REDEFINING WOMANHOOD: BETWEEN PATRIARCHAL INTERPRETATION AND ANCESTRAL WISDOM

 The True Story Behind Genesis and Christian Misogyny

                                                                       

Preamble:
This analysis aims to highlight and reassess the role of women through an alternative interpretation of the scriptures by Jewish rabbinic tradition—especially Genesis—restoring the essence of women as a central and prominent figure in creation. This perspective seeks to vindicate the dignity and power of women, challenging the patriarchal narrative that has prevailed in historical Christian interpretations.

The Challenge of Seeking Truth

In this new year, 2025, full of expectations, I will continue the quest for truth regarding the misogyny developed and imposed by Christianity and Catholicism over twenty centuries to diminish, subjugate, and devalue women.

My purpose is to help women understand their role in this wonderful world and to embrace the position of superiority with which they were created and brought to this planet.

Challenge: Fighting Against Religious Manipulation

I understand that this is an enormous challenge, but I am motivated by the strong determination to face it, to confront the defenders of lies, and those alienated by religion, creators of algorithms that try to prevent the exposure of falsehoods imposed for millennia.

The Search in Genesis: A Fundamental Starting Point

I will continue delving into Genesis, the starting point of my research and the foundation of false interpretations by church theologians and exegetes. These interpretations have shaped social structures, often negatively, as many of them neither align with the truth nor reality. Instead, they have laid the groundwork for dogmas and doctrines imposed on millions of human beings through fear and terror.

Genesis and Its Meaning for Jews and Christians

For Jews, Genesis is the first book of the Torah and is sacred to them. For Christians, it is the first book of the Old Testament, which they appropriated, turning it into their sacred text. Traditionally, its authorship has been attributed to Moses, placing its writing around the 15th century BCE.

Doubts About the Authorship of Genesis

Its singular authorship began to be questioned after the arrival of Christianity, citing lexical and stylistic differences, variations in naming entities, and other factors. This led to the belief that it was written by multiple authors. The Catholic Church, through its exegetes and theologians, declared its official position that it is substantially the work of Moses. Once pronounced by the Church, this claim was extracted from all debate or doubt, as these texts, according to the Church, were inspired by the Holy Spirit and dictated by God.

The Distortion of Genesis by the Catholic Church

Doubts have persisted, as it is evident that over the centuries, the original texts have undergone modifications, various interpretations, mutilations, and additions for specific and vested interests.

The Christian Approval of the Old Testament

It is important to note that the Old Testament was not written for Christians. It was written for the people of Israel, and Christians appropriated it from their origins to obtain valid foundations for their beliefs.

Culture and Translation of Genesis: Obstacles to Understanding

Notably, it was written in a language most of us do not understand and, therefore, was designed to communicate within the framework of a particular culture. Consequently, understanding its content requires translating not only the language but also the culture. Even so, it is difficult to grasp the text fully.

Translations and Manipulation by Christianity

Christianity and Catholicism, by appropriating this text, interpreted it based on their interests, needs, and purposes of domination. They made linguistic translations with specific agendas but failed to translate the culture. They adapted it to a different culture in a very intelligent manner, distorting the original context to fit their obscure purposes of control and domination in the name of a God they never knew and who never addressed them, distorting the truth of what had been written.

If the Church Fathers had not tendentiously translated and interpreted the text of Genesis, they would have lacked foundational support.

The Alteration of the Text’s Meaning

As a result, the meaning of the text has been changed to something it never intended to convey. This appropriation of the Hebrew text to address Christianity’s issues disrespected the author’s integrity and distorted the text's essence.

The Manipulation of the New Testament: Building Christianity

To strengthen their predominantly imaginative interpretations, they added the New Testament, written to serve the newly created Christianity’s interests. Significantly, neither Jesus nor the apostles wrote the Gospels. Instead, much later, unknown Christian authors undertook the task of gathering scattered ideas throughout the Roman Empire. Fearing that people would give little credit to accounts not witnessed by them, they attributed these texts to apostles or contemporaneous disciples of Jesus Christ.

Genesis in Rabbinic Tradition

Before Christianity, interpretations of Genesis were mainly influenced by Jewish tradition. It is evident that all interpretations related to the second creation of the world, contained in chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis, date no further back than the creation of Christianity. All are dated between the 1st century BCE and the 5th century CE.

Rabbinic Tradition (Judaism)

Midrash (1st century BCE – 5th century CE):
This interpretative method seeks to extract deeper meanings from biblical texts. It emerged in Judaism before the Christian era, offering a collection of rabbinic commentary on the scriptures and numerous interpretations developed during the Second Temple period (1st century BCE) and continued in the classical rabbinic era.

Midrash Rabbah and Other Sources:
This Midrash describes Eve’s creation with special detail, emphasizing that she was formed with unique delicacy and beauty, adorned with radiant attributes to highlight her physical and moral perfection.

Midrash Abkir and Other Sources (10th–11th centuries CE):
This Midrash mentions that God adorned Eve with 24 ornaments or attributes to enhance her physical and moral beauty. These ornaments are not physical objects but symbolize virtues or idealized aspects of physical and spiritual beauty. The exact list of these attributes may vary, but commonly includes elements such as:

Joy (Simcha)

Love (Ahava)

Beauty (Yofi)

Kindness (Chesed)

Clarity of Speech (Dibur Tzach)

Compassion (Rachamim)

Delicacy (Adinut)

Dignity (Hadar)

Sweetness (Metikut)

Splendor (Hod)

Fertility (Piryón)

Strength (Gevurah)

Generosity (Nedivut)

Glory (Tehilah)

Grace (Chen)

Honor (Kavod)

Humility (Anavah)

Integrity (Temimut)

Intelligence (Binah)

Modesty (Tzniut)

Peace (Shalom)

Purity (Taharah)

Wealth (Osher)

Wisdom (Chochmah)

The Concealment of These Attributes by Christianity

These attributes symbolize perfection and divine purpose in the creation of women. The rabbis used Midrash to fill narrative gaps in the biblical text, particularly regarding theological or philosophical themes such as the dignity of women.

By the time these Midrashim were developed, Christianity had already made multiple interpretations of the second creation of the world contained in Genesis chapters 2 and 3. These interpretations often presented women as associated with sin and as the cause of humanity’s suffering. The rabbis felt it necessary to highlight the value and importance of women in creation, countering more negative or patriarchal versions.

The Concealment of Eve’s Perfection by Christianity

The existence of these attributes adorning women, of course, has been concealed by Christianity. They have never been mentioned, as their sole focus has been to minimize and demean women, placing them in positions of inferiority and dependence.

In future writings, to ensure women learn about the brilliance with which they were adorned and the immense value and position they hold in creation—stolen from them for millennia—these teachings will be shared.

The Lasting Shadows of Religious Lies: Women’s Journey Toward Truth

                                    

Women and Religion: The Fear of Truth and the Struggle for Freedom

WOMEN: THE RELUCTANCE TO SEEK THE TRUTH

Introduction

As 2024 draws to a close, this will be the final post of the year. Its purpose is to offer a brief recap and commentary on the topics discussed so far, as well as the obstacles encountered in the research I have undertaken. By this date, 54 posts have been published. All are brief and address various themes lightly, without much depth, for reasons that readers will come to understand in this text.

Historical Control and Religious Power

In any investigation of events and circumstances from a distant past, it is challenging to assess, through writings from hundreds or even thousands of years ago, the emotions, desires, and intentions of the authors and the subjects they describe. These texts have generated both objective and subjective interpretations, making analysis and conclusions even more difficult, especially considering the control the Church has maintained over many of these texts.

Historically, it is well known that the Catholic Church held considerable theocratic power, influencing the politics and laws of States and Kingdoms, even to the extent of wielding life-and-death power over citizens, while controlling thought and freedom of expression. I had assumed these were issues of the past, but I have found that a form of control over thought and expression still persists within Catholicism. Whenever I attempt to delve deeper into any of the topics I have posted about, unexpected obstacles arise, preventing that depth of analysis.

Modern-Day Obstacles to Freedom of Thought

An imposed alignment appears to control publication platforms and media, which use algorithms that foster critical detachment in readers on certain topics, such as religious doctrines or dogmas. The aim of this strategy is to uphold and reinforce falsehoods as unchallenged truths, restricting the possibility of open discussion and analysis. This, in turn, hampers critical thinking and keeps topics that raise serious doubts from being fully examined.

This indirect control over thought and freedom of expression keeps truths veiled, particularly on issues imposed on society for millennia, underscoring the complexities and shadowed history of Christianity. While religion has served as a source of comfort and morality for many, it has also been used to justify acts of intolerance and abuse, as recounted below.

Stereotypes and Women’s Social Role in Religion

For twenty centuries, Christianity and Catholicism have embedded in the minds of their followers that women are inferior to men, worth little against male supremacy, and that their role in society is limited to bearing and raising children, taking care of the household, and serving their husbands. This subordinate status is supposedly ordained by the creation of the world as narrated in chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis.

The Impact of Social Conditioning on Women’s Identity

From birth, women are taught to be passive and servile, adapting to circumstances and with the only aspiration of someday meeting a “perfect” man who will rescue them from unhappiness. Evolution represents a more pressing need for women than the imperative imposed by Christianity to procreate and be subject to men. For them, evolving means awakening to their true role in both past and present worlds, as they remain trapped within the dark mold created by Christianity.

Evolution implies freedom—freedom from the constraints of human teachings, especially those instilled for centuries by Christianity and Catholicism, including God, good, evil, saints, virgins, and the Holy Spirit. As long as women’s minds, both conscious and unconscious, are filled with religious teachings as their normal inventory, they will never achieve true freedom.

Chains of Fear: The Reluctance to Embrace Freedom

Sadly, women have been conditioned to prefer familiar chains over the fear of new experiences, of freedom, and of the superior status with which they were brought into this marvelous world. The great tragedy of women is that their social consciousness completely dominates their individuality. Women fear being different and avoid straying too far from the comfort of the familiar, which has been imposed by religion, as they have been led to believe that their purpose is to serve men.

Religion’s Role in Perpetuating Misogyny

This religiously imposed submission and degradation over two millennia has become a socially entrenched reality, giving rise to fierce misogyny and strengthening the unquestioned power of machismo, constructed and imposed by Christianity in the name of God.

A Journey Toward Truth and Awareness

The advancement of civilization and the struggle of women for their rights have gradually lifted the veil on countless lies that, over time, have been accepted as truths. These lies have served as the foundation for the subjugation, scorn, and hatred toward women promoted by religion.

Imagine the difficulty of convincing a woman to stop believing in the “truth” imposed on her over more than sixty consecutive generations. I mention this because the most striking aspect of my research has been the fear many women feel of knowing the lies that have been turned into “truths” and their resistance to change.

The Complex Psychology of Women under Religious Influence

As the greatest mystery of the universe, women are extraordinarily complex beings who are challenging to understand. They have lived for twenty centuries under deeply ingrained religious stereotypes that depict them as inferior to men and even as the root of all humanity’s problems, all because of Eve’s choice to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, as told in the “sacred scriptures.” Thus, religion has created a psychological and social framework that deeply affects women, conditioning them to accept these stereotypes as irrefutable truths.The Mechanisms of Cognitive Dissonance and Resistance to Change

Women caught within these “truths” often exhibit behavior patterns on both conscious and unconscious levels, as they have internalized these “truths” as unassailable. Consequently, their minds protect these beliefs as a source of stability and security, leading to resistance to change.

If anyone tries to challenge these lies, sustained by time and terror as “truths,” women often react defensively. This reaction, known as “cognitive dissonance,” occurs when a deeply ingrained belief is contradicted, sometimes resulting in irrational or exaggerated responses. This reaction serves as a way to protect the internal coherence of their identities.

Reactions to New Truths

When presented with a truth that contradicts ancient, entrenched lies, a woman might interpret it as a threat, leading to several possible reactions: ignoring or denying the new information, ridiculing it or the messenger by labeling them ignorant, or responding with anger or deep sadness. Accepting the new information would mean acknowledging that she has been misled for many years.

Continuing the Quest for Clarity

In this initial phase, bearing all of this in mind, I have tried to gradually sow seeds of doubt among women. Yet, it often seems that women prefer to remain in a hidden form of slavery imposed by Christianity and Catholicism for over twenty centuries. However, I will continue next year to investigate and delve into this topic, if the Catholic loyalists allow it. My goal is to bring to light the many years of obscurity in which religion has kept the greatest mystery of the universe, knowing full well that revealing the truth by exposing the lie is a formidable challenge since everything seems to suggest otherwise.

Esclavitud, Dogmas y Libertad: El Papel de la Mujer en la Historia Religiosa

                                    

La Mujer en el Cristianismo: Desafiando la Obscuridad de la Tradición

La Mujer: El Rechazo a Saber la Verdad

Como el año 2024 está llegando a su fin, esta será la última publicación de dicho año, con el objetivo de hacer un ligero recuento de lo hasta ahora tratado, así como de los obstáculos encontrados en la investigación que me he propuesto. Hasta esta fecha, se han publicado 54 entradas, todas de poca extensión y en las cuales se han abordado temas de manera superficial, por razones que el lector comprenderá a lo largo de este escrito.

La Dificultad de Investigar el Pasado

Es muy difícil, en cualquier investigación sobre hechos y circunstancias acaecidos en un pasado remoto, evaluar, a través de escritos de siglos, tal vez milenios, las emociones, sentimientos, deseos, intereses y objetivos de quienes escribieron esos textos. Dichos escritos han generado interpretaciones objetivas y subjetivas, creando mayor dificultad de análisis y conclusiones, además del control que sobre la mayoría de ellos ha ejercido y sigue ejerciendo la Iglesia.

Control Religioso y Censura del Pensamiento

Es sabido que en varios momentos históricos, la Iglesia Católica ejerció un poder teocrático considerable, influyendo en la política y en las leyes de estados y reinos, llegando al extremo de tener poder de vida o muerte sobre los ciudadanos, de controlar el pensamiento y la libertad de expresión. Aunque se pensaba que eran situaciones del pasado, aún persiste un control del pensamiento y de la libertad de expresión ejercido por el catolicismo.

Cuando he tratado de profundizar en algunos de los temas publicados, he encontrado obstáculos inesperados que han impedido dicha profundización. Existe una alienación impuesta a los medios de publicación y plataformas digitales, que emplean algoritmos diseñados para desconectar críticamente a los lectores respecto a temas sensibles, como dogmas o doctrinas religiosas. Este mecanismo busca mantener como verdades incuestionables ciertos dogmas, limitando así la posibilidad de llevar a debate hechos que presentan profundas dudas, lo que impide una mentalidad crítica.

Consecuencias de la Censura en la Historia Cristiana

Este impedimento de acceso a la crítica y el debate sobre temas religiosos es una forma de control indirecto sobre el pensamiento y la libre expresión, para mantener en la oscuridad temas impuestos a la sociedad durante milenios. Esta práctica ha destacado las complejidades y las sombras de la historia cristiana, evidenciando cómo la religión, aunque fuente de consuelo y moralidad para muchos, también ha sido utilizada para justificar actos de intolerancia y abuso, como se analizará a continuación.

El Estereotipo de la Mujer en el Cristianismo

Durante veinte siglos, el cristianismo y el catolicismo han establecido en el consciente y subconsciente de sus seguidores la creencia de que las mujeres son inferiores a los hombres. Se les enseña que su papel es depender completamente del hombre y cumplir funciones como parir, criar hijos, cuidar el hogar, complacer y obedecer al marido. Esta visión se sustenta en la narración de la creación en el Génesis, capítulos 2 y 3.

Desde que nacen, se les enseña a las mujeres a ser pasivas y a adaptarse a las circunstancias. El único sueño o expectativa que se les inculca es encontrar algún día al "hombre perfecto" que las rescate de la infelicidad.

La Evolución como Imperativo para la Mujer

Evolucionar representa un imperativo mayor para la mujer que el impuesto por el cristianismo de reproducirse y servir al hombre. Evolucionar significa despertar a su verdadero papel en el mundo actual y en el pasado, y liberarse del oscuro patrón creado por el cristianismo.

La libertad implica estar libre de lo impuesto por la religión, que incluye a Dios, el bien, el mal, los santos y otros conceptos que forman parte del inventario religioso tradicional. Mientras la mente de las mujeres esté llena de estas imposiciones, jamás obtendrán su verdadera libertad.

El Temor a la Libertad

Lamentablemente, muchas mujeres prefieren sus cadenas conocidas al temor de lo nuevo. La gran tragedia de la mujer es que su conciencia social domina su individualidad; temen ser diferentes y alejarse de la comodidad de lo conocido, impuesta por la religión. Así, la religión las condiciona a una vida al servicio del hombre.

La Misoginia Impuesta por el Cristianismo

Toda esa sumisión y degradación, impuesta por la religión durante dos milenios, se ha convertido en un hecho social casi irreversible, generando una misoginia feroz que ha fortalecido el machismo justificado por el cristianismo en nombre de Dios.

La civilización y la lucha de la mujer por sus derechos han empezado a desvelar las mentiras que el tiempo convirtió en "verdades". La religión ha usado estas verdades impuestas para avalar la sumisión, el desprecio y el odio hacia las mujeres.

La Resistencia al Cambio y la "Verdad" Impuesta

Convencer a una mujer de que abandone estas "verdades" impuestas es un desafío. A lo largo de esta investigación, he notado el temor de muchas mujeres a descubrir estas mentiras convertidas en "verdades" y su resistencia a cuestionarlas.

La mujer es el mayor misterio del universo y un ser complejo, que ha vivido por veinte siglos bajo el estereotipo impuesto de que es inferior y responsable de todos los males de la humanidad. Este adoctrinamiento se ha basado en interpretaciones de las "sagradas escrituras".

Los Efectos Psicológicos de las "Verdades" Impuestas

Las mujeres atrapadas en estas "verdades" suelen mostrar patrones de comportamiento de resistencia frente a cualquier idea que desafíe estos valores, lo cual es un mecanismo de estabilidad y seguridad para ellas. Este fenómeno, conocido como "disonancia cognitiva", es una respuesta defensiva que surge cuando se contradice una creencia arraigada. 

La Continuación de la Búsqueda de la Verdad

En esta primera etapa, he intentado sembrar la duda entre las mujeres de manera gradual, aunque parece que algunas desean continuar en un estado de esclavitud impuesta por el cristianismo. Sin embargo, continuaré el próximo año investigando y tratando de sacar a la luz la verdad en medio de los años de oscuridad en los que la religión ha sumido a las mujeres.

La Inconsistencia de la Segunda Creación: Un Análisis Crítico de Adán y Eva

                                                                         

Mitos y Realidades de la Segunda Creación: De la Teología a la Misoginia

Introducción. Puede observarse que ese segundo creador sigue un orden diferente, inverso al primero, sin referencia de tiempo, lo cual induce a pensar que todo lo creó en un día, para luego actuar en una segunda fase con la historia de Adán y Eva.

La Segunda Creación y sus Paralelismos con Otras Mitologías

Pero la segunda creación, por innumerables razones que se explican a continuación, da la impresión de que no fue dictada por un dios y que fue redactada con bastante posteridad a la primera, cuando el mundo ya tenía tiempo de haber sido creado. Probablemente por un autor o varios, con la llamativa particularidad de que contiene sorprendentes paralelismos con mitologías mesopotámicas y griegas.

Al leer dicha historia, puede observarse que el autor o los autores no fueron lo suficientemente cuidadosos para no dejar errores o fallas visibles que generaran dudas acerca de la veracidad de lo allí expresado.

La Prohibición del Árbol del Bien y del Mal

Al formar al primer ser humano del polvo de la tierra, Dios le plantó un huerto en Edén y lo puso allí. Hizo nacer árboles deliciosos y, como algo especial, colocó en medio del huerto el árbol de la vida y el árbol de la ciencia del bien y del mal; árbol último del cual le prohibió comer al hombre recién creado, so pena de morir.

Esa prohibición no podía nacer de un Dios omnisciente, que todo lo sabe, tanto el pasado, como el presente y, por supuesto, el futuro. Esa imposición representaba el coartar a ese ser, que representaba la semilla de toda la humanidad, la posibilidad de conocer el bien y el mal, condición absolutamente necesaria para la convivencia humana. Por lo tanto, puede considerarse como un impedimento absurdo.

Interpretaciones Teológicas y Filosóficas

De esa prohibición, se han generado muchas interpretaciones teológicas, filosóficas y, en mayor proporción, interpretaciones imaginarias.

Entre esas deducciones, los sabios exégetas cristianos le han dado una connotación sexual; o sea, una prohibición de mantener relaciones sexuales. Esto representa otro absurdo, porque de cumplirse bajo esa interpretación, no se multiplicarían los seres humanos y la tierra creada quedaría despoblada.

La Reacción de un Dios Humano

A pesar del riesgo que representaba violar la prohibición impuesta por Dios, esta fue violada sin que se produjera la muerte. Sin embargo, la reacción de ese Dios creador dista mucho de ser la de un verdadero Dios, ya que actuó como si fuese un vulgar humano, lleno de sentimientos encontrados, de odio, de ira, imponiendo penas y castigos, expulsiones, llegando al extremo de maldecir su propia creación.

Las Inconsistencias Geográficas en la Creación

Otro aspecto de esa creación que genera dudas acerca de su veracidad es la cita de ríos y tierras con nombres conocidos y existentes, como Pisón rodeando la tierra de Evila, donde hay oro, bedelio y ónice; Guijón circundando la tierra de Cus; el río Tigris al oriente de Asiria y el río Éufrates.

Llama poderosamente la atención que, si Dios estaba creando el mundo, ¿cómo es que cita en su creación ríos cuyos nombres son conocidos, ríos existentes como el Tigris y el Éufrates, y tierras ya existentes como Asiria y Evila? Además, menciona la existencia de metales preciosos en esas tierras, cuya calidad ya estaba determinada.

Eva y la Prohibición del Árbol de la Ciencia

Otra interrogante sin respuesta, contenida en esa segunda creación del mundo, es el hecho de que la infracción a la prohibición de no comer del árbol de la ciencia del bien y del mal se la atribuye el cristianismo a la mujer, a Eva, sin considerar que tal prohibición solo le fue impuesta a Adán, como puede leerse en Génesis 2:16 y 2:17. Además, para ese momento, Eva no existía, no había sido creada. A pesar de ello, esa desobediencia se le atribuyó a ella, haciéndola culpable de todos los males creados por la imaginación de los padres de la Iglesia.

Cuando la serpiente le preguntó a Eva (Génesis 3:1) si Dios le había dicho que no comiera de todo árbol del huerto, Eva mintió y respondió que del fruto de los árboles del huerto podía comer (tácitamente, esto incluye al árbol de la vida), pero del fruto que está en medio del huerto dijo Dios: “No comeréis de él, ni lo tocaréis, para que no muráis”.

¿Cuándo, en qué momento le impuso Dios esa prohibición a Eva? No existe evidencia de que Dios hubiese hablado con ella ni que Adán se la hubiese impuesto.

Conclusión: Reflexiones sobre las Dos Creaciones

Todas estas interrogantes contenidas en la segunda creación deben servir para que el lector las evalúe de acuerdo a su criterio. Si encuentra respuestas objetivas que no sean producto del fanatismo religioso, debería hacerlas conocer para eliminar tan profundas dudas acerca de la veracidad de esas narraciones, que han sido usadas con fines muy negativos contra la mujer.

No puede entenderse que de un relato acerca de la creación del mundo; que era sólo eso, la creación del mundo físico y de la humanidad; seres humanos muy inteligentes, cientos o miles de años después; por que no existe una data de esa narrativa; crean y extraen múltiples temas de la misma, como la obediencia, la desobediencia, la tentación, el conocimiento del bien y del mal, la moral, la relación sexual, la virginidad, la mortalidad y la inmortalidad, el trabajo, el sacrificio, el dolor en el parto y, el más importante para la teología cristiana: EL PECADO ORIGINAL.

Cuando Dios hace esa creación, no hace referencia a ninguno de los temas referidos antes, ya que no existe mención alguna al respecto en el Génesis, lo cual es evidencia de que todas esas creaciones son producto de la prodigiosa imaginación de los creadores del cristianismo, quienes basados en ese relato, estructuraron toda una filosofía teológica de culpas y castigos, convertidos en una verdad irrefutable que asociadas al cielo, infierno, purgatorio y limbo sirvieron y has servido para aterrorizar a seres humanos quienes a la postre convirtieron en fanáticos, usando como epicentro de todos los males a la mujer, convertida por el cristianismo y el catolicismo en el más robusto chivo expiatorio conocido hasta nuestros días

Uno de los enigmas más llamativos tanto para creyentes, investigadores, como para incrédulos, es por qué los creadores del cristianismo escogieron y desarrollaron la segunda creación del mundo, convirtiéndola en dogma y doctrina. Esta historia de Adán y Eva se convirtió en uno de los pilares más robustos de la religión.

El cristianismo y el catolicismo han relegado a la primera creación, cuya perfección es incuestionable, y han hecho todo lo posible por mantenerla en el olvido. Han creado múltiples interpretaciones filosóficas, teológicas e imaginarias para minimizarla frente a la segunda creación adoptada como un dogma incuestionable.

Si analizamos ambas creaciones objetivamente, sin fanatismos ni parcialidad religiosa, la primera no serviría para desarrollar los propósitos del cristianismo. No pueden extraerse de ella historias para convencer a los incrédulos, ni para adormecer a los creyentes, ni para adoctrinar a los crédulos. Tampoco pueden derivarse ficciones de seres de barro ni castigos perpetuos basados en faltas absurdas.

El propósito de este análisis no es atacar personas o instituciones, sino invitar al lector a reflexionar objetivamente sobre la verdad y la imparcialidad. Esta segunda creación ha sido el fundamento de la misoginia y de muchas de las doctrinas cristianas en contra de la mujer.

The Inconsistency of the Second Creation: A Critical Analysis of Adam and Eve

                                                                     

Myths and Realities of the Second Creation: From Theology to Misogyny"

Introduction
It can be observed that this second creator follows a different, inverse order from the first, with no reference to time, which leads one to think that everything was created in a single day, to then proceed with the second phase, which includes the story of Adam and Eve.

The Second Creation and Its Parallels with Other Mythologies

However, for countless reasons that will be explained below, the second creation gives the impression that it was not dictated by a god and that it was written long after the first, when the world had already existed for some time. It was probably authored by one or several writers, with the striking feature that it contains surprising parallels with Mesopotamian and Greek mythologies.

Reading this story, it becomes clear that the author or authors were not careful enough to avoid leaving visible errors or flaws that would raise doubts about the truth of what is expressed.

The Prohibition of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil

After forming the first human being from the dust of the earth, God planted a garden in Eden and placed him there. He made trees grow that were pleasing to the eye, and especially, He placed in the middle of the garden the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; the latter was forbidden for the newly created man to eat from, on the penalty of death.

This prohibition could not have come from an omniscient God, who knows everything—past, present, and, of course, the future—since this imposition represented a restriction on that being, who was the seed of all humanity, from knowing good and evil, a condition absolutely necessary for human coexistence. Therefore, it can be considered an absurd impediment.

Theological and Philosophical Interpretations

This prohibition has led to many theological, philosophical, and, to a greater extent, imaginative interpretations.

Among these deductions, wise exegetes have given it a sexual connotation; that is, a prohibition against sexual relations. This represents another absurdity because, if followed according to this interpretation, human beings would not multiply, and the newly created earth would remain unpopulated.

The Reaction of a Human-like God

Despite the risk of violating the prohibition imposed by God, it was broken, yet no death occurred. However, the reaction of this creator God was far from divine, as He acted like an ordinary human, filled with conflicting emotions of hatred and anger, imposing punishments, expulsions, and even going as far as cursing His own creation.

Geographical Inconsistencies in the Creation

Another aspect of this creation that raises doubts about its truth is the mention of rivers and lands with familiar and existing names, like Pishon, which winds through the land of Havilah, where there is gold, bdellium, and onyx; Gihon, which encircles the land of Cush; the Tigris River, east of Assyria; and the Euphrates River.

It is astonishing that if God was creating the world, how could He mention rivers with known names, existing rivers like the Tigris and Euphrates, and already existing lands like Assyria and Havilah? Moreover, He refers to precious metals in these lands, whose quality had already been determined.

Eve and the Prohibition of the Tree of Knowledge

Another unanswered question contained in this second creation is the fact that Christianity attributes the violation of the prohibition of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil to the woman, Eve, without considering that such a prohibition was only imposed on Adam, as can be read in Genesis 2:16 and 2:17. Additionally, it is clear that at that time, Eve did not exist; she had not yet been created. Despite this, the disobedience was attributed to her, making her responsible for all the evils imagined by the Church Fathers.

When the serpent asked Eve (Genesis 3:1) if God had told her not to eat from every tree in the garden, Eve lied, responding that she could eat from the fruit of the trees in the garden (which tacitly includes the tree of life), but about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden, she said, "God said: ‘You shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’"

When, at what moment, did God impose this prohibition on Eve? There is no evidence that God had spoken to her, nor that Adam had imposed it on her.

Conclusion: Reflections on the Two Creations

All these unanswered questions in the second creation should serve for the reader to evaluate them according to their judgment. If they find objective answers that are not the result of religious fanaticism, they should make them known to eliminate such deep doubts about the veracity of these narratives, which, as will be seen, have been used for very negative purposes against women.

It cannot be understood how, from a story about the creation of the world—which was simply that, the creation of the physical world and humanity—highly intelligent human beings, hundreds or thousands of years later (since there is no specific date for this narrative), would develop and extract multiple themes from it, such as obedience, disobedience, temptation, knowledge of good and evil, morality, sexual relations, virginity, mortality and immortality, work, sacrifice, pain in childbirth, and, the most important one for Christian theology: ORIGINAL SIN.

When God creates the world, there is no reference to any of these aforementioned topics, as there is no mention of them in Genesis. This is evidence that all these interpretations are the product of the prodigious imagination of the creators of Christianity, who, based on that story, structured an entire theological philosophy of guilt and punishment, which was transformed into an irrefutable truth. This truth, linked to heaven, hell, purgatory, and limbo, served—and has continued to serve—to terrorize human beings, who, in turn, became fanatics, using women as the epicenter of all evil. Christianity and Catholicism turned women into the most robust scapegoat known to this day.

One of the enigmas that has most intrigued believers, researchers, and non-believers alike is why the creators of Christianity chose, developed, and established the second creation of the world, which includes the story of Adam and Eve, as dogma and doctrine, turning it into one of the most robust pillars of the religion.

It is evident that Christianity and Catholicism have placed the first creation, whose perfection is unquestionable, on a secondary level, and have done everything possible to keep it forgotten, since they have not been able to eliminate it. To achieve this, they have created multiple philosophical, theological, and imaginative interpretations to minimize it in comparison to the second creation, which has been adopted as an unquestionable dogma.

If we objectively analyze the two creations, without fanaticism and without religious bias, we can see that the first creation would not serve to develop the purposes for which Christianity was created. No stories can be derived from it to convince the unbelievers, to lull the believers, or to indoctrinate and fanatize the gullible. Nor can absurd impositions be derived from that first creation to generate faults and impose punishments on innocent beings, nor can perpetual crimes be imagined with eternal penalties that are also passed down from generation to generation to innocent beings.

These writings about the two creations of the world are not intended to attack individuals or institutions. Their purpose is to invite the reader to reflect, to analyze objectively, free of fanaticism, and then to reach personal conclusions. If the reader considers them important, they should make their comments, adhering to reason, truth, and the utmost impartiality, since that second creation has been the foundation of misogyny and much of what Christianity has created against women.

La Doble Creación en el Génesis: Contradicciones y Teorías

Dos Creaciones, Un Dilema: Un Análisis del Génesis

                                                   

  

La Doble Creación en el Génesis

Cada vez que se leen las creaciones del mundo contenidas en los capítulos 1, 2 y 3 del Génesis, surgen de inmediato múltiples interrogantes. Entre otras: ¿por qué hay dos creaciones diferentes en el mismo libro? ¿Acaso el mundo fue creado dos veces?

Múltiples autores, exégetas y estudiosos no han encontrado una solución lógica que aclare esa duplicidad. Así mismo, el cristianismo ha elaborado diferentes respuestas teológicas, filosóficas y hasta imaginarias, pero ninguna ha dado una solución satisfactoria a esa dualidad.

Los Relatos del Génesis: Dictado Divino o Interpretación Humana

De manera reiterada, también han afirmado que el Génesis le fue dictado por Dios a Moisés durante los 40 años que este pasó en el desierto. Se sostiene que las dos creaciones fueron dictadas por el mismo Dios. Sin embargo, ambos textos llaman a Dios de manera diferente: en Génesis 1, lo llaman Elohim, mientras que en Génesis 2, lo nombran Yahvé. Además, afirman que el orden en que las narraciones aparecen en la Biblia está invertido. Es decir, que la segunda creación contenida en los capítulos 2 y 3 fue dictada primero, y posteriormente, fue dictada la primera, contenida en el capítulo 1. En consecuencia, deben leerse en orden inverso, comenzando por la segunda creación para luego leer la primera y así poder entenderlas.

Autores y Épocas de las Narraciones del Génesis

Varios autores han llegado a la conclusión de que las dos narraciones no pudieron haber sido escritas por la misma persona, sino que pertenecen a autores de épocas diferentes. Han llamado al primer texto “Sacerdotal”, atribuyéndolo a un grupo de sacerdotes judíos del siglo VI a.C., y al segundo texto “Yahvista”, fechándolo a fines del siglo VIII a.C.

Estas afirmaciones hacen más complejo el asunto, ya que inducen a pensar que, o bien Dios se equivocó al dictar dos creaciones a Moisés, lo cual resulta contradictorio dada su omnipotencia, omnisciencia e inmutabilidad, o que Moisés, sin razón aparente, invirtió el orden en que le fueron dictadas las creaciones.

Unicidad Divina en Cuestión

La unicidad de ese Dios creador, afirmada por el cristianismo, se vuelve dudosa al analizar la actuación y personalidad de los dos creadores, que parecen absolutamente diferentes y opuestos.

La Primera Creación: Un Dios Omnipotente y Benevolente

En la primera creación, contenida en el capítulo 1 del Génesis y supuestamente dictada por Dios a Moisés, se nos presenta a un creador omnipotente, omnisciente, omnipresente, inmutable y omnibenevolente. En este relato, la palabra de Dios se materializa de inmediato. No necesita materiales para crear; su obra sigue un orden lógico y cronológico, comenzando con las plantas, siguiendo con los animales y finalizando con los seres humanos. Estos últimos reciben un mandato claro: ser fecundos, multiplicarse y dominar sobre las criaturas del mundo.

En esta narración, Dios no dialoga, no impone condiciones, ni castiga. Al contrario, aprueba y bendice todo lo creado, considerándolo bueno. Este Dios no es corpóreo y no recurre a milagros ni apariciones sobrenaturales, pues no está limitado por la realidad.

La Segunda Creación: Un Dios Antropomórfico

Cuando pasamos a la segunda creación, contenida en los capítulos 2 y 3 del Génesis, parece que la creación anterior no hubiera ocurrido, como si todo comenzara de nuevo. ¿Por qué, si en Génesis 1 el mundo ya estaba creado, en Génesis 2 y 3 hay que recrearlo? Y, además, por un Dios con características muy distintas.

El Dios de la segunda creación es antropomórfico, es decir, presenta características humanas tanto en forma como en comportamiento. Este Dios dialoga, impone normas, critica, condena, sanciona y hasta maldice. También necesita diferentes materiales para crear.

Diferentes Dioses, Diferentes Narrativas

¿Quién le atribuyó esas características antropomórficas al Dios de la segunda creación? ¿Fue Moisés cuando recibió el dictado? ¿Por qué no le atribuyó las mismas características que al Dios de la primera creación si, según el cristianismo, era el mismo?

Sin embargo, la segunda creación, por innumerables razones, da la impresión de que no fue dictada por un dios, sino redactada mucho después de la primera. Algunos autores destacan sorprendentes paralelismos con mitologías mesopotámicas y griegas, lo que sugiere que estas historias podrían ser adaptaciones de mitos sumerios que datan de alrededor del 6.000 a.C., reescritas con intenciones distintas.

Al leer esta historia, se puede observar que el autor o los autores no fueron lo suficientemente cuidadosos para evitar errores o incoherencias que podrían generar dudas sobre la veracidad del relato. Continuará.

Myths, realities and inconsistencies

                                                                          

The Double Creation in Genesis

Each time the creations of the world contained in chapters 1, 2, and 3 of Genesis are read, many questions immediately arise. Among them: Why are there two different creations in the same book? Was the world created twice?

Many authors, exegetes, and scholars have not found a logical solution to clarify this duplication. Similarly, Christianity has developed different theological, philosophical, and even imaginative responses, but none have provided a satisfactory solution to this duality.

The Genesis Accounts: Divine Dictation or Human Interpretation?

Repeatedly, it has also been claimed that Genesis was dictated by God to Moses during the 40 years he spent in the desert. It is stated that both creations were dictated by the same God. However, the texts call God by different names: in Genesis 1, He is called Elohim, while in Genesis 2, He is named Yahweh. Furthermore, it is claimed that the order in which these narratives appear in the Bible is reversed. That is, the second creation contained in chapters 2 and 3 was dictated first, and then the first creation, found in chapter 1, was dictated afterward. Therefore, they should be read in reverse order, starting with the second creation and then reading the first one to understand them.

Authors and Eras of the Genesis Narratives

Several authors have concluded that the two narratives could not have been written by the same person but belong to different authors from different times. The first text has been labeled "Priestly," attributed to a group of Jewish priests from the 6th century B.C., and the second text, "Yahwist," dated to the late 8th century B.C.

These claims further complicate the matter by suggesting that either God made a mistake and dictated two creations to Moses—which seems contradictory given His omnipotence, omniscience, and immutability—or that Moses inexplicably reversed the order in which the creations were dictated to him.

Questioning Divine Uniqueness

The uniqueness of the Creator God, as affirmed by Christianity, becomes questionable when analyzing the actions and personalities of the two creators, which seem entirely different and opposed.

The First Creation: An Omnipotent and Benevolent God

In the first creation, contained in chapter 1 of Genesis and supposedly dictated by God to Moses, we are presented with a creator who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, and omnibenevolent. In this narrative, God's word immediately becomes reality. He needs no materials to create; His work follows a logical and chronological order, beginning with plants, continuing with animals, and finally, humans. The humans are given a clear mandate: to be fruitful, multiply, and rule over the creatures of the world.

In this account, God does not engage in dialogue, impose conditions, or punish. On the contrary, He approves and blesses all He has created, deeming it good. This God is not corporeal and does not resort to miracles or supernatural appearances, as He is not bound by reality.

The Second Creation: An Anthropomorphic God

When we move to the second creation, contained in chapters 2 and 3 of Genesis, it appears as though the previous creation never happened, as if everything begins anew. Why, if the world was already created in Genesis 1, does it need to be recreated in Genesis 2 and 3? And by a God with very different characteristics.

The God of the second creation is anthropomorphic, meaning He exhibits human characteristics both in form and behavior. This God engages in dialogue, imposes rules, criticizes, condemns, imposes sanctions, and even curses. He also needs various materials to create.

Different Gods, Different Narratives

Who attributed these anthropomorphic characteristics to the God of the second creation? Was it Moses when he received the dictation? Why didn’t he attribute the same characteristics to the God of the first creation if, according to Christianity, it was the same God?

However, the second creation, for numerous reasons, gives the impression that it was not dictated by a god but written much later than the first creation. Some authors point out striking parallels with Mesopotamian and Greek mythologies, suggesting that these stories may be adaptations of Sumerian myths dating back to around 6,000 B.C., rewritten with different intentions.

When reading this story, one can observe that the author or authors were not careful enough to avoid errors or inconsistencies that might generate doubts about the truth of what is expressed. To be continued.