THE FIRST CONSPIRACY: Hermeneutic Analysis

Paul Whelmer Alforque, Departamento de Filosofia, 1997, Camara de Pensador.

The Honorable Magistrates, before this dignified institution, I submit the structure of my thesis anchored on the third chapter in the book of Genesis, focused on the Fall of Man, which says:

Genesis 3

The Fall of Man

 1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ “

 4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

 8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”

 10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

 11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

 12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
      The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

It is my stand, as could be inferred from the text, that the first great conspiracy took place in the Garden of Eden. I based this perspective on the following circumstances:

One, it is in the book of Genesis wherein Adam and Eve committed the first sin that engraved in human soul.

Two, the Garden of Eden was supposed to be a safe place designed by God for the prime pure human beings and their offsprings.

Three, the Garden of Eden is a paradise for Adam and Eve where God communicate directly to man.

Four, that God being the supreme being has absolute control over the paradise which is designed for the sinless being such as Adam and Eve.

Five, that Adam and Eve were totally innocent before they ate the fruit, having no knowledge of any foolishness nor of any sin of any kind.

Six, that the fruit of the tree of knowledge, when taken, shall give them the malice which capacitates them to discern what is right and what is wrong.

Seven, that prior to the taking of the fruit, Adam and Eve is essentially ignorant on the concept of good and evil, because their minds are supposed to be opened at the time they will be tempted to eat the fruit.

Based on these premises, Honorable Magistrates, I come to an honest yet logical perspectives, that:

One, God is not intending man to exercise their freedom because they have no freedom of choice between right and wrong considering their lack of knowledge on what is right and what is wrong. Adam and Eve were really destined to FALL because they cannot use their good judgment on the pretext of their innocence.

Two, the unfortunate fate of Adam and Eve was really God’s plan. God being the supreme being has an absolute control over the entire paradise, it is within his power to drive off and disperse the Serpent who made the temptation.

Three, with the preordained knowledge that the minds of Adam and Eve were NO MATCH to the shrewdness of the Serpent, yet God allowed the Serpent to occupy a particular place in the paradise and authorized it to communicate with Adam and Eve.

Four, by these virtue, it is my contention that the First Great Conspiracy in human history may have been taken place in the Garden of Eden; Adam and Eve being the victims of the whims and caprices of God and the Serpent, and God and the Serpent being the conspirators and partners of their game out of their own boredom.

THE CAUSE OF CORRUPTION IN CATHOLIC COUNTRIES

It is a fact that religion has played an important role in the formation of a country. This is absolutely true in Catholic countries; undeniably, the common denominator of all corrupt and impoverished countries is religion [in general] and Catholicism [in particular].

Is there really a relationship between corruption and the Catholic Church? The answer is YES, actual situation speaks for itself.

Before the decree on separation of church and state, the colonies dominated by Spain [which was the Pope's sattelite] were controlled by the Catholic Church. During these historical time, the colonies were managed in accordance with the Catholic systems.

Now, what are these Catholic systems which are still prevailing until this modern time?

1. Briberies and all forms of corruptions that could be traced back to the giving of something to the church in the guise of donation for purposes of facilitating the givers’ request to the saints.

2. The giving of donations in exchange for a divine intervention or any favor; this is a form of bribery clothe with another terminology. This is a clear pattern of corruption.

3. The pardons for sale and indulgences which still occur in another form until these days.

4. The hypocrisy and shrewdness which could be traced back to the time of bishops and priests covering their evil acts behind the curtains of secrecy.

The holy appearance with a divine posture is their only hiding wall from the real self – this hypocrisy is still an effective tool of corruption to evade from public suspicion. This instance is still prevailing until now may it  be in religion or politics, the main point is that it was inherited from the Catholic system.

THE TRUTH?

Just to be honest, the subject about “truth” has been a headache of philosophers until this time. It was the bases of all persecutions, inquisitions, excommunications and other form of maltreatment which exist in another form until today. This “truth” was considered as one of the most difficult area of philosophical research and thesis writing for students, may they be from the undergraduate to the graduate up to the post-graduate studies. Although there is already a sort of formula crafted by some thinkers of the past pertaining with truth, still their guidelines doesn’t provide the answer to the question such as the one asked “who has the truth?”.

Only the arrogant mind could afford to pretend that he knew the thing called “truth”. It is not something which could be associated with a concrete object, but some philosophers opined (although their opinions were diversified) that it is something produced by one’s mental conformity, such as the belief of a god or any other diefied characters.

Other philosophers offered classifications on the possible measurement of truths, they were:
1. Correspondence Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth where there is confirmation of the existence of the object which corresponds with the statement. Ex. All stones are solid matters.
2. Corehence Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth which will necessarily follow from the correct reasoning even the object has not been proven existent. Ex. 10 + 10 = 20
3. Pragmatic Theory of Truth – it refers to the truth which is confirmed by the results. Ex. Biogesic tablet is a true cure for headaches because it works.
4. Conventional Theory of Truth- it refers to the truth which is solely based on the common agreement of humanity or of any group of individuals. Ex. The supremacy of a dollar currency; the Law; the value of gold costs a lot than a bronze; etc.

Now, which truth do our persuasions were aimed into?

God is true (that is #4)
All crows are black – and this is true (that is #1)
Anesthesia can deceive the senses to feel pain – this is true according to results (this is #3)
When Felix is a cat and a cat has a tail, it follows that Felix has a tail – this is true according to correct thinking (this is #2)

Skeptics (another classification of thinkers) maintained that there is no truth because it is only a matter of perception.

In law (where I professionally belong), truth is something which is a result of appreciation from the authority (like the judge); versions of truths will be presented by the defense and prosecution. The spectators had also their own appreciation of truth and also the jury (in another territory). The truth of the MTC judge maybe overturned by the RTC judge on appeal, then it could be revived or rejected by the Court of Appeals Justices on review on the same TRUTH and maybe totally abrogated by the Magistrates of the Supreme Court when in their appreciation that particular truth is no truth at all.

By this virtue, I think this is the reason why Jesus Christ did not answer Pilate’s question “What is truth?”

PUBLIC DEBATE: RELIABILITY OF CREATION

1999, Somewhere else in this globe.

Pastor: Yes, everything is created by the Supreme God.

Barrister79: How certain are you about it?

Pastor: Very certain. It is in the Bible, in Genesis.

Barrister79: I am not asking you if it is in the Bible or not. How true is it?

Pastor: It is the word of God. It is true, of course.

Barrister79: You seemed to have no understanding of the question, Pastor. Alright, since you are talking about Genesis, I think it is proper to start at the beginning. Can you please read Genesis 1:1?

Pastor: [stated the verse with his memory] “In the beginning the God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Genesis:1:1-2

Barrister79: Is that what you call proof word of god?

Pastor: Yes.

Barrister79: Is it not a direct declaration of the writer?

Pastor: God instructed him.

Barrister79: Where in the Genesis that god instructed his or her writer to write something for him?

Pastor: What do you mean?

Barrister79: Authority. The authority of the writer to write for god.

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: No answer. How did the writer know the earth has no form and it was void?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: No answer. How did the writer know it was the spirit of god that moved in the face of the waters?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: No answer. Was the writer a real witness of creation?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: Was the writer present while god is in the process of creation and witnessed the entire incidents?

Pastor: It is a matter of Theology.

Barrister79: Why can’t you just tell all of us that the entire tales of  creation is a matter of theology? No need to answer this question, I think we are not interested with your theology.

CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THE THEOLOGY OF SPIRIT

On the later part of the direct examination, Bishop Shrewd strategically managed to propound his last two questions:

Bishop Shrewd: Considering all those presentations, can you please tell us your educational qualifications and studies in relation with your thesis on the existence of the spirit?

Rev. Swindler: I obtained my Bachelor of Christian Ministry in 1970; Bachelor of Theology in 1973; Master of Arts in Theology in 1975; and Doctor of Theology in 1979. All from Harvard University.

Bishop Shrewd: Now, can you categorically state that spirit exists in reality?

Rev. Swindler: Affirmative.

Bishop Shrewd: Thank you, Reverend.

Arbiter: Cross-examination, any?

Barrister79: Reverend, in all years of your studies, have you come to directly observe spirits?

Rev. Swindler: Yes, in many ways.

Barrister79: I am not asking about the “many ways”, Reverend. Did you understand the question?

Bishop Shrewd: Is that a sort of an insult, sir?

Barrister79: You have the right to take it as such, Bishop. I was asking about the direct observation on spirits based on the assertion of its real existence. Was it difficult to understand?

Arbiter: Are you asking of an observation based on physical contact?

Barrister79: I want to know if that is what he meant with his statement that spirit exists in reality.

Bishop Shrewd: That is preposterous, Your Honor. Spirits does not have physical bodies. Its reality is not based on material substance as what is established in the direct examination, this Holy Tribunal has the record.

Barrister79: That is the reason why I am asking, Your Honor, about the Reverend’s direct observation to check whether the reality he is talking is excusively a product of his studies or something which we could possibly know by virtue of the object which could be directly observed.

Bishop Shrewd: I am requesting for an order, Your Honor. I recommend to aim his examination on the term “reality” as the foundation which is ought to be laid.

Arbiter: Comment from the cross-examiner.

Barrsiter79: That is improper, Your Honor. It is my understanding that there is no reality other than the observable reality. If the purpose of the Bishop’s obstruction is to prevent me from asking any further question, then I will yield should they admit that the reality they are talking are mere concepts and not the objective reality. Now, if I may proceed, Your Honor?

Arbiter: Please proceed.

Barrister79: Thank you! Reverend, do you know that every real object has a component?

Rev. Swindler: Yes, I am aware of it.

Barrister79: Are you also aware that only nothing is composed of nothing?

Rev. Swindler: Ahhh… Yes.

Barrister79: Do you know that there is no reality when there is no composition which makes it real?

Bishop Shrewd: Your Honor, the examiner was just playing the semantics of language.

Barrister79: We can stop playing, Bishop, if the reality of your spirits will be established. Allow me to proceed, Your Honor!

Arbiter: Answer the question.

Rev. Swindler: Yes, of course. No composition – No reality.

Barrsiter79: Good. [smiling] Now, can you tell us what composed the spirit you have directly observed?

Rev. Swindler: You mean the composition that makes spirit real?

Barrister79: Never mind, Reverend. Just don’t bother yourself about it. 

THE BODY, THE SPIRIT

According to our major religions, that:

1. The necessities of the body is not the necessities of the spirit; and

2. The food for the spirit is not the food for the body.

The premises offered above are based on their distinct and separate existence of being.

Religions further argued that the body is a material property while the spirit belongs to the spiritual property which strengthened their argument for the difference in the state of being between the body and the spirit.

In fine, the spirit is not the body and the body is not the spirit. This stand is confirmed by almost all religions.

Now, the problem is on the other theological principle which deals with the condemnation of the body/spirit.

Why is the spirit punished for the misdemeanor of the body when it is settled that they were separate entities?

Why is the body obliged to seek the salvation of the spirit when it is already settled that they were separate entities having different necessities and state of existence?

Why can’t the body be freed from all spiritual businesses and just allow the spiritual beings to act for themselves?

Why can’t the spirit search for its own salvation which in the first place is its concern?

Considering these questions, why are we given the burden of management on the spiritual affairs which could be undertaken by the spirits themselves?

Is it not unfair that the body will waste its time for the salvation of the uncertain spirit while it has its own business to manage?

Why can’t we just leave the spirits and allow them to govern themselves rather than prying on to their affairs through religious mediums which could possibly be maneuvered fraudulently [?]

THE SIN

Indubitably, sin is the most powerful tool of religion; it is the only religious machine which authorized religion to raise funds, to redeem, to condemn and to persecute a person.

The thing called “sin” was institutionalized by the ancient religion to ensure its perpetual existence. All religions successfully gained from “sin” in the manner that:

1. They offer a solution to eliminate sin by introducing salvation

2. They instituted the fear of sin in exchange for a financial consideration in the guise of faith.

The concept of “sin” is compared to a stain which cannot be removed without the aid of religious recommendations; the believers mind are injected with “sin” such that they cannot anymore do away with their religion. This is the primary reason of the members to establish good relationship with their god through religion to minimize the psychological burdens of carrying the guilt caused by SIN DELUSION.

Members are going to their respective religion for particular rituals pertaining with the abortion of their fears on the institutionalized “sin”.

On every “sin” related ritual, religion shall always profit at the expense of their believers’ ignorance.

The most ridiculous part is that this system is still prevailing in the shores of modern civilization.

DID JESUS REALLY PERFORMED MIRACLES?

In the New Testament, there were so many miracles performed by Jesus Christ. This account in the Bible is, indeed, unverifiable and therefore no evidence could be presented as proof to the account of miracles. The Biblical texts are self-serving literature written by some unknown writers of the church masquerading as “apostles”. Noe, how are we going to judge this case? Absolutely, we will not just dwell on the claims and suppositions but the veracity, of course.

One thing in this world that we can consider as the simpliest thing that man could create is to make a story. There is no instrumentation required or needed in making a story, regardless of what story it might be.

It is only a myth manufactured by the believers that Jesus performed miracles. A claim that Jesus really did miracles were just a mere fabrication invented by the early scholars with no reasonable purpose but to monopolize power, to absorb profits, and to operate a “divine business”.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to tell you a secret on how to make miracles, etc…

ASSUMPTION x TESTIMONY + EXAGGERATION = MIRACLES (gods, satans, et.c.)

JESUS CHRIST AND MENTAL ILLNESS: RELIABLE SIGNS

There are many statements in the Bible which may appear as an indication of his divinity according to the ancient scholars. Scholars that have no sufficient knowledge of the modern medical and psychological sciences.

But if we will review those statements and accounts related to Jesus Christ using the modern discoveries, the interpretation could have change because some behaviors and language reflects a disorder which may suggest a psychological defects on the part of Jesus Christ.

1. HALLUCINATIONS

    a.) Satan is tempting him

    b.) He is the savior of sins

    c.) There is a treasure in heaven for his followers

2. DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR

    a.) He is the son of God

    b.) He can command many angels to rescue him

    c.) He is the king

3. DELUSIONS OF PERSECUTION

    a.) The whole world is against him including his brothers

    b.) Many wolves are hunting them

4. MULTIPLE PERSONALITIES (which may suggest schizophrenia)

     a.) His father is in him

     b.) His father and him are one

     c.) He is the bread, water, way, life, truth, et.c.

5. DOOMSDAY DISORDER

     a.) The world will end soon

     b.) No other way to salvation but him

     c.) I will come to judge all men

6. IDEALISTIC HYPOCRISY

     a.) Love your enemies

     b.) Have the other face slapped

7. PUBLIC REPORTS OF HIS MENTAL DISORDER (Mar.3.20-21)

RELIGION AND GOD ARE ONE

In theory and definition, of course, the term “religion” is distinct from that of the term “god”. The two terms had separate properties of being which would lead our mind to conclude that they were not related in one way or another.

However, in reality, religion and god are one and the same dog with a different collar.

A. From the dawn of human civilization to the present time, “god” moves only through religion; “his” doctrines are propagated by religion and made by famous officials of a particular religion.

B. Should there be no religion, “god” remains a pure imagination that lingers in our mind. “God” will be a lame horse should there be no religion advertising or promoting ”him”. Religion is, indeed, an institution designed to terrify and enslave mankind; it is a business using god, fear, sin and salvation as a capital.

What other institution that punish, kill, murder, and persecute in the name of God? Only religion.

C. The magnificence of God depends on the brilliance of the theologians of a particular religion. This is a proof how testimony could promote “god’s” magnificence. How powerful is a god is a question of how religion could support it with “theological” bases.

D. The diversified view on god is a result of how religions viewed god differently. God is just a result of the theology of a particular religion.

E. In the absence of religion, there is no theology. Hence, “god” becomes an empty word in the absence of theology.