Of course, only if you accept the doctorine of original sin.
I was reading this article by Dawkins and realised this:
1. God makes man.
2. God makes tree of knowledge.
3. God puts them together.
4. God tells man not to eat from it.
5. Man is without knowledge and eats from it, creating original sin.
6. God feels ashamed for his retarded actions [edit: for putting Adam and Eve in a situation where they were sure to fuck up].
7. God incarnates into Jesus so that he could be punished for his retarded actions.
The sin wasn't very original then - if it happened AFTER Adam and Eve f'ed up.
Up until point 5 - it makes sense to me. It could potentially happen.
Point 6 is a bit confusing considering I'm not sure God would feel ashamed because of this - After all - The choice was in the hands of Adam and Eve. But if they are without knowledge as point 5 suggests - they wouldn't know right from wrong - Which also implies they don't know it's wrong to disobey your Authority figure. So how can you justify blaming them for doing anything wrong - just because they were coerced by a talking serpent?
It's like a child who is still growing up - Clueless as to the ins and outs of reality - Absorbing everything they can - With a strong curiosity. Then one day mommie tells the child - Don't Eat this cookie - I'm not going to explain to you WHY - just listen to what I say - and Don't eat it.
Then she places in on the counter - in plain view of child - the delicious smell is filling the room.
Then your bigger sister comes along and says ... "Mommie said don't eat this cookie - but's it's ok - you can eat it - It's good for you - She has other cookies - plus the cookie will turn you into superman - it will give you really cool powers. Like knowledge of Good and Evil. "
Child eats the cookie because he trusts his sister.
Mommie: "Look what you've done!!!!!! You disobeyed me!!!!! I curse both of you!!! Now when you have children they will wretched balls of slime and no matter how much you Love them, they will still be horrible balls of slime!!! And you need to sacrifice your First borns to appease me, even though it won't help them to not be horrible filth balls!!!"
A quick issue with number 7. It's possible that this could have happened - But IMO there are possibly a few thousand other ways the Deity of the universe could have gone about this.
To know that other human beings actually believe this BS is always sobering .... which is why I try not to think about it when I'm drinking.
That's certainly one way to look at it!
Personally, when entertaining such thoughts, I've always been partial to the gnostic interpretation of the Garden of Eden. The being that poses as "God" in the monotheistic religions is actually the Demiurge, the blind/retarded offspring of Sophia/Wisdom. "God" wanted an ignorant creation wholly subservient to his will. Merely pretending to be omnipotent, but not actually possessing that quality, he does not have control over his creation. A higher force introduced the Tree of Knowledge into the equation, that the poor beings enslaved by this cruel master might open their eyes and see -- not by faith but by critical thinking and examination of the facts. The serpent, traditionally a symbol of wisdom, actually served the higher orders of wisdom and freed mankind from its slavery.
That man and woman would dare rebel against their cruel master enraged the Demiurge, who swore to cure his "creation" of the Original Sin -- free thought and, by extension, free will. Far from feeling ashamed, "God" decides on a series of plans, all contradictory. One of those plans involved incarnating and pretending to suffer and die to restore humanity to its ignorance, if they will but forgo critical thought and just believe. Another plan involved sending one of his agents to a man named Muhammad living in the desert. "God", of course, loves creating conflict because nothing appeals to his irrational nature like war and hatred. It's all in the Torah, Bible, and Quran.
I don't believe any of this, of course, but it's fun as a what-if. :) I will add, however, that if an honest search of knowledge is the key to escape from the cruel slavery of such a "God" then atheism, and a refusal to accept such a god in any of the forms he might take, would be the one path to salvation.
See? Heaven is for the atheists. Disbelieve and be saved! ;)
That's the beauty of religion -- it's all bullshit so you can introduce whatever nonsense you want so long as you don't make the mistake of buying into it or getting others to do so. ;-)
Sophia is conspicuously absent within the existence that surrounds us, yes. Gnosticism is a little more involved than I let on with my post, of course. Gnostics believe that the demiurge is not actually able to create life and so has to enslave sparks of life from some sort of higher source. That which is beyond the demiurge manifests itself as parts of the psyche. Sophia thus manifests itself whenever a being displays wisdom of any sort.
Alas, at the end of the day it is a much simpler and more rational explanation to hold that there is no God or demiurge lurking behind the scenes and that this is all there is. Still, I find it interesting food for thought in that it adds an additional burden of proof onto those that insist on arguing for the existence of God -- even if they were able to prove the existence of a divine being it would still be upon them to prove that such a being is actually benign and not, in fact, a demiurge.
Well, the stupid actually comes from the demiurge itself.
As Wikipedia puts it:
"One Gnostic mythos describes the declination of aspects of the divine into human form. Sophia (Greek: Σοφια, lit. “wisdom”), the Demiurge’s mother and a partial aspect of the divine Pleroma or “Fullness,” desired to create something apart from the divine totality, and without the receipt of divine assent. In this abortive act of separate creation, she gave birth to the monstrous Demiurge and, being
ashamed of her deed, wrapped him in a cloud and created a throne for him
within it. The Demiurge, isolated, did not behold his mother, nor
anyone else, and thus concluded that only he himself existed, being
ignorant of the superior levels of reality that were his birth-place.
The Demiurge, having stolen a portion of power from his mother, sets about a work of creation in unconscious imitation of the superior Pleromatic realm: He frames the seven heavens,
as well as all material and animal things, according to forms furnished
by his mother; working however blindly, and ignorant even of the
existence of the mother who is the source of all his energy. He is blind
to all that is spiritual, but he is king over the other two provinces.
The word dēmiourgos properly describes his relation to the material; he is the father of that which is animal like himself.
Thus Sophia’s power becomes enclosed within the material forms of humanity, themselves entrapped within the material universe: the goal of Gnostic movements was typically the awakening of this spark, which
permitted a return by the subject to the superior, non-material
realities which were its primal source.
I should add that I'm no expert in gnosticism by any stretch but I've always considered it an interesting interpretation of religious stories and phenomena throughout the world. The Church certainly considered it worth persecuting to the fullest of its powers, to say the least...
So people are meat puppets with some basic built in commands that just stand around until Sophia or the Demiurge influence them to do something wise or stupid? That's the antithesis of free will.
Still, more interesting then regular Christianity.
Hey, I never said that it doesn't ultimately boil down to nonsense. I'm not a gnostic. I'm not entirely explaining it right, though, if I've given you the impression that people are seen as meat puppets. It's actually quite a bit more convoluted than that, as tends to be the case. ;-)
Still, it does a much better job explaining the religious data found in the Bible and the Quran than actual Christianity and Islam do. Such a being, if he truly existed, would be much better understood as a malevolent, ignorant, lying demiurge than as a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God.