From: weinss@rs6101.ecs.rpi.edu (Stephen Andrew Weinstein)
Subject: New Religion Forming -- Sign Up
Summary: Read it.  Worthwhile.  Laughs & serious questions about real religion.
Keywords: Eveism, religion, 
Nntp-Posting-Host: rs6101.ecs.rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Lines: 102

Let me begin by saying I think this is the world's first religion to use
the net as its major recruitment medium.  Therefore, even if this
religion does not take off, its founding members will be very important
historically as this method of soliciting membership will eventually become 
common.

The basis of this religion is to apply various aspects of current conventional
morality to the characters in Genesis and Exodus but assume that the Bible's
accounts of the facts and historical events is correct.

For example,

Story of Adam and Eve:
Adam and Eve are in Garden of Eden naked and ignorant.  Have unlimited
supply of food provided, but no clothing, jobs, or knowledge.  God says
not to eat fruit of tree of knowledge.  They do anyway, then try to hide 
in bushes.  God finds them and forces them out of Garden.
(There are several different stories on what they were doing while naked in
the bushes that might have angered God.)

Traditional Philosophy:
1. The only reason you need knowledge or a job is to eat.  If someone else will
provide you with food, then you can be stupid and unemployed and it's OK. This
is why married women usually didn't work until recent decades.
2. Authority figures, such as God, whoever was behind the Vietnam War, Hitler 
and slaveowners, are always right and should be blindly followed without 
question by ordinary people, who can't make decisions for themselves.

Interpretation of events based on Traditional Philosophy:
They were not supposed to eat the fruit.  They should have done whatever God
told them to.  Like small children, they had their needs provided for and were
obligated to do whatever their "Father" said to.  Being forced to leave the 
Garden and work in order to obtain food was a punishment.

Lessons from Traditional Interpretation:
1.  Ignorance is good.  Knowledge is bad, but tempting.
2.  Having food provided for you for nothing (read "welfare") is ideal.  Get-
ting a job and feeding yourself with what you earn is punishment.
3.  Public nudity is good.  Covering up is bad.
4.  Authority figures are intrinsically right.  Normal people are dumb and 
should do whatever they are told without question.  They should not think for 
themselves.
5.  People in subordinate positions are especially obligated to refrain from
learning.  For example, it should be illegal for slaves to learn to read.

1990's philosophy:
1.  People should seek education and employment outside the home, unless
named "Hillary Clinton" or "Murphy Brown".
2.  People should use common sense.  They should not kill other people 
(binding of Issac, wars, Holocaust, etc.) just because they are told to.

Interpretation of events based on current philosophy:
They were supposed to eat the fruit.  God gave wanted them to seek knowledge
rather than be handed it on a silver platter.  Once they had gained knowledge
and (by seeking it) showed their ability to make mature decisions for them-
selves, they no longer needed to be treated like little children and were 
REWARDED by being allowed into the "real world."

Lessons from new interpretation:
1.  Ignorance is bad.  Knowledge is good, but must be sought.
2.  Having food provided for you for nothing (read "welfare") is at best
a temporary measure.  Getting a job and feeding yourself with what you earn
is ideal.
3.  Public nudity is bad.  Covering up is good.
4.  Authority figures are often wrong.  Normal people are intelligent and
should consider whether the instructions are really a good idea and "alter
or abolish" bad governments.  They should think for themselves.
5.  People in subordinate decisions are often discouraged from knowledge
but should seek it anyway, and all the harder.  For example, poor children 
without good schools should work especially hard in order to make a better
life for their children (and themselves).

I have tentatively named this new philosophy "The Church of Eveism" because
Eve's decision to eat the apple is man[sic]kind's first good decision, instead
of its first bad one, as traditionally believed.  She is therefore clearly
a protagonist.  God at first appears evil, for telling people not to seek 
knowledge but on deeper analysis is also a protagonist.  As God rewarded the
decision to defy him, and provided the tree in the first place, the intention
and desire were clearly to have the knowledge be obtained, but to delay it 
until it was actively sought.

---End serious discussion.  Begin humor.--

Save this post to disk (or file server).  Someday it will be considered the
most important writing since the 10 Commandments.  You want an original copy.

Stay tuned for the RFD on soc.religion.eveism...
Can I get a tax deduction for money I donate to this organization?

--Return to serious discussion when posting follow-ups.--

Stephen Weinstein
weinss@rpi.edu









