reply to post by SilentKoala
So, you're essentially arguing that the God of Genesis (or is it God, generically?) is an evil God? Judging by your eloquence, I take it you are well
read, which means, this philosophical interpretation of yours must be couched in the traditional gnostic (really, pagan) premise that the field of
reality we call this world, is an illusion, devised by what Plato coined the 'demiurge' (But Plato spoke much less disparagingly of it than the
Gnostic's), and the Gnostics mythologized as Ialdabaoth - a figure cognate to the Lord of the Bible and Judeo-Christian tradition, יהוה, or
"Jehova" (excusing the fact that the Yod produces a 'Y' sound, and not the latin J....Here's a possible theory for why this hard-headed culture
replaces the soft Yod with a Hard J: instead of perceiving the spirituality and intent in the creation of the world of appearance, they see it as a
jail which arrests all motion, hardens consciousness, and ultimately enslaves the unconditioned 'essence' to the rigid realm of form).
In Philosophical terms, you can essentially put all ideologies on one side and the Jews on the other. That is in essence the stark contrast of how
divided things become when you break it down like this.
Said differently, it's the difference between seeing God as a personal Creator, and therefore, a Being with intention and purpose for each of his
creatures, in particular, that creature made in his form, man, verses a completely impersonal God, a metaphysical 'fact' or state which the human
individual seeks to come into complete identification with; It's the difference between finding meaning and purpose in time, the subject-object
relationship, verses finding meaning and value in eternity, elimination of distinctions (and thus, an absolute moral standard) conflation of all
beings with one over-arching principle which drowns all qualitative differences.
This is why Modern science can truly be seen to be in cahoots with traditionally eastern metaphysical thinking, as well as Sufism and Gnosticism. Both
sides seek to depersonalize the world, eviscerating it of what is in essence it's most imminent aspect, that part of it which makes man truly man, as
opposed to some 'thing' to be conditioned: the personal.
This is an argument that comes up time and again at this site. And there's no effective rejoinder. You guys are emotionally groomed in your ways and
no attempt at convincing you on logical grounds will work.
As for the post itself, you have wayyyyyy oversimplified it.
First, I hope you realize that this is a REinterpretation of the traditional exegetical interpretation of the text. There's no way on earth that the
writers of Pentateuch wished to convey an image of God as the bad guy against a wily serpent which is in truth the good guy.
The original, and more anterior interpretation would have to accord with the overall spirit of the book of Genesis and the penteateuch taken as a
The Bible emphasizes the importance of TIME, PATERNITY and MEMORY: these are things which the Bible seeks to impress on the mind of the reader. The
snake, or Nachash, is not simply the 'charmer', or some archetype for magic or technology, but more fundamentally, the snake is the ability to REASON
(it's also interesting to note that the gematria, or numerological value of Nachash is the same as Moshiach/Messiah, alluding to some fundamental
connection between the power to discriminate and salvation).
The failure of Adam and Eve was believing that the fruit of the tree of knowledge suffices by itself to make man as God: If that were true, WHY did
God (tetragrammaton) eject them from the garden? If God is merely some miscreant with no real power, then how was He able to demote the snake to a
creature which crawls on it's belly (that is, the power of reason being relegated to matter) and eject Adam and Eve from their Edenic paradise? The
text obviously seeks to instruct us that reason by itself will never suffice to mend that chasm separating man and God: God remains God, and man,
unless he tempers his reason by following moral truths which transcend his finite powers of cognition (I.E obeying his conscience) will end up
condemning himself and his progeny to personal and societal dysfunction.
edit on 21-5-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)