09.28
Well, I have written about a lot of subjects here at thedeadend.net. Incest. Poop. Drug policy. The Red Sox. But there is one subject that is, but far, my favorite. Indeed, it is a topic filled with lust, violence, revolutionary thought and subversive propoganda. I am, of course, refering to the Bible.
I want to focus today on Genesis 2:16-17:
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
ut of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Specifically, I want to take a quick look at The Tree of Knowledge.
Now, I don’t know about how you were taught the bible, but when I hear it taught by an Evangelical Christian minister that I have to listen to periodically, he never adds the “good and evil” part. As far as he is concerned, it is the Tree of Knowledge period.
Indeed, he has used this interpretation of the story to go into a broader discussion about how knowing too much is actually bad for a true Christian; in his words “innocence is ignorance.”
He feels that if you are unaware that something exists (like cigarettes or sex) that you will not partake of that thing. In his ideal world (and I am paraphrasing but not exagerating), children would not be taught anything he considers evil. Thus, being ignorant of sex and murder, they would never have sex or kill anyone.
Of course, there is a major flaw in his theory. Specifically, he would have them all learn the bible, which is rife with murder and sex. Indeed, using the bible to keep people from knowing about sex is akin to showing somebody a picture of a penguin and telling them “don’t think about this penguin now.”
There are maybe other flaws in his theory, too.
Unless you are going to cut all references to sex (Lot and his daughters, for example – Biblically approved incest!) and violence (Cain and Abel, for example) and, for that matter, disobedience (Adam and Eve), by having children read the Bible, you are exposing them to the very subjects of which you wish they would remain ignorant.
The Bible, in deliniating the difference between good and evil, is actually providing knowledge of good and evil. Could it be that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a metaphor for the Bible itself? That reading it makes you aware of your own mortality and sin?
In theory, you could have a person – perhaps a member of some remote tribe – who lives what we would consider to be a good life. This person would be totally ifnorant of the concept of sin. Suddenly, a missionary would introduce The Bible into their life. Assuming that our subject accepts the Bible as truth, he would be aware of his sin and be ashamed – basically falling from grace with his old life. The missionary has taken the role of the serpent in this metaphor.
My point is, it is possible that spreading the Bible might actually cause the very thing is seeks to prevent.
And don’t even get me started on Zen Buddhism.
Christians pick and choose parts of the old testament, someone told me when I pointed out some of the darker parts, that it’s a hebrew book and therefore not representative of Christians, only the new testament will do.
I need a Joey’s Bible, for when the mormon lady comes back to harrass me.
I’d be interested in hearing how a practicing christian could explain or clear this up for us. However, they’d probably only get about 3 words out before they said something that pissed me off and I stopped listening.
It is a very common interpretation of the bible historically and in modern times.
In Dante, all of the pre-Christians are consigned to hell – even though they did not have the option to be Christian, the fact that they were not Christian is enough to prevent them from entering Heaven. Ergo, they were sinning even though they were not aware of it.
You can see a similar sentiment in the evangelical left behind series. Only the practicing Christians are called up to heaven. Everyone else – presumably even the people who had never heard of Christianity – are left behind to suffer in an Earthly Hell.
Adam and Eve, in Genesis, are unaware that they are nude – they have no knowledge of good and evil – until they eat the fruit. The only sin they had thus far commited was eating the fruit, which made them aware they were naked. They covered up their nudity as soon as they had knowledge of good and evil, implying that nudity was a sin (even though they did not know it). Not knowing that nudity was a sin didn’t prevent it from being a sin – they just had to become aware of the fact that it was a sin to desire to hide their shame.
Also: facts and the bible? As if there was only one correct way to interpret it!
I’m not sure where but it states in the Bible that a sin is a sin even if you don’t know it’s a sin. So whoever you were listening to didn’t have his facts straight.
Praise the Joey!