations and spin people try and put on this story. To me, the interpretation is as clear as it was when I realised, at five years old, what it actually meant. Knowledge bad. Servility and humility good. God gets pissed off at Adam and Eve because they (a) disobey Him and (b) acquire knowledge in the process. That's pretty clear as day right there - isn't it?
When you couple that with a realisation of What Organised Religion Is All About - getting people to mortgage their lives here on Earth in anticipation of Eternal Life in a non-existent paradise - it all makes even more sense.
The people who write this kind of shit aren't in the business of simple fables. That was Aesop's job. No, what this text is is a recruitment tool. Join our cause, devote your life (subtext: and your money) to God, don't try and argue your way out of it cos you'll be rewarded in Heaven.
I know your take on it is different, but I look at the facts; the Church of God, in all its many guises, is dead rich. Aesop died in poverty. Ain't no money in fables. But there's plenty in being God's recruiting agency.
Ko0K on 8/6/2006 at 00:41
Quote Posted by Fingernail
Yeah, as Schatten says, a test to which God, being omniscient, already knew the outcome.
Yeah, I'm sorry that I didn't visit 3 minutes into the future to read his post before I posted mine.
Scots Taffer on 8/6/2006 at 00:44
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
See, I don't care what clever interpretations and spin people try and put on this story. To me, the interpretation is as clear as it was when I realised, at five years old, what it actually meant. Knowledge bad. Servility and humility good. God gets pissed off at Adam and Eve because they (a) disobey Him and (b) acquire knowledge in the process. That's pretty clear as day right there - isn't it?
You know, whenever you pull off your autistic kid schtick, I can't help but think you must have been a riot at preschool.
Para?noid on 8/6/2006 at 00:59
Just like that fucking Nature / Nurture debate, we find that STD and Monkeybutt are both right to some degree!
Agent Monkeysee on 8/6/2006 at 01:36
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
See, I don't care what clever interpretations and spin people try and put on this story. To me, the interpretation is as clear as it was when I realised, at five years old, what it actually meant. Knowledge bad. Servility and humility good. God gets pissed off at Adam and Eve because they (a) disobey Him and (b) acquire knowledge in the process. That's pretty clear as day right there - isn't it?
You completely flew over my point. Your interpretation is valid, but it's not a widely held interpretation. An interpretation has no power beyond the people who hold that interpretation and who's actions and beliefs are affected by that interpretation. An interpretation with no following is a toothless interpretation.
Also it's not the Tree of Knowledge. It's the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which isn't exactly an irrelevant detail to interpreting the Fall.
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
I know your take on it is different, but I look at the facts; the Church of God, in all its many guises, is dead rich. Aesop died in poverty. Ain't no money in fables. But there's plenty in being God's recruiting agency.
What church? The Vatican didn't write Genesis. You do realize the Torah was written by a bunch of wandering desert tribes, right?
Scots Taffer on 8/6/2006 at 01:52
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
An interpretation with no following is a toothless interpretation.
Come on, Monkeysee. He was five when he made that interpretation. It's at least a baby-toothed interpretation.
And watch out, those wandering desert tribes just looted your wallet to fill their coffers!
ignatios on 8/6/2006 at 02:03
Well they were Jews after all.
Jenesis on 8/6/2006 at 10:28
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
I know your take on it is different, but I look at the facts; the Church of God, in all its many guises, is dead rich.
That's definitely not the case in large swathes of South-East Asia and Africa.
Also, what Monkeysee said about the Torah.
SD on 8/6/2006 at 14:31
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
You completely flew over my point. Your interpretation is valid, but it's not a widely held interpretation.
Sure it ain't widely held
any more. People have smartened up since 400 BC. I'm talking about original intepretations and original intentions. We're talking about the very simple, uneducated, superstitious people that these early scriptures were first intended for.
Quote:
What church? The Vatican didn't write Genesis. You do realize the Torah was written by a bunch of wandering desert tribes, right?
Well duh. They're not wandering desert tribes any more are they - would you still be traipsing through dusty wasteland if you hit upon a lucrative business model like that either?
And I don't care what flavour of Christian, Jew or Muslim you are, it's the same God, and variations on the same religion. It makes sense to group them all under one banner because they're all selling the same thing: one-way package holidays to paradise.
