Genecystic God: The Source of Evil, Lies and Hypocrisy




If God is Christian then he is the creator of and responsible for all Evil and for allowing it to continue to exist.

'Free Choice' you say?

How can we have free choice when we are not free to decide between Good and Evil, you might ask?

I'll tell you why the ability to have free choice instilled in humanity has no bearing whatsoever and is not required to have in any way, the choice of Evil.

I've heard numerous Christians employ just such an argument, in favour of the existence of Evil. They would say things such as "What is there to choose between if not Good and Evil?" I don't see how they cannot see the obvious fallaciousness of this flimsy, tired excuse for an argument. Perhaps they are drinking too much from the Holy Grail.

Let's consider free choice apart from any Good vs. Evil constriction.

How can we exercise a free choice? Ok. Hmm. I wake up in the morning and I go to have some breakfast, and freely choose Reese's Peanut Butter Puffs over Raisin Bran. Is Raisin Bran Evil? Some may figuratively consider it as such, but consensus would tell us that no, Raisin Bran is not Evil; it is just a brand of cereal. I could easily extend this choice to as many brands of cereal that I might have available for breakfast, numbering easily into dozens.

Does this begin to bring light on the situation with respect to Good, Evil and free choice? If not, I'll spell it the fuck out then.

Evil is not necessary in order to have "free choice."

Read it again. Until you understand why. Analogize with breakfast choices.



Why is Evil one of the choices?



We can freely choose between myriad options. The overwhelming majority of that free choosing that we can do is between various actions innocuous to our soul's judgment. Most of the choosing we do has no bearing on our fate in Heaven or Hell. Whether I choose Corn Flakes or Rice Krispies cannot fathomably render us in need of atonement now can it?

If you doubt this claim, just consider all the choices we must make each day. There are literally thousands. When to wake, what to wear, when and how much to clean ourselves, what to read, what music to hear - all these things and more comprise the bulk of our freedom in choosing.



So then, is Evil necessary for humanity to have the ability to freely choose?

Absolutely not.

Freedom of Choice is exercised between perceived options. Period.



Now it is clear that free choice does not necessitate the existence of Evil. Why then does Evil exist at all?

Perhaps we should digress then, and attempt to first define "Evil"

The common lexicon shows us these as defining Evil:

–adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: Evil deeds; an Evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: Evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on Evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an Evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his Evil disposition.
6. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an Evil temper.

–noun
1. that which is Evil; Evil quality, intention, or conduct: to choose the lesser of two Evils.
2. the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
3. An Evil force, power, or personification.
4. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both Good and Evil.
5. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social Evils of poverty and injustice.
6. the wicked or immoral part of someone or something: The Evil in his nature has destroyed the Good.
7. harm; mischief; misfortune: to wish one Evil.
8. anything causing injury or harm: Tobacco is considered by some to be an Evil.
9. a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence: the Evils of alcohol.
10. a disease, as king's Evil.



Most all of the words used to describe Evil are merely vague synonyms for Evil: wrong, bad, immoral, wicked, sin, harm.

Focusing only on the noun Evil, we see some few distinctions.

In the least sinister sense, Evil is seen as an outside objects that are passive against humanity, i.e. which have no force to act upon us: tobacco, alcohol etc.

Moving from an object being Evil in and of itself, the breadth of Evil then encompasses outside, active agents which do have force upon us: misfortune, destruction, injury, disease.

Now more sinisterally and perhaps poignantly, Evil also includes human intent or emotion/state: anger, irritability, irascibility, immoral, wicked, harmful, bad, anger, spite, maliciousness, injustice. The definition of Evil extends from without to include from within, humanity. Evil does not just exist outside of humanity, it is considered to come from within humanity as well. The saddling of humanity with the Original Sin lays claim to explain such failings.

Since what is exactly bad or immoral is subjective, so far, this digression has led nowhere. The only thing collectively purloined from the definition of Evil is succinctly: "things we don't like."

Most malevolently, Evil is considered as an outside, active force at total odds with Good, separated entirely from humanity, yet acting upon it. Evil of this nature is often personified because of humanity's inclination to anthropomorphize. Evil personified is The Devil; Lucifer; Satan.

What then is the Source of Evil, this entity which may be coming from within us or coming from some outer, malevolent, powerful entity? Has the title of this post given that away?

Since all three major Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all begin with the Hebrew scriptures, let's look to Genesis (King James Version) for clarification on what constitutes Evil:



Genesis 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.


Of course the beasts of the earth include serpents. Did God see even the serpents as Good? Hold that thought till further down.



Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.
Genesis 1:27 And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female.
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it. And have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heavens, and all animals that move upon the earth.


Does man having dominion over these beasts imply somehow that these beasts can deceive/persuade us? Dominion means rule; control; domination. Is it possible then logically that any beast would have the ability to control man? Again, hold this thought too till further down and I will conflate these and other indications of the Source and Nature of Evil.



Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold! I have given you every herb seeding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree seeding seed; to you it shall be for food.
Genesis 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the heavens, and to every creeper on the earth which has in it a living soul every green plant is for food; and it was so.


Tangentially, it seems God is espousing vegetarianism here plainly by the fact that he calls plants food and does not call animals food. By contrast, animals, like humans are said to have a soul.



Genesis 2:9 And out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food. The tree of life also was in the middle of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil.

...

Genesis 2:15 And the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, You may freely eat of every tree in the garden,
Genesis 2:17 but you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. For in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.


Let it not go unnoticed here the blatant contradiction of the statement implied by 2:16/2:17, also contradiction 1:29 from above.

"you may freely eat of every tree...you shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil"

One cannot both freely eat of every tree and not freely eat of every tree. The former excludes the latter - if the second stipulation is maintained, i.e. eating from the forbidden tree, then the first declaration is invalid and useless.

Secondarily, why might this Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil have been put there in the first place? A temptation? Which biblical character is most often associated with temptation? Do you see where I'm going with this? I'll tie this notion down more firmly after I continue with a few more quotes from Genesis.

Suffice it to say, at least insofar as Adam's choices, there was but ONE "bad" choice and the entirety of the rest of his choices were merely between various "good" things.

Continuing with excerpts from Genesis in order to further implicate God as the true source of Evil:



Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, Is it so that God has said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Genesis 3:2 And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.
Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.


Now it has become known that God has personally placed not only just a single, forbidden temptation in this Garden of Eden, but even more dangerously, he has placed a tempter - The Serpent. I guess the test wasn't adequate enough that Adam and Eve only had to resist one forbidden choice. They now are subject to an influencer who God put in his own Garden of Eden, a persuader whose first and only inclination was to convince Eve to do the one forbidden choice.



Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said to the woman, You shall not surely die,
Genesis 3:5 for God knows that in the day you eat of it, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing Good and Evil.


Let us pay particular attention to these statements by The Serpent. The Serpent, who very recently was placed in this Garden of Eden, as per 1:25 cited above, has more knowledge regarding this Tree of Good and Evil than does Eve.

How did a lowly serpent become privy to such ideas and inclinations to persuade against God... a serpent whom is ostensibly under the control, under the dominion of man?

Let us also analyze the veracity of The Serpent. The Serpent boldly tells Eve that if she did eat from that tree, she "shall surely NOT die" - in TOTAL negation of God's prediction in 2:17: "you shall surely die." We'll find out soon who was telling the truth, God or the Serpent. The Serpent then adds some very peculiar details. The Serpent claims to know what is in God's mind regarding this Tree. The Serpent proclaims possessing this knowledge, knowledge to which Eve was not yet privy, they "shall be as gods, knowing Good and Evil." This means that it is a both a requirement and a fulfillment of being a god to have knowledge of Good and Evil, according to The Serpent.

The Serpent tells the same story as God, insofar as what the Tree contains and that consuming it will result in them possessing knowledge of Good and Evil. The Serpent adds one more claim, an even BOLDER claim - that knowing of Good and Evil will make them as gods. This indicates a possible multiplicity of gods and more glorious perhaps even, that anyone can attain it by merely consuming from that one Tree, the one choice God had forbidden. Did not God already say, though, in 1:26 and 1:27 that man was to be made, by His own hand, in his own image? Of course he did. It's cited above.

Did God lie when He said that man was made in His image? Why would making man in his own image include an ignorant, superficial, less powerful, less knowledgeable image?

We'll see further down how and if God corroborates anything else of what The Serpent has claimed.



Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasing to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make wise, she took of its fruit, and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.


So mere suggestion to flout God's ONLY forbidden "choice" Eve was easily, gullibly persuaded by a beast that was under her own dominion, according to God in 1:26 and 1:28, cited above. Did God lie about this dominion because this dominion was easily circumvented by its dominioned, i.e. the beasts, i.e. The Serpent?

Keep this notion of who was lying and who was Knot, till further down, for results.

Also, the Tree made by God and placed by God was "pleasing to the eyes" and its fruit was edible. Another, further temptation for man to act against God - a temptation, like The Serpent and like the Tree's existence itself, placed there by God himself! God could not stick with his first assertion that Adam and Eve were free to harvest from any tree. He decided, for some mysterious reason, to place a tree that if harvested, would render the consumer apprised of what is Good and what is Evil. It should be stressed here that aside from eating of this tree, there was nothing else made explicit from which Adam and Eve were forbidden. Nothing. God placed it there for His own unfathomable reason - or perhaps He had no choice! It wasn't enough for God to give His creation choices limited only to Good. He placed one Evil (bad; forbidden) choice amongst the infinite Good choices - The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Summarily for this point, it is implied then that it is Evil to be aware of what Evil is!

Why did God not want man to have knowledge of Good and Evil? If it were so dangerous and malevolent, why should He place the Tree there to begin with? Why place beasts in the Garden of Eden who are able to easily persuade their own ignorant rulers against His orders? Furthermore, why the fuck make the tree aesthetically pleasing? Tripartite temptations here. A test then? It sounds rather specious to consider that God would place a test upon man, with multiple temptations to renounce Him, and not even tell man he was being tested. God only told them that they would die if they were to eat from it.

Irregardless, let's see who lied and who died:



Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of both of them were opened. And they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made girdles for themselves.

The Serpent was correct at least in that their eyes would be opened. This led to their realization that they were naked, i.e. lacking clothes to cover themselves. Knowing they are unclothed has now made them compelled to be clothed? The underlying assertion here is that there is some compelling reason now to cover themselves, knowing that they are naked. why should anyone feel compelled to wear coverings after realizing they didn't have any coverings, merely by learning that coverings are things which could be done? This newfound knowledge seems to imply to them also somehow that they should be ashamed to be without garments. Is it Evil to wear garments? Is the Evil in the shame of nakedness which compels man to clothe himself? I'd think the weather and protection of vitals would also factor into this equation. What made Adam and Eve ashamed merely by learning that there were such things as coverings for their bodies? Or was it the shame of their own body that they learned, precipitating the compulsion to clothe, to cover themselves up? Consensus would tell us that there is nothing outwardly "bad" about nudity. Most people realize this. So that leaves us with the only choice that the Evil associated with this issue of clothing themselves must have been borne out of erroneous knowledge, information which told them they ought to be ashamed of being naked.

So this ominous Tree that God Himself placed in His Garden of Eden was in fact edible but seems to contain knowledge which is erroneous, i.e. lies. Something from that consumption of that Tree immediately made Adam and Eve aware that they ought to be ashamed to be naked. Whatever mode by which they acquired this notion from that Tree is irrelevant to the fact that they did in fact get imparted this notion of shame/nudity immediately after consuming from this forbidden Tree. The notion that nudity ought to cause shame was and is a lie.

Why would God put a Tree of Lies & Temptations in his Garden of Eden but deceptively and even attractively call it the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? This first piece of knowledge that Adam and Eve learned from this forbidden Tree was a lie. Lies do not fit under the heading “Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Knowledge of what is Good and what is Evil is only an exposure to what is Good and Evil and a distinguishment between Good and Evil. The title of this Tree does not imply that the first or any knowledge gleaned therein would necessarily be erroneous. Knowledge implies Truth.

Were it called simply The Tree of Good and Evil, then one could expect it to be spouting all manner of lies and truths. But it wasn’t. It was called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Knowledge = facts.

When we consult a book of knowledge do we expect it to be full of errors and outright lies? Of course we don’t. We expect it to be attempting to approximate the Truth.

God put a Tree of Knowledge whose first effect on humanity was to instill a notion that they ought to be ashamed to be naked – a lie. If God had told Adam and Eve beforehand the Truth that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was actually a misnomer and that this Tree would cause man to believe deceptions, to believe lies, then Adam and Eve would have had much more incentive against using this Tree for any purpose.

Shrouded now in shame of their nudity, a notion imparted by this Tree of Lies, Genesis continues with Adam and Eve:



Genesis 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day. And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God in the middle of the trees of the garden.
Genesis 3:9 And the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, Where are you?
Genesis 3:10 And he said, I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I am naked, and I hid myself.


This confirms the earlier assertion that the wearing of clothing was only to cover up the body from others' view because it was learned to be somehow shameful to do as such, from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Perhaps the Tree of Temptations & Lies would be a more appropriate moniker?



Genesis 3:11 And He said, Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree which I commanded you that you should not eat?
Genesis 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.


Tangentially, God appears to not even know what Adam and Eve have been up to in the Garden of Eden or to whom they have spoken, although this does indicate that there was in fact someone whom He knew (The Serpent?) who had knowledge of this nakedness/shame issue which Adam and Eve only learned by eating from the forbidden Tree.

It seems God isn't all knowing - either that or again, God lied.

Moreover, had some beasts then also been given this opportunity, this test of God's will, to not consume from this Tree, and also failed? Otherwise why would He ask them “who” told them they were naked? The Bible does not describe any person who may have been privy to any knowledge outside of Adam and Eve, though it clearly shows The Serpent was privy to some such information. God seemed to suspect that there was someone capable of enlightening them about the nakedness/shame issue aside from getting that information from the Tree. He must have been suspecting the only other character introduced, the character whose only purpose in the story was to persuade Adam and Eve that consuming from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil would open their eyes to the knowledge of Good and Evil and make them as gods in so doing.



Genesis 3:13 And the LORD God said to the woman, What is this you have done? And the woman said, The serpent deceived me, and I ate.

How does Eve yet know she was even deceived? So convincing was this erroneous notion of shame to this gullible Dominatrix of beasts, Eve, that she and Adam immediately saw the plausibility in having shame and moved to clothe themselves. Yet now, in merely being questioned by God why she did what he forbid, she only states that she was "deceived" by The Serpent.

What deception has she realized? What new information has she learned that helps her to understand that she was deceived? The Serpent made three simple claims.

The first was that she surely would not die. This claim was valid, as Eve was still alive and now talking to God (This points out that GOD LIED in fact when he said that they would "surely die" if they ate from that Tree. They did not die. God made a mistake?). So Eve was not deceived by this claim - this claim was true.

The second claim by The Serpent was that their eyes "would be opened" to Good and Evil. This claim was confirmed in the narrative in Gen 3:7, cited above. Their eyes were in fact opened to Good and Evil. So Eve was not deceived by this claim either - this claim was also true.

The third claim made by the Serpent, the boldest claim of the three, regarding the consumption from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, was that in learning of this knowledge of Good and Evil they would become as gods. Does God also corroborate this third, bold assertion by The Serpent? He sure does:



Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know Good and Evil.
(This verse was truncated leaving only the first, relevant portion. The entire verse is cited below in wider context)

God Himself confirms that The Serpent's third claim was also true, making unanimous the veracity of The Serpent!

Was Eve lying about being deceived by The Serpent? Either Eve was lying, or she suspected that The Serpent had lied with no call to suspect it. Perhaps her fear of God’s wrath inclined her to lie about The Serpent’s claims being deceptive purely out of her own compulsion for self-preservation. One must admit, God does sound sort of pissed off at them. Was this possible fear of reprisal justified, for Eve, to feel? Did God in fact punish Adam and Eve? We’ll find out below.

So, keeping score for God then, in the Game of Truth, we have God lying that Adam and Eve would die upon eating from this Tree. They did not die.

GOD LIED.

Either that or he is not omniscient - you Christians can choose which type of God is more palatable to worship - I'd rather Knot.

And keeping score for The Serpent, we see only three claims, and all three have been substantiated: they did not die, their eyes were opened to Good and Evil, and as God then confirmed, Adam and Eve did in fact become "as us" (gods).

Why the plurality and to whom is God referring, this “us” who pre-existed Adam and Eve's ascension to that same distinction?

Who are these mysterious other gods to which he is referring to as "us"?

And most importantly, at the crux of this digression into the biblical Source of Evil, is the question of why God did not want man to have his eyes opened to Good and Evil, to become "as gods"? He earlier claimed that His intention was to make man in His own "image" yet not intending to be a facsimile image, with all the knowledge of Good and Evil which He allowed himself and whoever comprised the "us" but forbid Adam and Eve from knowing. Why is becoming "as gods" - "as one of us" - something God did not want?

Let's see if God gives us any indication as to his motivations, further into this 3rd chapter of Genesis:



Genesis 3:14 And the LORD God said to the serpent, Because you have done this you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every animal of the field. You shall go upon your belly, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life.


The Serpent made three claims about the Tree; all three claims were substantiated; all three were Truth. The Serpent was telling the Truth. The three claims that The Serpent made were all true – they would not die, their eyes would be opened to Good and Evil, and they would become as gods.

For speaking this truth, and speaking no lies, what did this serpent, this beast under the dominion of man then receive? Cursed to eat dust for all its days. This God does not value Truth. He punishes The Serpent for proffering The Truth to Adam and Eve. Nothing that The Serpent said can be construed as a lie or any type of deception.



Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.


Because Adam and Eve exercised their initially free choice to eat of any tree in the Garden of Eden, which was then amended by God to all trees but one, what fate do they suffer? Now is God’s big chance to make good on the ostensible lie that they would surely die from consuming it.

Do they yet die? Nope.

Is eating food intrinsically Evil? Of course not. What made consumption from this Tree “wrong” or “bad” or Evil was only because God said that it was such without ever saying why it was Evil to partake in the knowledge of Good and Evil. He basically said “Don’t do this because I said so.” And we still have no indication yet from God as to why gaining this knowledge of Good and Evil is negative.

An aside to those of us who are parents, as I am: When teaching a child who is ignorant of the dangers that may arise from some action, is it more likely that the child will not engage in a dangerous, forbidden activity if they are in possession of the knowledge as to why it is dangerous? Of course it is! Without comprehending why an activity is dangerous, it is much more likely that a child will engage in it, even if it is forbidden.

The punishment then meted out to Adam and Eve by God that did not include their Death was as follows:



Genesis 3:16 To the woman He said, I will greatly increase your sorrow and your conception. In pain you shall bear sons, and your desire shall be toward your husband, and he shall rule over you.


God leveled that He would, in retribution for Eve’s defiance, increase her sorrow. This implies that Eve was already subject to sorrow, somehow. What could possibly have pre-existed to cause Eve any sorrow in this Garden of Eden I cannot fathom. Nonetheless, God was intent upon increasing her sorrow only because she did what He forbid: ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Increasing her sorrow, though, was not enough to sate God’s lust for vengeance. He added that she shall bear sons in pain. So because she ate some food from a tree that God forbid her to eat from, her sorrow gets amplified by God and He also feels the need to inflict physical pain upon her. Is there a word for people who inflict pain upon other people? Yes, there sure is. They are what we call sadists. Most industrialized Western democracies have totally eliminated any form of torture or infliction of pain upon people convicted of even the worst crimes. It’s considered more humane. Democratic consensus has led societies to conclude what God cannot: inflicting pain as retribution does nothing to deter people from doing as they are told, and it does nothing to make up for any pain a person may have already caused. A murdered child cannot be replaced. At least, not in God’s world.



Genesis 3:17 And to Adam He said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it! The ground is cursed for your sake. In pain shall you eat of it all the days of your life.
Genesis 3:18 It shall also bring forth thorns and thistles to you, and you shall eat the herb of the field.
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.


Is Adam sentenced to Death? Nope. More metaphors for pain are dealt out from the sadistic hand of God though: cursed, pain, thorns, thistles, sweat, and dust. One could make the assertion that Adam being sentenced to “dust” was in fact a Death sentence of sorts. I will refute this point after my final extraction from Genesis. One more salient point first regarding nudity, as we continue through Genesis 3:



Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
Genesis 3:21 And for Adam and his wife the LORD God made coats of skins, and clothed them.


Wait a minute! Now God is making clothes for them?? How fucking fickle is that? First He is outraged and punitive over the fact that they realized they were naked, a notion purloined from the forbidden Tree. He was obviously displeased that they had learned that being naked was somehow shameful, otherwise he wouldn’t have asked them “who told you that you were naked?” God sure as hell didn’t tell them that to begin with. Despite his earlier displeasure with their shame over their nudity God now encourages it?!

Finishing off now with the end of Genesis 3 we find God’s final vengeance upon Adam and Eve for their insubordination:



Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man has become as one of Us, to know Good and Evil. And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever,
Genesis 3:23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he had been taken.
Genesis 3:24 And He drove out the man. And He placed cherubs at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.


In 3:22 God seems to be implying that because man has become one of “Us” he cannot “also” take of the Tree of Life and live forever. This seems to imply that being one of “Us” (gods) means that one cannot live forever. Gods are not eternal? Only eating from this Tree of Life, placed there by God, would make one eternal? How can something that is not eternal create something that is eternal?

Or perhaps God just didn’t want any competition as man, now on equal footing with God insofar as exposure the Knowledge of Good and Evil, would soon learn this Knowledge and possibly usurp His eternal power?

Coming full circle now, we see that humanity never needed this option of Evil. Humanity could have been left to choose among infinite Good choices. God placed Evil in His own Garden, misrepresented it to Adam and Eve, and allowed beasts He declared were under their dominion to persuade them against His orders.

Must not Eve have already been Evil then, to even consider defying God at the mere suggestion by some beast under her dominion?

Many Christians like to define Evil simply as “turning away from God” and if this were the true meaning of Evil, then Eve was Evil before she ever consumed anything from The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. She turned away from God’s only precondition to her survival by a beast’s mere suggestion that God was wrong about this Tree. If Eve was already Evil prior to consuming from that Tree then whose fault is it, ultimately? God placed the Evil choice in His Garden and made it tempting. God created man and man’s inclinations. God knew what would tempt His own creation and he allowed for them to be tempted by a Tree of Lies and Temptations. Because God created the entire scenario, the buck must ultimately stop with God and God alone.

Cataloguing the Lies of God, then summarily we have the Lie of God that all trees could be eaten from for sustenance. He later contradicted this making the claim a Lie.

Another Lie of God was that the beasts are under man’s dominion, which they clearly were not if the beasts could so easily persuade man from God’s wishes. More accurately and conversely, man was under the dominion of The Beast.

Another Lie of God was that man was created in His image. This Lie I will concede as truth, if God will admit then that He is a hypocrite for making us so much in His flawed image that we are as much a disappointment to Him as He is to me.

Another possible Lie of God was his feigning ignorance of Adam and Eve’s actions in His Garden of Eden. Is it really possible for one who creates everything to be unaware of any of it? Is God restricted by time and distance? If God created the universe then, by extension, He also created time and distance, which are features which define the universe. Is God ignorant? Did He really have to ask Adam and Eve any questions at all to know the Truth or did He just want to watch them squirm (more sadism)? We cannot extrapolate anthropomorphically from humans to God in assessing what we know of the state of our own creations. I can create a table, and soon know nothing of its whereabouts or its condition. The glaring difference here is that I did not create the molecules that comprise the table or the space in which those molecules interact. God did. God created man and the universe and allegedly everything else. It is implausible to think that one who created time and space would then be subject to, imprisoned by them. If God isn’t subject to time and space, then he stands outside of it and can see all things at once, simultaneously. There is much talk of a known, prophesized future in the Bible. These prophecies were revealed to the Prophets by God. That leaves us with the conclusion that God is omniscient, omnipotent and a Liar – by feigning that He didn’t know what Adam and Eve had done. The only other option, were God not lying in this instance, is that God is ignorant, something less than omniscient – not a great feature on His resumé to be accepted as Supreme Being.

And rounding out this list, another Lie of God was His declaration that Adam and Eve would surely die upon eating from The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Eating from that Tree alone would not of itself have harmed them in any way. It was God and only God who was capable and willing to cause harm to anyone. God exiles man from The Garden of Eden then and blocks all access to The Tree of Life. Was this then the Death of which God foretold to Adam when He cautioned against consuming from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? If it was, then God should have been more honest in his claim that in eating of that Tree that they “surely” would die. “Die” is a much more passive term than what He was really trying to convey.

What God should have said to Adam, to be more honest and accurate, is “Do not eat of this Tree or I will murder you!”


In conclusion then, we see quite clearly that The Serpent who was somehow privy to knowledge, to man brought Truth.

We see that God who feigns or is in fact ignorant, to man brought Lies, temptation, sorrow and pain.

Let’s finally turn to the prophet Isaiah for the final word on the Source of Evil in this totality of existence:



Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


Who created Evil? God did.

Where did Evil come from? From God.

What is the ultimate Source of Evil? God.

There is no longer any reason to ask why God allows Evil to exist. Evil exists inside of God and we being in His image are no less Evil.

It stands to reason then why God is such a hypocrite for expecting us, who He created in His own Evil image, to somehow be immune to Evil when even He Himself is not!



© 2006 Knot4Prophet.com All Rights Reserved. (May 2006)

_________________

Perhaps God put the tree in the garden as a lesson. It happens that there is a tree in my kitchen. The baby is not allowed to touch it. When he manages to sneak past me, he plays in the dirt & tries to eat it. He's such a good baby, that the need to correct him is rare. The tree is a teaching tool. By forbidding him to touch it & reinforcing this lesson, I have the opportunity to teach him to listen to me. This lesson will be critical for his safety and happiness because there are many other situations where failing to listen to me will harm him. If he does not learn to listen to me, he may run into traffic, ignoring my warnings. But if he learns in the kitchen that he should listen to me, then in a wider world with more potential hazards, it becomes easier for me to keep him safe and provide guidance to shield him from potentially injurious situations.

Consider God's instructions to the Israelites. Some of them seem as pointless as the forbidden tree. For instance, some are dietary restrictions. At the time, they did not seem to be any more than a test or God being a control freak.

The Israelites were not to eat pork. Pointless restriction. However, knowledge of sanitation was not sufficient at the time. Pork was a health hazard. They could have eaten some and it may have been safe, but as a protection, God told them to abstain from it. The baby could run into the street and not be hit by a car. But because of the risk, I forbid him from doing it at all. Absolute obedience would serve as a protection in this respect. Obedience would protect him while he is not yet able to comprehend the consequences. At the time God forbade pork consumption, the Israelites lacked knowledge of microbiology. Should he have tried to teach them all about microbiology and set up a lab for them to learn why pork was a danger? Drag them hundreds of years into the future of science to make each point? Or simply give them directions that would protect them?

So perhaps the tree was not set as a mere temptation, but as a small lesson upon which God would build man's ability to follow protective directions. If there were no 'evil' choice & all of the choices were 'good', how would man learn the value of listening to any of God's direction? There would be no opportunity. Just like my son who is so good that it is rare to have an opportunity to correct him & teach him to listen to me.

The Bible says that the first couple were created perfect. This would rarefy learning opportunities. We could speculate as to what lessons God would need to teach man later. (I'm not bothering)

Perhaps it is accurate to say that God created evil. Would you want your children to be robots who obeyed your every command? Or are they more interesting when they have free will to express themselves and choose whether or not to follow your directions? When they freely choose to love you, is it more satisfying than if they were robots who had no other choice? You are proud of the good choices they make. You derive happiness and satisfaction from their expressions of personality. If they display a love of loyalty & truth, does it make you proud? You are happy for the choices they make and you try to help them learn to make such choices. What joy would "Stepford" children be? Adam was like a child to God. Why would he want a robot who had no option to disobey? What joy could he derive from Adam's actions then?

You encourage your children to swear because you want them to think for themselves and not blindly follow the norms others impose on them.

Did death have to immediately follow eating from the tree? Granted, the Bible says this would happen in 'the day' they ate of the fruit. But if the 'day' is taken figuratively, then it did not have to be a 24 hour period.

The Bible says there were 'days' in which God created the earth. Geology does not support these 'days' as literal 24 hour periods. For some of these 'days' there was no sun to even distinguish day & night. So 'day' could be extended to be a figurative time period rather than confined to 24 hours.

Biology bears out that the body's healing abilities should perpetuate life. Aging and death are not the logical conclusion given cells' ability to regenerate. Aging is a defect that runs counter to the orderliness of life. If this defect were removed, humans would not age & die.

Perhaps on the 'day' that Adam ate the fruit, he received this defect. You say that Adam gained knowledge of nudity from the fruit. So perhaps he also received this defect from the fruit. While his death was not instant, he was no longer perfect and began the process of aging. The aging would inevitably result in death. He was a 'dead man walking.'

The serpent (purported to be possessed by the devil) did not just encourage Eve to partake of the fruit. The devil raised the question of whether humans would willingly obey God. If God were to immediately wipe out humans, this would not answer the question. The answer would have to come through time & allowing men free will. Also in question was man's need for God's direction. Why should man obey God? Why not discard God and follow free will?

Your 'soul' writing hints at the answer. You assert that humans are self-destructive. Their free will leads them in a course that is counter to survival & you contrast this to other life forms. Could this destructive course be averted by following God's admonition? Please don't read "religion" into this. Religion is a perversion of God's directives. You value qualities that harmonize with values many Biblical principles. Sans religion, if humans actually followed these principles, would some of the destruction be halted? Even if you view the Bible as a fairy tale, there are lessons to be derived from it. Again, ignore religion because religion twists the lessons.

If there is a God, how would you learn about him? I believe you would employ logic, truth, and fact. Don't be blinded by religion. Why argue against what is obviously false and worthless? Rather than proving how wrong religions are, would it not be more productive to discard it and simply seek truth? Rage at the evils of religion is an understandable reaction. The revolting acts of the "devout" are innumerable. Many have examined these faults. Many have written of the evils and hypocrisy of religion. It is an established fact. Why not move beyond it & stop screaming at the deaf?

_________________

Great post, Muppet. You are one of the few Christians I have met who actually attempted to constructively argue one of my essays without dismissing it entirely, out of hand. It obviously took some effort to absorb my entire argument and logically mount an attack against it. Bravo.



Ah, but the salient difference here is that you did not create the environment in which your child is in - you, too are subject to it. This is not the case with God. If you did have the power to create the environment for your child, would you not make it safe? Does not the fact that you strive towards safety imply that you would make it as safe as possible, if you could? God created the environment in which his "children" were in. He fully controlled every single aspect of that creation, unlike humanity. He intentionally put danger into that creation. When you reference the world's other "potential hazards" as reasoning and justification for making your child understand danger, that's because there is actual, real danger in the environment over which we have no control. It's obviously prudent to enact strategies with our children that will help them avoid future danger. Was it necessary though, for God to create an environment with danger in it? There was no uncontrollable, dangerous environment that God was subject to in order that he might want to teach humanity how to avoid it. He created it entirely for the purpose of it existing, alone. Would the Garden of Eden have been empty without such a Tree?



Dietary restrictions and some other various "laws" listed in the Bible were in many cases, common sense. The restrictions had health of the populace as a motivating factor. We still have dietary standards laws in effect today. To imagine that God would micromanage such pedantic details of his creation would make him the epitome of ineptitude. Lol, he could just tell us, en masse, anytime he wants. The law against the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, in contrast, was the very first law applied to His creation. It wasn't a health related dietary restriction. The tree was a symbol of Knowledge, and named thusly. To eat of the fruit would imbibe one, symbolically, with the Knowledge contained therein. The law was applied against Knowledge, not food. And again, referring to the child needing obedience to avoid the danger of passing cars, would we all not totally eliminate this mortal danger if we could, for our children? I sure would. Do I think that children being exposed to danger, in and of itself, is a good thing? Nope. I see no purpose in it. Danger creates its own necessity for precaution. If there were no danger, there would be no need for precaution towards it.



This is where we get to the real issue at hand being dealt with by this essay. Is evil necessary? I can imagine no scenario where it is. If all of our choices were good and we could not endanger someone else our ourselves, how is that bad? Why would man need to learn the value of God's direction if God's direction is teaching us to avoid something He created in the first place? Did He create evil just so have something to give us direction over? I see no value in the creation of Evil, whatsoever.



If they were perfect, then it was perfect to exercise their own will against any law, as they did, and to Know. If they were perfect, they wouldn't need to learn anything. If something is created perfect, then that would be inviolable. How can perfection make itself imperfect?



Oh He created evil alright. Isa 45:7 shows that. So are you saying that God created evil so that his creation of humanity would have some venue for insubordination, to cure his boredom? Evil was created to make things interesting? Seems more like sadism, to me. If we have free will why should we need to follow His? Doesn't that abrogate our own free will by having to follow His? The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away? Lol.



Why is obeisance a factor, at all? I don't understand the necessity in it, whatsoever. If there was no evil created, there would be no need for obeisance to God to avoid it. Did he create evil just so that He could have us obey him, arbitrarily?



Yes, I encourage them to exercise their own free will. The only laws I impose on them are one required for their own safety - safety from danger from which I cannot always protect them.



By what rationale should we use to determine when God is being literal and when God is being symbolic, in the Bible? I agree that a symbolic approach to the Bible is much more productive and rational than any attempt at a literal translation. I would take it further, though, and include much of the Bible's content as symbolic. People were ignorant and superstitious enough to believe in laws that were said to come down from the highest authority - superseding laws of any government. What was actually happening, though, was that commonplace laws that were determined by social consensus, were written down for efficiency, then their source was mythologized to give them pre-eminence.



The life cycle of birth/reproduction/death maximises survial in a dynamic environment. As the environment changes, which it does, biolgy, through by evolving through generations, can more readily adapt to changes in the environment than it could with extremely long lived members. Death, seen in this light, is not a defect at all, but rather a method of sustenance, for biology as a whole. The "danger" of the dynamic environment is what necessitated the life cycle of biology in order to adapt to this changing environment, successfully. If the environment never changed, was never a danger, death would not be beneficial nor necessary.



What parent, in their right mind, leaves rotten fruit out for their children to possibly eat? (especially if we knew the dire consequences of eating such fruit) I like your explanation for the fact of death, as arising (and fulfilling the prophecy of death upon eating of the Tree) out of humanity's own actions. Once this Knowledge was made known, perhaps death became necessary, then, so that humanity would still be able to survive, but through evolution, in order to adapt to the constant danger, the evil, presented by the environment. Rather karmic. Now regarding the nudity, Adam quickly realized, after acquiring Knowledge, that he was naked. This really makes no sense, at all. The people to whom this lesson was being taught already understood the value in clothing themselves. Of course it provides protection from the elements, but Adam and Eve's realization was regarding the shame of being naked, which was, and still is, a societal norm. The only reason people in society would clothe themselves apart from physical protection concerns, is because society finds nudity, especially nakedness of genitals, as negative. If there were no "society" as in Eden, there would be no reason to implicate nudity as shameful.

(The reasons why society finds nudity shameful makes for an interesting analysis, perhaps on another thread. I'll elucidate briefly here. That writers of a Bible would use socially accepted norms against nudity which are applicable only in a societal context, and apply them to Adam and Eve, is not exculpatory. Only someone who had once worn clothes and lived in a society that adhered to such rules against nudity would see any value in clothing themselves. Shame would only be a factor in a societal context. There was no one from which to "hide" their nakedness. Husbands and wives are frequently naked around each other. Shame only becomes a factor when one's nudity affects other people in some negative way. Perhaps the societal admonishment against nudity of our genitals regards our very biology itself and its compulsion to pro-create and its heavy dependence upon the visual sense for inspiring such things. More concisely, perhaps we wear clothes to mitigate our inclinations towards sex. This can be seen as possibly maximizing our survival, as well, insofar as the factors of promiscuity, disease and overpopulation are concerned. The "shame" then in nudity would be a shame associated with any act against survival.)



I think the existence alone of the serpent is an interesting aspect itself. Obviously God knew the serpent was there. The serpent was created along with Eden. Leaving aside literalism, what then could the serpent symbolically represent? The first word used to distinguish this serpent from all other creatures was its "cunning." Cunning is not necessarily a bad thing. Ingenuity, skillfulness, craftiness, adeptness - these are the words used to define cunning. This would account for how the serpent was able to manipulate Eve, but it does not account for why it would want to manipulate them (or anyone) at all, nor why it would want to manipulate them against its own creator.

To me, the serpent symoblizes "free will" itself. It is the impetus for humanity to do what humanity wants. The Bible is all about submitting our own will to God's will. It would only be natural to then symbolically represent humanity's inclination to exercise its own free will in a creature that epitomizes evil - a serpent. The Bible is about subjection to God and God's rules. The serpent symbolizes and concurrently (attempts to) demonize the role of free will, in line with the rest of the Bible, which is comprised mainly of rules. Some are stated outright, while other rules (lessons) are taught using fictional narratives, giving the rules a more personal, justified, human impact. Does that mean that these rules actually came from God? Certainly not. Is it possible that the creator's rules were given to us implicitly and religion is merely humanity's efforts at codification of that which was already known implicitly? This would explain the abundance of similarity across religions.



So yes, I agree that these rules or lessons taught by religion are practical and even natural. Humans express what they know, naturally. Humans want to survive, naturally. Humans then naturally express anything they know that will maximise their survival.



Of those three, all we really possess is logic and we possess that inherently, innately. What comprises "truth"? We can never be sure. Truth is merely a confidence level assigned to probabilities determined by a logical examination of extant evidence. "Facts" are dependent upon the context we give them. The "fact" that boiling water is "hot" is meaningless to something that cannot experience its heat. So our interpretion of what is and what is not a "fact" is limited by our sensory perception and classified using logic and maintained by awareness. So, to re-ask your question, how would one learn about God? We may not be able to do that at all, but the best route is one we are already on: Knowledge (facts). Using our innate logic coupled with our awareness which gives us recall, when applied to our environment and ourselves (creation) using our sensory perceptions, is the only way we have to learn about a God, or anything else.



If I truly thought that people were deaf, I wouldn't bother to dissect and analyze the Bible. Because religion, especially Christianity, is used a currency to fund and promote evil so often throughout history, I find it is worthwhile to give people a reason to have rational doubts about this religion's veracity. My intent is to encourage people to use their own free will to determine what is right and what is wrong. My intent is to light a path for them out of the darkness of dogmatism. A path that makes sense. A path that leaves behind the tools of evil - religion.

_________________

I was recently discussing the argument in this essay with a Christian that I know. After hearing my argument (she hasn't read this essay) and some consideration, she produced a link to a website called the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry which does exactly as the name says, they make apologies for Christian foibles. This response from this website is an excellent example of Christian casuistry at work, an eisgetical, circumlocutory convolution. I'll present their argument here in full, then examine it below:









What this casuist has done has attempted to misconstrue the actual meaning of the word 'rah' to mean something other than, something lesser than, evil. The glaringly erroneous conclusion is based on flawed logic, on multiple counts.

Firstly, it plainly states that the word "rah" appears in the (KJV) bible 663 times translated primarily as "evil" and to a lesser degree, other words that also equate with evil: "wicked", "bad", "hurt", "harm", "ill", "sorrow", "mischief", "displeased", "adversity", "affliction", "trouble", "calamity", "grievous", "misery", and "trouble."

The writers of the bible felt that these things are all equivalent to evil or they wouldn't have equated them by choosing this word. Indeed, all of them things listed are some specific type of evil, regardless. The breadth of selection of words used to translate this one word "rah" speaks to the variability of biblical interpretation and the difficulties with transliteration in general. Notwithstanding this semantic, casuistic chicanery, the attempted obfuscation is vacuous, meritless. None of the words listed as translated from "rah" do not imply an evil of some type. They are all shades of the same concept, which is why ancient Hebrew used only one word for all of them - they ARE the same. The only thing the English translations do is rarefy and specify the type of evil, since we evolved to incorporate more specific terms in language, naturally. Nonetheless, the words all have as their root the Hebrew word "rah" which implies evil of some type. The ancient Hebrews didn't distinguish between the different types of evil. By using that word "rah" they equated them all as evil. The reason that the english translators mostly translated "rah" into "evil" is because evil is the best word, overall, to translate the word "rah" into. Only when more specific words for specific types of evil were implied, did the other English words gets used instead of evil. This does not mean that the original writers wanted to use a word that didn't mean "evil." That is utter nonsense.

Secondarily, the writer(s) of this attempted refutation go on to then use these other words into which "rah" was translated in some literary sleight-of-hand fashion, to distance God from the creation of "rah" and to fabricate some distinguishment between moral evil and "natural" evil.



For humans, since we have no control over nature (hurricanes, etc) there can be a distinguishment made from humanity's evil intentions. This argument does not extend to God, unless he is subject to the same conditions, subject to nature. This, of course, is preposterous. God, when raining down his "calamities" was in full control of nature. There is no distinguishment of man's evil intentions from God's intentions in causing "calamity." There is no moral high ground. By calling it "natural" this article's writer(s) is attempting to make some evils "just" which is contradictory. There is no moral distinction between evil caused by man and evil caused by God using natural means over which he has full control. It is absurd to pretend that by invoking the word "natural" this will somehow absolve God of the moral responsibility for creating disaster. The writer(s) admits this himself, towards the end of the article:



This is what the entire argument about God creating evil is about though. Not if God created evil - we know that he did, he admits it openly, in Isa 45:7, as quoted in the essay above, and other places in the Bible - but rather why he created evil. The author(s) of that article have no explanation except to rely on the unsupportable "God works in mysterious ways" nonsense. The articles finishes saying:



Lol. How is creating disaster, purposefully causing death and destruction not morally evil? God creates evil in the moral sense, in the natural sense and in the very conception of evil itself. There would be no evil unless God labelled some activity that he made possible as "evil" to begin with.

God is the author of evil.


Period.

_________________

The Bible I use also translates it as calamity. Even if 'calamity' is not distinguishable from 'evil' because humans suffer in calamity, the calamity/evil may be justice rather than simply sadism. For example, the calamity of the flood killed all but Noah & his family, yet God's reason for bringing this calamity was to destroy humans for depravity. (The example of the flood is unique in that spirit creatures had intervened in human affairs by making fleshly bodies and reproducing with human women & producing Nephilim.)

Human history is learning experience. The way that God has dealt with humans has changed over time. He no longer wipes out all of the bad people & leaves a few 'good' people to start over.

Back to the original question of the tree in Eden, is its existence unequivocally evil? Although God's instructions were specific in stating that Adam & Eve were to not eat from the tree, it is possible that they would be allowed to eat of the tree at some future time. While they were perfect humans, they were not created with complete knowledge. God was in the process of teaching them. Perhaps it was not time yet for them to gain the knowledge from the tree.

Note that Genesis 2:9 says there were 2 trees: the tree of knowledge & the tree of life. Adam & Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. The serpent told Eve to eat from this tree to become like God. Did she become like God? She gained certain knowledge, but she certainly did not become like God. She was not a spirit creature, still fleshly. Adam & Eve did not receive all of the qualities of God, only a limited amount of knowledge.

After they ate from the tree of knowledge, God took measure to keep Adam & Eve from eating from the tree of life. You noted that the tree of knowledge did in fact grant them knowledge. So presumably, the tree of life would sustain their lives. As death was the consequence of disobedience, it was not God's original intention. Logically then, God's original intention was for humans to not die. Genesis 3:22 indicates that God took measures to cut them off from the source of eternal life by denying them access to the tree of life. If God did not originally intend for humans to die, and the tree of life was the means for preserving life, it would stand to reason that God intended for humans to eat from this tree at some point. Yet his original instructions forbid them from eating from this tree. So this command was likely to change at some point. Perhaps the command regarding the tree of knowledge was to change as well.

Therefore, creating the tree as a trap for humans is not necessarily a correct conclusion.

As for the serpent, the Bible indicates that this was not simply an animal created by God. Revelation 12:9 says: So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth...

John 8:44 further states: You are from your father the Devil and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a manslayer when he began and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie.

The reference to 'manslayer' would support the idea that it was not merely a serpent who misled Eve since Satan would be a manslayer from the beginning by lying to Eve and causing humans to lose the opportunity for everlasting life. While his claim that she would gain knowledge & become more like God was proven to be true, the lie is implicit because eating the fruit caused Eve to die. God does not die, so she did not truly become like God by eating the fruit.

So if the trees were not inherently evil, then what would be the origin of evil in Genesis? Would it not be lies and disobedience? The serpent/Satan chose to lie. Eve chose to disobey. How could God's creation truly have free will if sin was not an option? While you seem to imply that God intended for humans to sin, is sin not really just one option humans had? Would they truly be free if disobeying God were not an option? God tried to guide the first humans by giving them rules and through teaching them. This would indicate that his intention was for them to choose to obey and avoid consequences.

Your stance on this subject is particularly interesting given your views on freedom. Scanning the topics chosen for your forum reveals a penchant for the 'forbidden' and desire to exercise your freedom of choice to buck rules or norms. What would you think of a God who did not allow you the freedom to make these choices?

If the trees were not inherently evil, why would God forbid humans to eat from them? Returning to the idea that this was not to be a permanent restriction, consider the knowledge that they gained. For example, they realized they were naked. While you state that nudity is an idea created in a societal context, observing very young children indicates that this is not necessarily the case. From infancy up to when a child is three to five years old, most children do not notice nudity. They do not notice the differences between male and female bodies. They do not have any qualms about their own nudity. However, at some point, they become aware of anatomical differences.

While the Bible does not indicate that the first couple were created in an infantile state physically, there is no indication that they were created with mental or emotional maturity. Therefore, the realization that they were naked could equate to the loss of innocence.

When children become aware of gender difference, adults generally react by concealing the differences. Some may be open about explaining, however, most would not consider it wise to continue to expose children to the sight of nude adults once they have this revelation. A friend spoke of her husband showering with their daughter while she was an infant. At the age of three, she showed curiosity about his anatomy and he ceased to shower with her because he then considered it inappropriate. While he did not articulate the logic of his decision, it is easy to impute that he desired to preserve her innocence.

To serve as a contrast to this preservation of innocence, consider children who are molested. Molestation commonly causes adverse effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_molestation#Effects The definition of molestation includes "any sexual interactions between an adult and a child." Exposing a child to nudity could potentially have the adverse effects described for molestation. For this reason, concerned adults will shield children from nudity.

If the first couple were mentally/emotionally not mature then their exposure to nudity can be equated to exposing a child to nudity. While Adam and Eve remained in a state of innocence, they were unaware of nudity. However, eating from the tree of knowledge made them aware that they were naked. Perhaps God was withholding this knowledge / loss of innocence until they were developmentally ready for it so as to protect them from potential harm.
______________________________
to be continued...

Justice? How is killing babies justified? They cried too loudly? Lol.



Ah so He's finally figured out how stupid that was. Bravo.



Because God, through the people who wrote his words, provided all manner of justification for his acts all throughout the Bible, it only seems likely that He would provide any and all justification for the presence of the aforementioned Tree, especially considering that this story describes the very beginning. Perhaps the Tree was meant for a different, future time, but it seems highly unlikely to me that God wouldn't mention that. Furthermore, God could conceivable imbue his creation with whatever knowledge, in whatever state, he wants. That he would create something that was flawed (in his eyes) is a testament to his own ineptitude.



The serpent said become "like" God, yes, not "become God." There is no deception there. By gaining knowledge, one becomes "like" God.



Well maybe He should have thought about all this before he let that serpent loose.



You can call it an animal, a demon, a goblin or whatever, his presence was still allowed by God, his creation came from God.



Again, one does not have to totally become something, in order to become "like" it. And really, who wants to live forever anyways? How monotonous.



The origin of evil in Genesis, in the Bible, in the world can only be laid at God's feet. He is the one who decided what evil was and that some things were evil and others good. Over and above that, exactly how does eating from a Tree, a Tree placed right in the middle of the Garden of Eden, right beside the Tree of Life, how does that consist of "evil"? Who got hurt? Nobody. God was demanding obedience for no reason whatsoever. It was not explained how the learning of the knowledge of good and evil, in and of itself, was bad. Only the disobedience. Eve used her reason and logic, after a persuasive argument by the serpent, to determine that it wasn't bad either. God wanted them to suspend reason and logic, and blindly obey, without any justification whatsoever. This sets the tone for the religion itself, whereby one must suspend reason and logic in order to maintain "faith."



I agree I have free choice, or at least the apparency of choice. What I disagree with is creating temptation, creating a temptor, defining evil, creating entities which have a capacity for evil, creating entities which are easily swayed by simple arguments to do evil, and then blaming the entities for their failings. I like free will. He could have created the game, the universe, reality, with no opportunity to do "evil." That was fully in His power. He defined evil and gave life to it, then blames His creation after giving them a capacity for it. Do you blame your kids if they fuck up? I generally blame myself. But hey, I ain't God.



If God created humans in a state where they could not easily recognize a simple, persuasive argument by an evil creature, how is that their fault? If he really wanted to preserve their innocence, perhaps He'd have removed the serpent, better yet, uncreated it.



I don't see any link between nudism and molestation. Nudity actually removes sexuality from the psyche, because people become familiar with nudity in a nonsexual context. There is no link between nudists and molestors.

I still see no rational justification for the existence of the Tree of Knowledge, the existence of the serpent, or the innate capacity for humans to do what God does not want them to do.

_________________

I was not finished!! It even says that. Now I have to read all of that ^

Would you be patient?!

How about this: the people who wrote the bible were idiots and terrible writers who couldn't notice their own contradictions, and the holy fibble is still read and believed by idiots who STILL cant, or refuse, to notice all of the logical contradictions, a thousand or so years later. And the fact that a large portion of the world's population believes this is further evidence that we're a hopeless species... or at least learn VERY slowly; Humanity needs special ed classes.

I like that explanation better... it should be easy enough for idiots to understand, and it dosn't feel like mental gymnastics having to cross reference all the goddamn points being made.

_________________
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov

That or Knot's point that God is evil, or not all-powerful, or perhaps both.

So, choose, dear Christians:

1. You are stupid.

2. God is evil and likes to see you suffer.

3. God is NOT all-powerful... which would make more sense, since he can't seem to make us in his perfect image; we're only shitty copies. If God is all-powerful and perfect, he should be able to create other perfect beings. Only imperfect beings create imperfect things.

_________________
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov