Gen. 2:6-9, God Ignored Adams Admonishment Option

Breaking the law is risky behavior.
In my view, to go around breaking the law of society or of a God, is unnecessarily risky behavior. Those that do break the law have some other frame of reference. For example, they don't put as a high a value on the risk as I do, or they may be mentally handicapped in some way, and the former may follow from the latter. I know that if I broke the law I would worry about being caught, then perform some inconvenient tasks such as lying or hiding to resolve it, then, if I got caught I would pay some fine or spend some time in Jail. For the most egregious acts, the punishment can last a lifetime. For example, the punishment for murder can get a person put in Jail for the rest of their life, and on the other hand, for stealing a piece of fruit and eating it, you may get a fine if anyone cares enough to pursue litigation.

Teaching and changing behavior.
The reason people get fined and go to jail is to pressure them to change their behavior and to condition them to follow rules. It is a form of education. Education is important to facilitate sound judgment and conformance to societal standards. From the time children are born to the time they finish their formal schooling, they undergo conditioning. They learn such things as the rules of Grammar, Math, Science, Physics, Music, Art and the lessons of History. To advance to the next level they must satisfactorily demonstrate their grasp of the information, and their proficiency is monitored periodically along the way to ensure they are progressing toward the goal of advancing. Education and changing behavior is a sound principle, but it is not limited to people. It works on animals as well.

My dogs want to put their noses on the table.
I am an expert on the behavior of my dogs, but not to the degree that God must have been an expert in Adams behavior. When I have dinner, my dogs stay out of the kitchen, where the table is, because they like to put their nose on the table (they're big dogs). I can tell them a hundred times not to put their nose on the table but after awhile, they do it anyway. So I make them stay out of the kitchen and I do not feed them from the table.
When I want to spend time with my dogs, we laze about the house, tug on a stuffed toy and they get a little petting. We all love each other (I guess they love me) and I pet them, praise them, give them instruction in the form of a stern "no", or a "sit" or a "go lay down" and they understand me and comply. When they don't, I admonish them.
I do it in a nurturing way because I don't want them to become afraid of me or they will want to avoid me. I admonish them just enough so they respect me and follow my instruction. I know that because of their nature (how they are composed), they act a certain way and we work with it. In doing so we have a happy, healthy nurturing life together. I didn't make my dogs, but I know how they act, and I accommodate their behavior, adjust and compromise with them.
How much disobedience do I tolerate? I tolerate quite a bit. What type of transgressions would get them kicked out of the house? Biting the kids.

Decision/Event Tree for teaching my dogs not to put their nose on the table.
In the diagram below I would like to draw your attention to the box labeled “Teaching phase”.

If my dogs are not in the kitchen, they decide to sleep or chew toys and have no option to disobey. They don't worry that their free will is impeded, they understand that they just have a limited number of options because an infinite number of options would just confuse them.
If my dogs are in the kitchen with me they get a warning. They will either be with me or without me, but I'll focus on when they are with me because its analogous to Adam and Eve living in the Garden with God walking around. If they put their nose on the table I have three options but one of them is not obvious. The two obvious options are to ignore the behavior or to admonish them. Ignoring the nose on the table, in my view, is out of the question. So I opt for the admonishment option. This way I can reprove them and they will stop until they are overcome by their nature and I reprove them again or they learn that to stay in the kitchen with me, they have to keep their nose off the table.
The other option that is not so obvious is the option to abandon them to the street and never have any animals in the house again until one of them kills themselves to show me they can obey. I don't choose that option for a variety of reasons. The overriding one is that I'd never have thought of it without the story of Adam and Eve in the bible and another reason is that it is freaking stupid. In my view the admonishment and instruction is by far the best option to sustain a healthy loving relationship between myself and my dogs and this is the event labeled in the diagram as the “Teaching Phase”.

Decision/Event Tree for Adam in the Garden
We all know the story. Boy meets girl, girl gets motivated when she sees that snake, and carries her fruit over to her boyfriend to share it with him. Adam follows the script, disobeys God and God kicks them out of the garden until he and the holy spirit can come back four thousand or so years later as a perfect human that obeys himself to follow the course of events of his plan that ultimately end up with his human part dying as the perfect sacrifice and he and his holy spirit bail out just before the end. The happy ending is that the human part gets resurrected and disappears amid rumors that the body was stolen, or that he was taken down before he died. It usually takes longer than a few hours to die impaled on a cross. That is why the Romans used it. In fact Josephus talks about a couple of his friends that survived a crucifixion.

Once again I'd like to draw your attention to the area labeled “Teaching Phase”. You may have noticed that the Event Tree is the same as the Dogs Event Tree. The algorithm is exactly the same. The analogy is the same. The difference is that God did not choose the admonishment option. He chose to break off the relationship rather than nurture it.
How much and what type of transgressions should God tolerate and work with? I think that most people get along well enough and follow the rules to sustain a society. Are the transgression of these people, or should I say, are your transgressions serious enough to not warrant nurturing admonishment? Think about all the things you've done today. How many of them would you be embarrassed about? How many of them are even worthy of being “exalted” to a “TRANSGRESSION” [thunder and lightning in the background]

Being in a relationship means to nurture.

Parents don't kick their kids out of the house the first time they disobey, most of the time they put up with a lot of transgressions.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

great post Lee. I said something similar here.

Anonymous said...

thanks John,
I grew up with basset hounds. I love them. maybe one day I can get another one. I have these two because I rescued them.

I started your book today. Its a beautiful piece of work. Thanks for writing it!

Anonymous said...

let me clarify.....
"these two" are not basset hounds they are types of shepherds.

T said...

Lee,

I just finally got around to reading this post. This is actually an excellent lesson in parenting, while clearly demonstrating the absurdity of the Adam and Eve story.

Great post!
Toby

Evan said...

Toby, most everything Lee is writing on this issue is bomb-proof. That's why the apologists are growing thinner and thinner on these threads :)

T said...

Yes, I agree Evan. I'm still a little disappointed that our righteous brethren didn't attempt something. I particularly like how this post ties into parenting. The main focus of my career is on parenting and as you know good parenting is not common sense. One thing that I strongly believe is that you can often tell how a person treats their children by how they treat their pets. Another valuable tidbit I've learned is that it is not our best parenting that defines us as parents, it is our worst. Just think of what God's parenting has been at his/her worst? The God of the Bible is a terrible parent. Wouldn't that make a great book? On one hand a person could write a book that outlines God's parenting practices, starting with this one Lee did. Or on the other hand, we could imagine what God's book on parenting might look like.
A Dummies Guide to Parenting
By God
Edited by Jesus Christ
Chapter 1: How gain obedience through threats of death and condemnation.
Chapter 2: How to scare the Hell out of your children.
Chapter 3: Why abuse should be legal.

eheffa said...

Thanks Lee.

This was a thought-provoking post with a very good domestic analogy. You highlight how absurd and archaic the whole sin - redemption - sacrifice idea really is...

How is it that I, in my flawed humanity, can find it within myself to forgive a neighbour who has offended me without demanding an animal sacrifice? (His damned cat has got to die for me to feel free to forgive him?) According to the Biblical view, God is so limited by (his?) moral law that "without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin"; therefore, the only solution for atonement and forgiveness of the people he "loves" is to require the brutal and sadistic sacrifice of his son.

It's hard to believe that this all made sense to me once upon a time.

-evan

Anonymous said...

hey all,
sorry I missed these comments, I wasn't monitoring this thread since I thought everybody was sick my adam bombing.

Glad you all liked it. These are designed to support another argument that I'm going to beat like a dead horse. It'll probably take a few more months to get them all out. Then after that, I'll continue on with comparing genesis to milestones in history, then when I'm done with that, I'll just use the araucaria argument diagramming software to analyze christian arguments in an informal logically kind of way. Thats my long term plan anyway and that should keep me busy for another year or so.

Araucaria is a collaborative project between Chris Reed and Glenn Rowe at the School of Computing, University of Dundee.

zilch said...

Lee, don't you have a day job? What are you doing up in the wee hours of the morning, writing posts for this cyberrag?

Anonymous said...

Hi Zilch,
I'm really an AI program, developed by a computer science lab to work on simulating human reasoning and generating and supporting natural sounding dialogue.

I never sleep, but I do develop articles designed to elicit a certain type of argument so that my programmers can measure how well I do against it.

Would you like to play a game of dialogue?

zilch said...

Lee- do you mean, do I want to play judge in a Turing Test? Sure. But I must admit a prejudice: I think you're human. Just one question to make sure: what's the difference between a duck?

Anonymous said...

Hi Zilch,
There are multiple contexts in which to answer this.
1. the word duck is ambiguous so from the context I can't tell if we are talking about a bird or an evasive action, or a fupped duck.
2. there is no 'a' in 'duck' so the difference is a, d, u, c, k
3. there is no difference between a duck because there is only a 'space'
4. there are too many differences to list in the time allotted between all the components of a duck
5. there is nothing else listed to compare a duck to

zilch said...

And P.S. Lee- I would be far more impressed with an AI program that stimulated human reasoning, than in one that merely simulated it. After all, even the venerable program Eliza did an amazingly good job of simulating a psychotherapist- although some might claim that that's no proof of intelligence. I well remember, around 1974, sitting at the IBM teletype I got broken from UCB, fixed up, and connected via modem (the kind you stuck the telephone receiver in) to a computer somewhere in the Lawrence Lab that was running Eliza, and marveling at the plausibility of the responses to my typed questions that I got.

But I still bet that you're human...

zilch said...

Lee- you've forgotten:

6) One of it's feet is both the same.

By the way- I just learned from Sean Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful that we humans have webbed fingers and toes in the embryo, but that the cells are programmed to kill themselves- in ducks, the cells are not so programmed, and so they are born with webbed feet. Just another delightful tidbit of what science can teach us- and religion cannot.

Anonymous said...

Zilch,
do you mind if I call you bruce to keep it clear?
Hear, hear! Well spoken, Bruce!

Anonymous said...

The problem is that God doesnt have to do what you say He should have done. Real Garden.Real sin from a perfect man demands a punishment.Who are you to judge God and the way He did it? His thoughts are not like ours.If we had a little less self righteousness and more recognition of our own sin , we would see the point of the story of Adam.But many eyes are not open.

The Bible says unequivocally that Jesus paid for our crimes. This is not only not some weird form child abuse, but it is not contrary to the concept of “God is love.” The cross is not just an example of Jesus’ love, because Jesus was the one who suffered, but an example of God’s love. If you understand how this is the case, you will see that the cross could never be an example of cosmic child abuse, but the greatest act of self-sacrifice and mercy that the world has ever known.

I always ask people who struggle with the justice of the cross if they are a parent and if they love their children. Yes. Do you ever punish your children? Now there’s a pause because they know the answer to that is yes, but they also see where I’m going. They have just said to punish is inconsistent with love, and since God is love then God shouldn’t punish. He should just forgive.

If you carry this objection to its logical conclusion, then Hell is out of the picture. There can’t be any Hell because that would be inconsistent with love. But God punishes throughout the Bible, from the beginning to the end. In fact, the end is one big, massive punishment. In the beginning, it’s one big punishment being tossed out of the Garden. I don’t know where people get the idea that punishment is inconsistent with love.

Now here’s the question I have for you: Is it an act of love that Jesus died on the cross for man’s sin? The correct answer is yes—John 3:16. So this is an act of God, the Father’s love, that Jesus would pay for sins of mankind.

Here’s the second question: Why is it an act of love for God the Father to punish His Son? How is it the Father’s love? I could see it being an act of love for Jesus if he chose to do it, but how is it an act of love by the Father that Jesus would lay down His life? How is it loving that the Father would punish a third party?

If you did something bad to me, and I grabbed Joe Bloggs over there and said to you that I was going to forgive you because I’m going to punch this guy out, you would wonder how it’s an act of love for me to forgive you by punching him out? It might be his love if he said to punch him out on your behalf, but hardly an act of my love. Unless - in the case of God the Father, and the Son, Jesus, that the Son is also God. That is, it is not just another man that the Father is punishing for our sins, but God who became a man Himself and took upon Himself His own just punishment.

This is why it’s so important to approach this challenge with an understanding of the Trinity, and understanding of the nature of God Jesus is God; He isn’t just an innocent third party. He is the Judge Himself suffering, the One who determines the punishment takes it, the One who passes judgment receives it. It is Jesus, the incarnate God. That is how it’s an example of the love of God.

It is precisely because God is love that He has made a way for sinful men to be forgiven and His holy quality of justice to be upheld at the same time so that, as Paul writes, He can be both the just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

The idea that the cross is an example of child abuse is just mistaken. This objection gets the cross wrong, Christology wrong, and theology proper wrong.

God cannot put up with rebellion. He does however bring to us the great nuturer Christ Jesus who wouldnt break the bruised reed. This is mercy and I feel you all have not understood the bridge between the 2 testaments. I pray you will

zilch said...

Anonymous: you say

Who are you to judge God and the way He did it? His thoughts are not like ours.

I must confess, this is the only possible answer I see to the problem of evil from a Biblical standpoint: God is the only arbiter of right and wrong, and we are in no position to judge Him. God defines good and evil, and any human feelings about good and evil are meaningless.

There are a couple of problems with this way of looking at things, however. One is the nagging questions that people in their insolence will keep asking: why did God create, or allow, evil in the first place? Why does God Himself seem to be such a bastard sometimes? How is it fair to roast people in Hell for eternity, even if they are good, just because they don't believe in Him? Of course, these are just whining and not logical problems: one can just answer "God's ways are not man's ways", or "Who are you to judge God and the way He did it?", and point out that "ours is not to wonder why, ours is just to do and die." That's the advantage of being a Big Guy in the Sky with a Big Stick: you don't have to justify yourself.

The other problem, however, is that in many places in the Bible, "good" and "evil", and "love" and "hate", are defined in ways that are familiar, and even seem to be related to the human feelings we call by those names. This has led to the mistaken impression that "God is good" in the human sense of the word "good". But this is obviously not the case, at least not all the time and for everyone.

As far as I see it, you can only be logically consistent if you either give up any claims of God being good in the human sense, or simply don't believe in the Bible. I know which one I prefer...

cheers from starry Vienna, Bruce. Er, zilch.

eheffa said...

Just one question to make sure: what's the difference between a duck?

Because it has two feet...especially the left one.

-e

Anonymous said...

"Real sin from a perfect man demands a punishment."

First, you have a contradiction. If Adam was perfect then how could he have sinned? If he sinned then he obviously wasn't perfect.

Second, what is "real sin"? How does it differ from fake sin? If you are not going to clearly define the terms you are using then you are only going to obfuscate your meaning.

Third, why must sin "demand" a punishment? If god can forgive child rapists and baby killers why couldn't he forgive Adam?

"Now here’s the question I have for you: Is it an act of love that Jesus died on the cross for man’s sin?"

No. It was an empty gesture that made god's love conditional. An act of love would have been to never have invented damnation in the first place.

"Here’s the second question: Why is it an act of love for God the Father to punish His Son? ....(It wouldn't)... Unless - in the case of God the Father, and the Son, Jesus, that the Son is also God."

This is why it is an empty gesture. A mortal death means nothing to an all powerful being. Its like the used car salesman who inflates his prices by $1000 and then tries to tell you he's giving you a discount when he takes $500 off.

"God cannot put up with rebellion."

He's all powerful, all knowing, loving and merciful, and he knowingly created us with free will, but he can't put up with rebellion.

Enough.

Anonymous said...

tigg13,
that was brilliant.
thanks.
I was going to get all diagrammy and what-not, but you took care of it elegantly.

Anonymous said...

HI Evan,
most everything Lee is writing on this issue is bomb-proof.
Thanks for the compliment,
but what topics do I need to "tighten up"?
I'll do the homework and edit the articles. I don't mind if you give "them" ammo, I'll take the heat.
;-)

Anonymous said...

Hi anon 130pm
I always ask people who struggle with the justice of the cross if they are a parent and if they love their children. Yes. Do you ever punish your children?
This is a faulty analogy. We don't kick our kids out of the house for disobedience, and we don't have them to fulfill a plan for them to die as a human sacrifice.

Imagine your kid nailed up and hanging on a cross because of something you did. Maybe that sheds some light on your dark heart.

your idea of god violates all kinds of sound principles. The most egregious is TRUST.

With a god that can do anything it wants to and we cannot criticize or openly discus it (without someone saying that "one has no right to question god") to try to determine the reasons for such and such, then god remains unfathomable and therefore untrustworthy. Don't tell me I should trust something I don't understand, I would find that to be "crazy talk".

and if god is all powerful, he could tweak my brain such that I would understand it, and trust it with NO EVIDENCE. or he could just write notes to me in my shaving cream on my face in the morning.

the fact that atheists exists is proof that the christian god is bunk.

Anonymous said...

HI anon,
one more thing.
I like to say "check your sources".
Its what my teachers kept telling me in school when I was doing research papers.

some things that increase the likelihood that you are getting "high quality I.N.fo" is to select sources where
- the authors name is known, not just traditionally attributed,
- Date of creation or version
- Authors contact info, or independently verifiable
- Does it fit with what you observe, or already know?
- what makes this source believable?
- How does this source know this information?
- Why should I believe this source over another?
- Why should I trust this source?
- What are the authors credentials?
- What have the authors peers written about it?
- Is it anonymous?
- Does it lack quality control?
- does it use bad grammar or misspelled words?
- Is the information relevant to current events or to the point?
- How comprehensive is it
- Does it pass a "reality check"?
- Who was the audience
- What was the purpose?
- Is there a date on the document?
- Are there Vague or sweeping Generalizations?
- Is there an old date on information that is known to change rapidly?
- Is it biased to a sort of viewpoint?
- Does it offer a balanced, reasoned argument?
- Does it possess a calm, reasoned tone, without attempting to elicit emotional responses?
- Does it make claims that contradict established natural laws?
- Does it make claims that contradict established principles?
- Is it internally consistent?
- Does the information have support else where? in other words does it have reliable corroboration?
- Does the author list references or cite sources?
- Does it have numbers or statistics presented without an identified source?

does the bible meet the qualifiers to be considered "high qualtiy I.n.fo?"
summary of the CARS checklist for research source evaluation.

The best way to understand something is to build it.

God knows what it takes to have a relationship with us. If thats what it what it wants, it should do it.

Please don't make me open my can of principles of successful relationships on you.