The forbidden fruit? Adam ate it, reaped his Great Fall Came to be known as Original Sin

Varghese

Varghese Pamplanil

 

 

 

 

 

  James kottoor         (Note: Is there anyone today who still believes in the “Forbidden fruit”  story? There could be millions, as most of us believed in it as children, but then gave it up as we grew old and gave it up as we  began to think for ourselves and realized the stupidity of it.

                   Didn’t we  all believe in Hell? How many believe it today? Hardly any while most agree we have made the world we live in a veritable hell and our duty is to make it more of a heaven and less of a hell, because perfect heaven or hell is  beyond the power of any of us to create. Of course we have to tolerate the priestly class to preach what they know nothing about, while pretending they have seen and touched it as Doubting Thomas did. They also have to live, so let them, as long as they don’t compel others to believe all the irrational stupidities they preach. We all have to live and let live.

One lesson for us all the “Forbidden fruit” teaches is this: Once you forbid something, it will emerge as the one thing sought after by all. This is the  secret of publicity and advertising: When you want to give widest publicity to something, forbid it, tell everyone not to think of it, speak of it etc. It will spread with lightning speed to reach all humans. Hence the saying: “The forbidden fruit fill always be the most sought after fruit.”  james kottoor, editor ccv.)

 

Image result for photos of original sin

According to a fairy tale in the Bible, the fall of the mythical parents of humanity was caused by the eating of a fruit expressly prohibited by their God. This disobedience led to Adam’s and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Poor Adam and Eve couldn’t  even imagine that this  deed would result in  such terrible consequences.

Can anyone blame Adam that he succumbed to his natural urges, when a ripe succulent fleshy and juicy apple in the form of a young, full-blossomed, tantalisingly beautiful Eve with all her God-given  curves and bulges of her anatomy in the prime, with her hills and mysterious valleys, presented herself in her birthday suit to Adam with her sparkling eyes and coquettish smile and her full red juicy lips offered her succulent fruit to him? 

One should only wonder if Adam didn’t lose his cool and control and forget God’s command in the heat of the moment and enjoyed eating the fruit offered by Eve to his heart’s content. Eve too enjoyed feeding the fruit to Adam, at the same time deriving great pleasure in the act.

But God got annoyed and angry (Can a God go temperamental to get annoyed and angry?) and in a rage drove the couple out of Paradise. Who is this imbecile God who had endowed Adam and Eve with these primary instincts and free will and then punish them so callously? Is God an imbecile anti-pleasure moron,  morose and dour-faced pervert to behave in this way? Remember he had enjoined the first couple to breed and multiply like sands on a beach. How could this be achieved without  sexual intercourse?

Had Adam and Eve not committed this folly, they would have been alive even today in youthful health and verve, loitering in the Eden Garden, with not a thread on their bodies, but carefully keeping the safe distance of three feet three inches from each other. They  would have stuffed themselves with all sorts of delicious fruits other than accursed of the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, caressing young fawns and deers,  frolicking in  the nearby pool of crystal clear stream in all their nakedness  with not a care in the world and quenching their thirst by drinking from the pristine spring close by in eternal joy.

Lo behold! Adam was forced to get food for himself and Eve and their children  by the sweat of his brow; Eve had to undergo acute labour pains to give birth to her children. Do the dumb believer know that the myth of expulsion from Paradise was actually  “the thorough going transformation of food gatherers and hunters into cultivators” and that “the sexual intercourse between Adam and Eve, which follows, is an act of social creation? It bore fruit in the birth of two sons who impersonate two nascent civilisations: Abel the keeper of sheep and Cain the tiller of the ground” (Arnold Toynbee ‘In the Study of History’ 12 volumes) incidentally to the Hebrews nomadic shepherds  as they were, Abel the sheep rearer was the hero and Cain the cultivator the fall guy.

Cain would have killed Abel when Abel’s  sheep ate up and destroyed Cain’s crops, his very livelihood. Is it not absurdly ludicrous and sheer anachronism that Zero-Malabar bishops carry the crook of the shepherd and call the Catholic laity “sheep” who lead generally an agro-based lifestyle? Appropriately he could have carried a leash and a whip.  An average idiot, faith-freak will swallow any non-sense without blinking his eyes.  Pity him.

The arch-villain who postulated that children born out of pleasure giving sexual union between their parents would be infested with the “Original Sin” is none other than the North African “Kappiri” Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE), an insatiable fornicator, sex mad  debauchee, who kept concubines from the age 15 to 32, abandoned them without scruples, let go his wayward life to become bishop of the Church by quick double promotion.

Augustine’s sexual experience had been illicit. The mad proposition of this guiltridden mentally deranged person was adopted lock, stock and barrel as the instrument  to have total ironclad control  and hegemony over the lives of the masses of illiterate believers.  Is it not preposterous to brand  the pleasure giving sexual activity of humans as a sinful act? “Telling us all the sins we are capable of performing with our sexual organs does not enlighten us about our sexuality. Those who reduce a mystery to a problem are guilty of intellectual perversion.” “Sexuality is not merely instinctive; it is indisputably a creative power that is not only the basic cause of our individual lives, but a serious factor in our psychic life as well.”

There is a bonus in this bargain for the “so called” celibate sin trader  clerics. Almost all Catholic men, as everyone else, who have their libido intact and not suffering from erectile disfunction and normal on frigid women with unpoisoned minds despite the devious  mechanisations of the sly clerics and foolish nuns, engage in sex regularly and derive  great pleasure out of it.

But the guilt-ridden misguided believers are convinced that the sin of having sex except for procreation, will  be absolved  if  they go for an auricular confession to any  Catholic cleric. The exercise could be very  satisfying to the confessor who can ingeniously pry out the nuances of the act, such as the orifices used, positions  and postures adopted, the gestures, body movements and the sounds produced;  the juices emanated and the smells given out during the act and all other nitty-gritty details.

An  elaborate and detailed confession would not only give immense pleasure to the confessor who can indulge in day dreaming and flights of fancy, an enjoyable diversion to his enforced state of often violated sham celibacy. He may in all probability prefer the confessions of newly married females, unmarried maidens who had premarital sexual experiences  and widows with suppressed sexuality. He may even  succeed in enticing some of them for free rides, on the sly.

Let the Original Sin go on infesting the Catholics enabling the clerics to live comfortably without the sweat of their brow. The cassock wearers  will be jolly well happy in selling the various permutations and combinations of rites to get rid of sins and ensuring comfy after-life and salvation and  moksha. The clerics can devise various types of “oppirukaland nitthyakurbanas“ with exorbitant  price tags in order that the souls of the deceased have less rigorous stint in Purgatory. Let the ORIGINAL SIN survive eternally.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

three × 1 =