Subjective Morality

[dave_littler]

I’ve had a thought rumbling around in my head in recent months - a product of one of my occasional and innumerable hypothetical debates with theists - which a post this morning on the atheist community prompted me to begin to formulate more textually.

It runs along similar lines to a lot of my thoughts on this topic (which you can view as pedantry,

Comments

[skittish_derby]

I have had similar thoughts-- especially considering their bad guy character and all the not-bad he has actually done to humanity compared to the actual-bad the god himself has done. (you know, if I am to take any of it seriously)

I mean, satan is responsible for giving man the ability to think for himself. god is responsible for killing millions of millions of people. So, I sometimes wonder if the people got it backwards, and are just delusional by god's great ability to warp minds.

[dave_littler]

Hah! Well, as far as that goes, have you ever heard of "Asherah"?

In case you haven't (or anyone else happens upon this comment and hasn't), it's important to know that the idea of the snake in the Genesis story being "Satan" is a huge ret-con, introduced much later. In the text, there's no suggestion of this whatsoever. It's just a magical talking snake, with no explanation at all.

However! If you go back to an older version of the mythology, before the dawn of Judaism, the myth went a little bit differently. Back then, the religion was a polytheism. The father-god, then known as El, and later by other names, had a wife named Asherah. Asherah was among other things a goddess of wisdom and knowledge, and her symbol was a snake wrapped about a tree. Originally, the snake wasn't some diabolical boogieman, it was just a mother passing on her knowledge to her daughter, Eve.

[skittish_derby]

I had never heard that alternate mythology it seems very fascinating (is it in any books you know of?), but i did know that the idea of satan being the snake came later. it just seems a lot easier to debate what the xtians in general think they believe, rather than what is actually in the text. you know?

[dave_littler]

No, I know, I know. And I debate that internally all the time. I mean, you can look at my "atheism" or "religion" tag, and see me arguing on about eight different levels, right? Debating the logic within their mythology, discussing the history of their mythology, discussing the social implication of literalistic or liberal interpretations of the mythology. They're all worthwhile areas of discussion, but sometimes there's something like this, and I just say to myself "do I even want to dignify this idea that the serpent is supposed to be the devil? Seriously?" On a certain level, it's almost like by doing so, I'm giving them a win. I'm letting them get away with their stupidity and ignorance, you know? And I feel like I can do better than that

[skittish_derby]

well, my only reaction to what you are saying is that myths change like definitions of words change. I agree with you though. it is like talking to people who think that 'in god we trust' was ALWAYS on US currency. just :head slap:

thank you for the book suggestions.