Religious "Facts" via the History Channel

I love the History Channel. They always produce both sides, and sometimes more, sides to every story. That being said, I find it somewhat frustrating at times to listen to the broadcasts regarding Biblical events.

For example: On this day, December 21, 2006, (previously broad casted) they have a most interesting program on books banned from the Bible. As I was listening to the several interpretations of Adam and Eve, something like a shiver went through me. What a crock! was actually the thought that crossed my mind without conscious thought. The version in the King James Bible itself is dubious at best. But the additional stories of Eve's fatal -- eternally fatal, it would seem -- sin was a little more than I could bear.

This first book of the Bible, in whatever version one chooses to read from, seems obviously written by frustrated men looking about desperately to blame someone for the failure of obtaining Paradise. Adam, the only man at the time by the way, is quite willing to follow his wife's invitation to eat of the forbidden fruit. But he is very quick to declare to God Himself that it was Woman, the wife given by God, who led him into such a tragic error. Eve actually has a much better defense: she was convinced by a beautiful creature that by the eating of this fruit, she would be doing not only the right thing, but one that God Himself would not dare disapprove. Adam has only his wife -- the creature that befouled mankind itself -- to blame. He knew better. So did Eve -- but at least had an arguable defense. Adam seems to act not only as a coward, but a clueless fool.

Anyway one looks at this story it is quite obvious that this is not the real beginning of a downfall, or even the beginning of mankind itself. It is a strange, and unfortunately quite unromantic, story that aspired from the imaginations of -- you guessed it -- men. However, the real story of the first man and the first woman is not really relevant, all things considered.

At this point, I must profess that I consider myself a Christian, i.e., I do believe in Christ, and certainly in His teachings. I don't belong to any church, however. I find more comfort, as well as more information, in studying and/or meditating quite alone. Religious debate is futile at any rate. That being said, I must say that as the program continued, remarking on Mary's Magdalene, the program became much more interesting. Once again, a woman has been marked as an instigator of evil, a prostitute. These men writing the Bible were obviously truly fearful of women, I would say. Her book was one that was banned from the Bible. She not only knew too much of the metaphysical, she was a female.

I've given a great deal of thought of what it means to be a so called nonpracticing Christian. And the truth is, while I become very much enthralled with any new thoughts regarding Christianity, I don't like the reading of church bulletins, the singing of choirs, and being surrounded by people who attend church who have absolutely no interest in the spiritual. Actually, it gives me the creeps.

There is so much to be said on the subject of Christianity -- as well as for all religions -- that it is pointless to go into further discussion. The one point I want to make to the doubters who are inevitably presented on any program involving religion is this: Whether one believes in Christ or not in terms of he Resurrection, there is no doubting that He lived. To say otherwise is to say that Shakespeare never existed, that someone wrote his works under a false name. So what? It was written, it was beautiful, and regardless of whose name it was penned.

I'm always in search for the thoughts of others. I'm not a dyed in the wool fanatic. In fact, I shun fanatics on any issue, especially when it comes to religion. Any thoughts?