What if the very "knowledge" that the serpent promised Adam & Eve they would receive by eating the forbidden fruit from the "tree of knowledge," was the Bible itself? After all, the serpent told them that, by eating that fruit, "they would become like God, knowing right from wrong." And isn't that exactly what the Bible purports to do?
If you think about it, the claim that the Bible is "infallibly" inspired by God, a "truth" that even the "gates of Hell shall not prevail agaisnt," then why has the Church worked so hard to prevent anyone from challenging what it says?
Like the famous scene in A Few Good Men, where Tom Cruise asks Jack Nickolson's character, "If you gave an order that Private Santiago wasn't to be touched, and soldiers always follow your orders, then why was there any need to transfer Santiago off the base? Why the two orders?" why would God declare that "the gates of hell would not prevail agaisnt his Church," even as His Church unleashed the gates of hell agaisnt anyone who challenged its authority?
Isn't God working behind the scenes to ensure it's "truths" are never corrupted? Why must there be Inquisitions, and the burning and torturing of heretics, and above all, a clear historical willingness by the Catholic Church (and then the protestants right after) to treat anyone who challenges their authority and their "truth" with all of the violence that the Sanhedrin helped to inflict on Christ himself?
Again, if the Church wasn't in any danger, much like Nicholson's character said of Priv. Santiago, then why was there ever a need to defend the Church with Inquisitions, torture, accusations of heresy, and even Crusades and excommunications? And if the Church really has such a bat phone to God, how could they have misunderstood something that was so blatantly contradictory, and for so very long at that ?
Would not only a LIE, one that was not in fact actually being safeguarded by the most powerful and lone creator of the entire universe, require such violence and blood sacrifice to defend it? Why would God want people to simply throw away the "gift of life" for the mere sake of proving that they could not possibly be wrong, or even be as fallible as other human beings, in asserting that they are "infallible" in their "beliefs" in their religion and their God?
In short, according to the Bible, Christianity is a story where the first half is about Dr. Frankenstein, the second half is about Dracula, and it all comes to a crashing end in a Zombie Apocalypse. But putting aside all of that, Christians never even consider that the interpretation of the Bible that people are told, indeed forced, to accept as "true," could ever be false. In fact, it is heretical to even suggest such a thing. What better way to convince people you could not be lying then to threaten them with death and eternal damnation for even thinking as much?
If Christians were not so afraid to consider the true meaning and intentions behind their sacred texts, perhaps they might suspect that their God was such a homicidal maniac, as we see so clearly in the Old Testament and the even in His willingness to brutally murder his own son, that Adam & Eve ate the forbidden fruit with the sole hope of escaping his Orwellian omnipresence. Perhaps, in other words, eating that fruit was the only hope they had of ever obtaining anything that felt like real freedom.
In fact, Christian apologists argue that God placed the poison tree in the garden of Eden in the first place, for the express reason of testing our "freedom" to disobey him. And given his genocidal nature, which is catalogued in the Old Testament and redoubled by Christians in their interpretation of the New, it seems like it would have been a far greater sin to have refused to disobey such a God. Not disobeying God, in other worlds, is like Erwin Rommel not disobeying Hitler.
And if that is the case, then the Book of Revelation is, in fact, the Book of Genesis, and the story of Jesus is simply what happened to Adam and Eve for daring to exercise as much "freedom" of thought as Jesus had.
If you think about it, the claim that the Bible is "infallibly" inspired by God, a "truth" that even the "gates of Hell shall not prevail agaisnt," then why has the Church worked so hard to prevent anyone from challenging what it says?
Like the famous scene in A Few Good Men, where Tom Cruise asks Jack Nickolson's character, "If you gave an order that Private Santiago wasn't to be touched, and soldiers always follow your orders, then why was there any need to transfer Santiago off the base? Why the two orders?" why would God declare that "the gates of hell would not prevail agaisnt his Church," even as His Church unleashed the gates of hell agaisnt anyone who challenged its authority?
Isn't God working behind the scenes to ensure it's "truths" are never corrupted? Why must there be Inquisitions, and the burning and torturing of heretics, and above all, a clear historical willingness by the Catholic Church (and then the protestants right after) to treat anyone who challenges their authority and their "truth" with all of the violence that the Sanhedrin helped to inflict on Christ himself?
Again, if the Church wasn't in any danger, much like Nicholson's character said of Priv. Santiago, then why was there ever a need to defend the Church with Inquisitions, torture, accusations of heresy, and even Crusades and excommunications? And if the Church really has such a bat phone to God, how could they have misunderstood something that was so blatantly contradictory, and for so very long at that ?
Would not only a LIE, one that was not in fact actually being safeguarded by the most powerful and lone creator of the entire universe, require such violence and blood sacrifice to defend it? Why would God want people to simply throw away the "gift of life" for the mere sake of proving that they could not possibly be wrong, or even be as fallible as other human beings, in asserting that they are "infallible" in their "beliefs" in their religion and their God?
In short, according to the Bible, Christianity is a story where the first half is about Dr. Frankenstein, the second half is about Dracula, and it all comes to a crashing end in a Zombie Apocalypse. But putting aside all of that, Christians never even consider that the interpretation of the Bible that people are told, indeed forced, to accept as "true," could ever be false. In fact, it is heretical to even suggest such a thing. What better way to convince people you could not be lying then to threaten them with death and eternal damnation for even thinking as much?
If Christians were not so afraid to consider the true meaning and intentions behind their sacred texts, perhaps they might suspect that their God was such a homicidal maniac, as we see so clearly in the Old Testament and the even in His willingness to brutally murder his own son, that Adam & Eve ate the forbidden fruit with the sole hope of escaping his Orwellian omnipresence. Perhaps, in other words, eating that fruit was the only hope they had of ever obtaining anything that felt like real freedom.
In fact, Christian apologists argue that God placed the poison tree in the garden of Eden in the first place, for the express reason of testing our "freedom" to disobey him. And given his genocidal nature, which is catalogued in the Old Testament and redoubled by Christians in their interpretation of the New, it seems like it would have been a far greater sin to have refused to disobey such a God. Not disobeying God, in other worlds, is like Erwin Rommel not disobeying Hitler.
And if that is the case, then the Book of Revelation is, in fact, the Book of Genesis, and the story of Jesus is simply what happened to Adam and Eve for daring to exercise as much "freedom" of thought as Jesus had.
Comments
Post a Comment