'... the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, 'Where are you?' And he said, 'I heard the sound of thee in the garden, and i was afraid, because i was naked; and i hid myself.' He said, 'Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which i commanded you not to eat?' The man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and i ate.' The the Lord God said to the woman, 'What is this that you have done?' The woman said, 'The serpent beguiled me, and i ate.' (Genesis 3:9-13).
The following account narrates the greatly disproportionate 'punishment' for an otherwise ignore-able mischief which later on was interpreted to be the 'original sin' which Mathew Fox would dare to call the 'original blessing' in his book with the same title. Besides there are quite many inconsistencies which we could ignore as the first few chapters, say up to 12, is said to be mythical.
Letting the imagination go wild, would liken the woman to be the tree of which the man was not to eat. And the irresistible woman now offers her fruit, female organ, after being beguiled by the serpent, the male organ on fire/passion!
And is it not precisely this the Lord God intended and said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him'... who at last was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh... for whom man would leave his father and mother and cleave to her and they become one flesh... (cfr. Gen 2:18-25)?
The the story of disobedience and disproportionate punishment was a flaw in the narrative and all the more so the inference of 'original sin' for reasons best known to the so-called religious genius!
