Gen. 2:7-3:6, God Should Have Known That Adam Would Disobey.

God was omnipotent, and God must have known the properties and tolerances of everything he created, just like a baker and just like an engineer.
If he was omniscient, then he had foreknowledge and if he didn't have foreknowledge (for whatever reason), he could have made reliable predictions based on his intimate knowledge of his creation and its properties and tolerances. To refute this would necessitate showing why God cannot be expected to have the same capabilities as any other Engineer or Baker.

Stipulating that the story of the Fall of Man is true in some sense, God was an expert in how to make Adam. He understood Adam intimately.

God made Adam as a Man in Gods image, whatever that means. Since god made Adam as a man, Adam necessarily possessed all the qualities that qualify Adam to be classified as a man. From the story, we can see that Adam had desire, cognitive biases (such as trusting someone he liked) but he didn't posses the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So from Adams perspective all options were more or less equal. These choices he made from the options and characteristics that he possessed guaranteed certain outcomes were more likely than others.


6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.
7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.


Since Adam had no family, no history, no education, no culture, no frame of reference with which to view the world, he had to make decisions based on information he picked up from the time of his inception or from what God instilled in him at creation. Since God made him without the Knowledge of Good and Evil, his options would be determined by that frame of reference. If God made him without language, his options would be limited accordingly. If he made him without an opposable thumb his options would be limited accordingly. Based on Adams properties, Adam could be expected to behave in certain ways. For example, we don't expect Adam walked on all fours even though he could have. We expect and assume he walked upright because of his body structure. He, like us, had parameters that made it more comfortable to walk upright than on his hands and knees. He, like us, had desires that made it more likely that had the ability to place value on things and have a hierarchy of preferences. In fact, he did not choose a helper. While its strange that God did not make woman when he made the animals once Adam gave up trying to choose, God made Eve in such a way that it was likely that Adam was going to accept her as a his helpmate. If God had made woman when he made the animals, Adam could have avoided wasting time looking for a suitable helper from the animals.

2:20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
2:22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.


If certain conditions are met, we can reasonably expect a certain outcome.

An example from close to home. My grandmother was an expert about what she cooked. When my grandmother used to make biscuits, she used only a certain type of flower, and she added Crisco and other ingredients to make the best biscuits ever. When I asked her for the recipe she said it was in her head, and when i asked her to dictate it to me is was full of dashes and pinches of this and that. She did that with everything and she was a great cook. She knew exactly how each ingredient would affect the outcome of the texture, taste, consistency etc. I imagine that God would have been like my grandmother with Adam. He would have known exactly how each ingredient in each proportion would affect the outcome of Adam and Eve and all the animals that he made from scratch.

Another example are engineers for the space program. They used engineering principles to make predictions and test them to find solutions to problems that never existed before. They used mathematical models to derive solutions, then tested them empirically, and when their collective confidence was strong, they put their plan into action. Without any foreknowledge or omniscience, engineers put men on the moon by ensuring certain conditions were met, and they enjoyed many successful outcomes.

Adam worked with what he had. Generally, a small number of mistakes are expected.

When Adam disobeyed Gods order not to eat the fruit, he was making decisions based within the boundaries of his frame of reference. Being the first human, mistakes should have been expected. Using myself as a standard, with my life experience, and generally knowing Good from Evil, I cannot see myself disobeying a God that I was confident existed. I know this about myself because I choose to abide by the Law and the Law is something less than a God. Since I choose to abide by the Laws of my society, I would likewise choose to abide by the Laws of a God that I believed existed. To me it is obvious that Adam made a mistake because he did not understand what he was doing.

In fact, Adam did not, on a whim, decide to disobey God. There were many other factors that led to that act that should be considered. There is no doubt that he knew that God said not to eat the fruit, but he could not have known it was wrong to trust Eve's new information and revise his options and choices. People that are not capable of flexibility in their decision making are severely handicapped in life and in business. Of course revising opinions and making decisions on the information at hand can lead to mistakes, generally it guarantees more successful outcomes. Adam and Eve revised their thinking based on new information but because they were missing the component that enabled knowledge of Good and Evil, they were mentally incompetent as detailed in the article "Gen. 2:16-3:24: Adam and Eve Were Mentally Incompetent". They did not have knowledge of Good and Evil before they ate the fruit, they possessed desire, exhibited preferences, and exhibited several cognitive biases that put enabled them to be persuaded by the snake.


A list of factors follows leading up to Adams disobedience.

1. Adam Existed
1.a. Adam and Eve had desire built in (Gen. 3:6)
1.b. Adam and Eve were missing some cognitive processes (Knowledge of Good and Evil, experience with bad people) (Gen. 3:7)
1.c. Adam and Eve had Cognitive Bias built in (trusting someone they like) (Gen. 3:6)
2. Adam was put in the Garden
3. Eve existed
3.a No Warning about the snake
4. Snake Existed
5. Tree Existed

These were the factors involved in causing Adam to disobey God. If any one of these factors had not existed, the likelihood that Adam would have disobeyed God would decrease. This is obvious in hindsight, but since God is supposedly Omniscient, and he engineered everything, if he didn't know it, he should have been able to reliably predict it.

Causal Diagram of Adams Transgression.

41 comments:

Richard said...

Yes, I agree, that according to scripture, God knew that Adam would disobey, and not only knew it, but predestined it. Scripture says that this happened so that the second Adam (Christ) would come into the world to accomplish what Adam failed to do and to redeem his people fron the curse of sin.

Baconsbud said...

I have to disagree with Richard about who failed to prevent sin. With the knowledge god would have had, both the present knowledge and future knowledge, he is the one that failed to prevent sin. If he didn't know that Adam and Eve would partake of the fruit then what those that make claims of what he is are wrong. This then calls into question what of the bible is true and what is just made up to try and impress people. I may be wrong in my thinking since I am not highly educated but I believe just reading a little of the first few chapters of the bible can show much that comes after points to a different god then the beginning of it. To me the whole bible is changing what and who god is to fit the society of the time of those writing it. If I am wrong please point out to me how I am wrong and your proof of it. thank you

Rich said...

Hi Lee,

I agree with most of the article. I think that God not only knew Adam would transgress, he counted on it and that was part f the plan of salvation. If it wasn't planned, there would be no need to label Christ as the redeemer from the foundation of the earth. The way this seems is that God had a plan, he put it into action and put Adam and Eve here to start, the first two people out of the gate failed so he had to go to plan B.

ismellarat said...

I never got that, Rich.

Sin enters into the world through Adam & Eve. Ok.

But why were they so significant?

Had they not sinned, would it have been impossible for their billions of descendants to sin?

If not, their sin was hardly significant. The rest of history would have played itself out in much the same way.

If their sin *was* significant for the billions that followed - why didn't God stop it right there and dump another sinless couple on the planet?

This 18-year old kid (at the time) seems to have figured this out:

http://www.jraxis.com/atheism/simulator/

Scott said...

Rich and Richard,

If God knew Adam would sin, then on what grounds should Adam be punished for falling into sin? It sounds like God orchestrated the whole thing so Jesus would have something / someone to redeem and the whole of humanity must suffer because of it.

For example, it appears that Adam had no interest in eating from the tree of knowledge until he was influenced by Eve. And Eve had no interest until she encountered the snake. Had these influences failed to cause Mankind to eat from the tree, would God have continued to make the conditions to be more favorable to sin until they eventually did?

As Lee indicated, if a metallurgist creates an alloy, he knows exactly at what temperature it will melt. It seems that in creating Man, God would know exactly which amount of temptation would cause him to sin. In exposing Man to these conditions, he could not resist sin any more than metal could resist melting at a specific temperature.

Scripture says that this happened so that the second Adam (Christ) would come into the world to accomplish what Adam failed to do and to redeem his people fron the curse of sin.

If God's abilities include the capacity to defeat sin in the future, why would he not use said abilities to prevent sin from happening in the first place? Otherwise, it appears that God can only overcome sin after making multiple attempts and even changing his tactics. (The Flood could be included in these attempts)

Given God's apparent failures in the past, how do we know that everything will go "as planned" when Jesus returns?

Anonymous said...

A perfect, omniscient god with a plan b?

Now that's funny!

Richard said...

Scott, you seem to be questioning God. Why didn't God do this? why did God do that? The short answer is, because God does what he pleases and since he is infinite in knowledge, then God knows best, not us.

Richard said...

I would disagree that God had a plan B. God has one plan and one plan only and it always comes to pass.

Stan, the Half-Truth Teller said...

I love how the resident theists are immediately jumping to god's aid, showing how much of a great guy he is for coming up with a back-up plan.

Thus far, they all seem to be ignoring the fact that according to Christian doctrine, god is an asshole.

"Wait, wait!", the Christian says, "god isn't an asshole; he gave us an opportunity to redeem ourselves!"

Sure. What a guy. Being omniscient, the first thing he does is think up this crazy plan. Then, being omnipotent, he sets the game into motion. After the first few turns, he pounces on our mistake, and condemns the vast majority of us to hell (nevermind this is all part of the plan). Console yourself, however, in the fact that a chosen few will be redeemed -- fewer than 1 in 10 humans throughout history, from the looks of thinks.

Thank you, but no.

According to Christian dogma, god is like a master deck-stacker, who has set up cardboard cut-outs (us) to compete with him in a game of War. The infinite knowledge available to him, coupled with his infinite power, mean that he can stack the deck with perfect precision, and War being War, the outcome is dependent only on the order of the cards and the number of players -- all of which he controls.

Yet Christians worship this thug.

Lee's article here is mistitled.

Gos Should Have Known That Adam Would Disobey

No. If god is who the bible and Christian dogma say he is, then he did know Adam would disobey.

Furthermore, with his supposed omniscience, nothing is beyond his knowledge, so not only did he know Adam would screw up, but he knew that his slow-moving, ill-conceived, poorly timed redemption offer would miss over 90% of its targets.

You really have to hand it to the Christians for their stick-to-it-iveness -- they claim that god is boundless in knowledge and power, yet they accept that he is so retarded as to postpone his redemption plan for a few thousand years, and place it in the middle of one of the most superstitious epochs of recorded history.

If god is so powerful, why not redeem everyone immediately?

Not only is this redemption plan so plodding, but the practices required until it is realized are both arbitrary and asinine.

Did you "sin" today? Slaughter a sheep.

Really? A sheep? Is that actually necessary? Is god so fickle and capricious that no action is as useful for appeasement as the shedding of an otherwise useful animal's blood?

Should have known?

Either he knew and is therefore an asshole unworthy of worship -- regardless of his power and knowledge -- or he isn't god and probably doesn't exist at all.

I know Lee is being facetious, and I know some will cry that this particular argument is old, but old as it is, it is no less relevant, and Christianity yet has no rational answer for it. All the Christian can do is hide behind divine prerogative, and make ludicrous claims in a vain attempt at explaining the incoherence inherent in his dogma.

If even one soul suffers in hell for eternity, then the god responsible is unworthy of worship. Period. Any argument put forth against that statement is necessarily impotent. It requires that god be a sadist, and that Christians be sado-masochists. I suppose psychopaths and/or sociopaths may well be justified (in their own minds, anyway) in worshipping such a creature, but not the sane.

--
Stan

Unknown said...

If God had a plan and it came through, then any sin committed by any persons throughout the ages is not their doing, it's God's. Therefore, we're totally blameless, if you believe in the Bible.

Anonymous said...

Stan,
you da man.
you make this so easy for me.
;-)

zilch said...

What Lee and Stan said. I'm no historian, but I suspect that the problem many people, Christians and atheists alike, have with the Bible about the existence of evil in all its many guises (supposing a good God), is a fairly modern viewpoint.

If you read the Old Testament, or indeed any epics up to the Middle Ages (Gilgamesh, Beowulf, Parzifal, and the Nibelungenlied are the ones most familiar to me), you will find a very different concept of what "good" and "bad" are. In general, it is considered "good" to have power over one's enemies, and to be generous towards one's family and friends. Fairness is only a virtue within the tribe: all's fair in love and war, including trickery. If you are punished by a higher power, that's just bad luck, not injustice.

The trend of history has been, with of course many reversals, to extend the concept of accountability for good and evil outwards in many directions: beyond the family and tribe, beyond just human beings, and up to rulers and gods. Back in the days of Moses, God was called "good" because He had power and rewarded his friends. Accusing Him of being "bad" because Adam was punished would have simply elicited puzzlement; and claiming (as some Christians have done here at DC) that God's goodness requires him to send dogs to Heaven would have resulted in derisive laughter.

We can thank centuries of history, including the Enlightenment, that we have more refined, and better in terms of creating a sustainable future, ideas about good and bad, than the Bible teaches.

Anonymous said...

Richard,
look at what you said.
- god knew,
- it was predestined
- because the second adam would come to do what adam failed to do.

but if it was predestined, adam had no choice but to fail. Adam was playing his part to facilitate the coming of the christ. If adam hadn't done that, then the christ wouldn't have come.

Therefore adam is blameless,
and since he is blameless, then didn't bring sin into the world, he was just the vehicle so it could arrive.

therefore, Jesus was redeeming for sins that didn't get initiated with adam, they got initiated from somewhere else. The only other place they could have gotten initiated is from God. he's all thats left, unless you want to say it was satan mucking up the garden (there goes the neighborhood).

so since adam had no choice, he was predestined, and the christ was supposed to fix what adam mucked up, then if adam hadn't done was he was predestined to do, there would be no need for a christ.

Do you see how circular this is? Do you see how it cancels itself out? Paul would have been smarter to leave adam out of it, because as it is, paul made jesus sacrifice dependent on adam, but I'm methodically showing that Adam and Eve are folklore, pulling the rug out from under pauls argument in Romans 5, specifically romans 5:12.

Paul should have kept adam out of it. Adam is christianities achilles heel.

Anonymous said...

Hi baconsbud,
you don't need to be highly educated to see through the bible, you just have to be honest.
Good Job,
you picked up on one very important detail.
If you look into the history of the near east, specifically canaan, lebanon, palestine, israel, judah, asia minor, and learn about the history of the Jews, you can get a better idea of what is going on.

don't leave out the study of pagan and eastern religions, because you finds parts of them embedded in christianity.

its called syncretism. And as far as I can see, it happens to every religion.

Anonymous said...

Hi Rich,
my comment to you is the same as to richard.
its circular, cancels itself out, and paul should have left adam out of it. Adam is not needed. He probably could have convinced people that they were depraved and needed a perfect blood sacrifice to save them without adam.

he went too far, and since adam is folklore, pauls argument falls apart.

Anonymous said...

Hi scott,
good point!

Anonymous said...

Hi Richard,
The short answer is, because God does what he pleases and since he is infinite in knowledge, then God knows best, not us.
you need to check your sources. You think you are getting gods word, but you are just getting hebrew folklore first, then a mish-mash of jewish, pagan and eastern culture from the new testament.

Anonymous said...

in my next article, which is in draft, I will use a payoff matrix to show how god chose the absolute worst strategy available.

Anonymous said...

Hi Baconsbud,
now that you've realized that the god of genesis is not the same god of revelations,
do you think the authors of genesis thought god was omniscient?
I don't, because that would explain this circular adam, sin, christ, plan argument that cancels itself out. the only way it makes sense is if god was not omniscient.

I'm drafting an article on that.

Rich said...

ismellarat,

But why were they so significant?

Had they not sinned, would it have been impossible for their billions of descendants to sin?


Had they not sinned it looks as though there would have been no descendants at all. Until they ate from the tree, they had no clue they were naked. That seems to be a key element in making descendants. I guess you could argue that they would have learned that eventually.

Stan,
I love how the resident theists are immediately jumping to god's aid, showing how much of a great guy he is for coming up with a back-up plan.

I think I may have been misread. I didn't say that God had a back up plan, I said that what the christian theology seems to say to me is that he had a back up plan because Adam failed.

Another thing I can't figure out is did Adam get forgiven of his sin in the garden? We dog the guy so much, whether he is folklore or not, that I never see anyone give him the opportunity to be a part of an infinite atonement. Not to mention that it is said that he failed, except he was part of a plan that played itself out. So it seems that the failure on Adams part would have been to not eat the fruit.
Adam's transgression separated us from God, which left us the ability to be able to choose for ourselves between the recently aquired knowledge of good and evil. I know several people here, including Lee recently, have mention that if they knew for a fact, which would mean they could see God and talk to him personally, they wouldn't go against him. Many people would snap into shape if God suddenly appeared to them. He wants you to choose to follow him because you want to, not because you see him there in front of you. You learn of the gospel and make a descision to accept or reject it on faith. I would argue that if you need the big guy there to make sure you make the right choice, you do it out of fear, not because you want to.

Anonymous said...

Hi rich,
I would argue that if you need the big guy there to make sure you make the right choice, you do it out of fear, not because you want to.
no. Its a rational choice. I don't adopt a philosophy that is empty. Any. Just like you choose to be a mormon over a baptist.

I choose to rescue animals not because I'm afraid of anything, I do it because it is the right thing to do. Its a rational choice. Nothings going to happen to me if I don't. Unlike your Jesus analogy.

I argue that you believe in Jesus because you are afraid not to. That is an irrational choice. why? because it is based on fear and more importantly, little evidence of an ambiguous type.

who is more deserving of eternal reward, the person that does the right thing without expectation or those that do it expecting a payoff.

As I've said before, the only way that religion makes any sense to me is if a god deliberately confused things to see who would reject them all and live a righteous life anyway.

Stan, the Half-Truth Teller said...

Rich said:

I think I may have been misread.

No, I don't think so...

I didn't say that God had a back up plan...

I said that... he had a back up plan...

Oh. I see. You didn't say god had a back-up plan, because you instead said he had a back-up plan... Did I take you out of context? Judge for yourself:

I think I may have been misread. I didn't say that God had a back up plan, I said that what the christian theology seems to say to me is that he had a back up plan because Adam failed.

Now, I'm not necessarily picking on your arguments, Rich, but I have to say that the quoted statement above is pretty damned hilarious. If I understand your intent, you mean to say that Christian theology thinks god had a back-up plan (Jesus), although they would also say instead that it was always the original plan. If I understand correctly, you don't believe this, you're just regurgitating the Christian tradition.

If this is correct, then your work here is done. We all know the Christian tradition regarding atonement, and the argument over Jesus being a "back-up" plan or the original plan is merely one of semantics and blame.

The undisputed fact, amongst apologists and deniers alike, is that Christian theology tries to have it both ways with regard to god's omniscience and humanity's need for redemption.

The dogma stipulates that god was such a dick that he placed Adam and Eve in a no-win situation, yet such a sweetheart that he was prepared for this inevitable eventuality. The dogma also stipulates that god is such a villain that following [the back-up plan || the originally planned "fall"], he removed himself almost entirely from the natural realm, and allowed over 9 out of 10 of every human since Adam to burn in hell forever.

Oh, yes, lest we forget, a happy few dozen humans will go on to eternal bliss. How they can remain in eternal bliss if they give a shit about their eternally suffering peers is beyond me, but hey! -- I'm not a psycho.

I know several people here, including Lee recently, have mention (sic) that if they knew for a fact, which would mean they could see God and talk to him personally, they wouldn't go against him.

Well, I'm not one of them, and here's why. Statements such as that are disingenuous. They presume a bit too much, and the parameters are much more complicated than you think -- certainly more than "they could see god and talk to him personally".

The truth is, it doesn't matter. I'd happily engage in communion with god if he wanted, and I'd even play the role of the lesser being -- but I will not worship, and I would very likely defy such a being on sheer principle. Certainly, if I had my faculties about me, I'd ask a few pointed questions.

Back-up plan? From the omniscient? Temporally-challenged atonement package? From the omnipotent? Animal sacrifice and eternal condemnation? From the benevolent?

I don't care if that being is god -- i wouldn't worship such a thing.

If that is a picture of god, and if that picture is unchanging, then existence is evil. If either of these is false, then there is hope.

The Christian has hope, to be sure, but his is a narcissistic hope -- that he will survive for eternal bliss, apparently oblivious to unimaginably vast quantities of his fellow humans.

I am not a narcissist.

--
Stan

Anonymous said...

QUERY (1)

According to the Apostle Paul (e.g, Romans 5:12), the inheritance of a sinful and inherently evil human "nature" is universal and unconditional (every human being is automatically marked by sin and death at birth because of the original disobedience of Adam thousands of years ago and that's just the way it is, so quit your whining), however God's Plan of Salvation is not unconditional and universal (you're not automatically saved, because you need to do something to make it happen—you need to repent, accept Jesus, be "born" again, become baptized, etc). It seems, therefore, that human depravity (by way of Adam's "Original Sin") is somehow stronger and more powerful than Jesus's ability to save (since salvation is conditional and not universal). My having to ask to be saved is a condition of my salvation, but I didn't have to ask or do anything at all to be branded by sin and death. In other words, sin is unconditional, but salvation is not.

As such, is the curse of Original Sin more powerful than the sacrificial death of Jesus? Is the unconditional curse of sin stronger than the conditional power of salvation? If I am born depraved because of the unpetitioned stain of Original Sin, why would I (or how could I) ever petition to be saved? Wouldn't my very depravity actually prevent me from ever pursuing the right thing (e.g., accepting Jesus)? According to Pauline doctrine, I am born accursed with spiritual blindness by no fault of my own and then damned because I am spiritually blind. Is being born with this blindness my fault? If it is, then why? If it isn't, then whose fault is it? Who, really, is to blame for keeping this curse alive?

Either help me safely across the street or push me gleefully into onrushing traffic, but don't threaten me with damnation to an Eternal Hell because I was 'created' already cursed with spiritual blindness. Either the concept of Original Sin is a false and interpreted doctrine or it is a Zen-like stepping stone used to measure one's true spiritual journey. If God is love, why am I going to Hell? If you're so spiritual, how can you casually accept the idea of Eternal Damnation? Wouldn't an ethical person reject his-or-her own salvation strictly on moral principles? Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? To stand up to God and consciously choose to become "dead again" after becoming "born again" or at least try to rally the troops to storm the gates of Hell in order to free those in endless bondage? I'd rather spend eternity in Hell knowing I did the right thing in voicing my disgust at the concept of an Eternal Hell than one second in Heaven knowing I did nothing at all because I was selfish, complacent, or fearful of punishment. In the presence of the doctrine of Eternal Damnation, isn't seeking one's own salvation ultimately a cowardly and immoral act? Isn't rejecting the author of Eternal Damnation as reprehensible and deplorable actually the more ethical and moral choice?

QUERY (2)

God created Adam and Eve already cursed by death. How do we know this? Because, according to Genesis 3:22-24, in order to "live forever" they would to have had to have eaten from the Tree of Life. Since they did not eat from the Tree of Life this means they followed their "natural" state and eventually succumbed to death. In other words, Paul is wrong in Romans 5:12 because death did not enter the world "through sin" since death was already in the world prior to the so-called sin. Eating the fruit from the Tree of Life would have reversed the already-present state of death and God elected to prevent this by casting Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden before they have a chance to eat the magical fruit. Even though they were instructed to not eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil lest they die, they were going to die anyway since they would have had to have eaten from the Tree of Life in order to not die.

God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:16-17). In other words, since Adam did not have the knowledge of Good and Evil before eating the fruit any action he took prior to this eating was neither an act of obedience or disobedience since both require the knowledge of good and evil (i.e., right and wrong) in order to make sound and informed choices. In our contemporary legal system, if a person does not have the knowledge of good and evil (i.e., cannot determine right from wrong) and commits a crime they are not punished for this crime by "reason of insanity." If Adam did not have the knowledge of good and evil before he "disobeyed" God and ate the fruit to acquire the knowledge of good and evil, then his punishment is farcical and ultimately immoral because he would have needed the knowledge of good and evil to make an informed decision to disobey. To put it bluntly, without the knowledge of good and evil any act that Adam committed was a legally insane act. Since God created Adam without the knowledge of good and evil, God created Adam legally insane.

According to Christian doctrine, God is omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), all-loving, and merciful. What does this all mean when considering the creation of Adam and Eve and the notion of Original Sin?

1. Since God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing) He knew Adam and Eve's fate before He created them, the world, the universe itself.
2. God created Adam and Eve without the knowledge of good and evil (they would need to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in order to acquire this knowledge).
3. God created Adam and Eve already doomed to die (they would need to eat from the Tree of Life in order to "live forever").
4. God created the Garden of Eden with the world's most-hazardous tree within quick reach all the while knowing in advance that this easy access would doom all of mankind.
5. God created the serpent "more crafty than any of the wild animals Yahweh had made" (Genesis 3) and placed this talking(!) tempter smack-dab in the middle of the Garden knowing in advance that it would bait Eve into eating of the fruit while also knowing that Eve would entice Adam into eating of the fruit as well.
6. Knowing all this, God punishes Adam (and, according to Pauline doctrine, all mankind until the end of time) for an act of disobedience that was not disobedience since a disobedient act requires the foreknowledge of good and evil, something Adam acquired only after the act. [NOTE: Eve's enticing of Adam to eat the fruit is a different kettle of fish entirely since at this time she did possess the knowledge of good and evil even though Adam did not.]
7. Knowing all this, God also punishes the serpent who was "more crafty than any of the wild animals Yahweh had made" (Genesis 3) for beguiling Eve with it's silver tongue.
8. Knowing all this, because of Adam's "original sin" God punishes the entire human race (according to Pauline doctrine) through a proclamation that every infant born into the world is born into sin, accursed by the so-called "disobedient" act of Adam.
9. Finally, knowing all this, God gives human beings an escape clause through Jesus (who himself laid the foundations of the earth and the heavens according to Hebrews 1:10). All that men and women have to do to be "saved" from God's judgment is rise above their inherent sinful natures and ask to be saved by-way-of Jesus's fabulous escape clause.

Perhaps we might better understand the above scenario this using an analogy:

- I am a father of two very young children, perhaps two and three years old.
- I tell them that they can play with anything in the house but they are not to play with the book of matches that I leave laying on the coffee table in the living room.
- I tell them I am going to go away for awhile but that I will be back shortly.
- Before leaving I take a gallon of gasoline into the house and empty it on all the living room furniture.
- I leave my two young children in the care of my teenage son who I know is "more crafty than any of the children I have made."
- I also know that this teenage son has a nasty habit of convincing others to play with matches.
- When I return I discover that the house is burning and my two young children are trapped inside. Outside, my teenage son is gleefully watching the flames.
- I stand beside him and watch the house burn while listening to the screams of my two young children. - I refuse to go into the house on my own accord and save them. I will stand back and allow them to burn alive unless they first ask me to save them. If they don't ask me to be saved it is entirely their fault that they are being burned alive.
- I am a wise and merciful father who is allowed to treat his children any way I like because I, after all, created them. Without me they wouldn't be here, now trapped inside a burning house.
- I am a loving father because I have given my children an escape clause. Even though I constructed the whole scenario knowing full well the outcome would mean me standing outside watching my children trapped inside a burning house, I was loving enough to give them an escape clause. Of course, this clause only works on the condition that my children ask to be saved. Until they do that, I will stand back and allow them to burn. I will not raise one finger to help them unless I hear them ask. My love knows no bounds.

My question is this: If I behaved in this manner with my own children would I be considered the type of father worthy of love, admiration, and respect? Or might I be looked upon as a sick, cruel, psychopathic, and heartless monster deserving only derision, loathing, disgust, or pity? Would my actions be considered moral or immoral, my underlying intentions kind or malign? Is my offering of a so-called "escape clause" really demonstrating mercy or does it entail something else altogether, something darker, more self-serving, egocentric and selfish? Finally, am I demonstrating unconditional love with this type of behavior or only that when push comes to shove I really don't give a damn about anyone else's feelings but my own?

Scott said...

Richard wrote: Scott, you seem to be questioning God. Why didn't God do this? why did God do that?

Richard,

If you presuppose that God has the properties of infinite wisdom, then I can see how you might assume that God has some kind of overarching plan for humanity, the universe, and everything in it. And if you presuppose that God is omniscient, then you might think he could construct such a plan so that it would account for any future events that might occur. And if you presuppose that God is good, then you might come to the conclusion that God's brilliant plan would cause things to turn out for the best, instead of merely being an elaborate and obfuscated way to cause us misery for his entertainment. And if you presuppose that God is omnipotent, then you might assume that God actually has the ability to effect the goings on in the universe to bring such things to pass.

However, I have to ask: on what basis do you think God really exists and is all knowing, all powerful and infinitely wise? What questions did you ask to come to these conclusions?

I'm asking because there are an infinite number of things that could exist in one form or another. If we did not question the things we were presented with, then we'd have to assume that everything was true. However, this sort of question-less existence would be irrational as we would life our lives as one giant contradiction.

An omnipotent and omniscient God that creates sin, just so he can "overcome" it after several failed attempts, blames Adam for doing what God planed for him to do, and who still hasn't finished the job 2,000 years later, seems to be such just a contradiction.

So, to answer your question, I'm questioning God because his "plan" seems to be circular and contradicts with the very properties that Christians give him in the first place.

The short answer is, because God does what he pleases and since he is infinite in knowledge, then God knows best, not us.

But how do you distinguish a myth or even nonsense from infinite knowledge that we simply can't comprehend? How can you separate the intentional actions of an incomprehensible God and nature?

Do you think this is an impossible task, therefore you presuppose infinite knowledge exists and pick a version you like best? Or perhaps the infinite knowledge most commonly accepted by your culture?

And, in attempting to elevate the Christian God's infinite knowledge above contradiction and rational questioning, you've elevated every claim of infinite knowledge, such as the Hindu God. Since the both claim to the result of an "infinitely wise" being, how do you know you haven't picking the wrong incomprehensible plan?

Rich said...

Lee,
no. Its a rational choice. I don't adopt a philosophy that is empty. Any. Just like you choose to be a mormon over a baptist.

That may be true for you personally but there are plenty of people who don't. You can see it in every day life, many people act differently when there is a boss around verses when they are not.

I choose to rescue animals not because I'm afraid of anything, I do it because it is the right thing to do. Its a rational choice.

That's great, but so do I.

I argue that you believe in Jesus because you are afraid not to. That is an irrational choice. why? because it is based on fear and more importantly, little evidence of an ambiguous type.

You could but you would be just as wrong about me as I was about you:)

who is more deserving of eternal reward, the person that does the right thing without expectation or those that do it expecting a payoff.

Certainly those that do the right thing without expectations. I didn't realize I said any different. In fact I said as much just barely in the my last comment.

Rich said...

Stan,
once you get something in your head it stays.

No, I don't think so...

Well, you did, again.

Oh. I see. You didn't say god had a back-up plan, because you instead said he had a back-up plan... Did I take you out of context? Judge for yourself:

No I said God didn't have a back-up, I said Adam FOLLOWED the plan.

Now, I'm not necessarily picking on your arguments, Rich, but I have to say that the quoted statement above is pretty damned hilarious.

I Wouldn't care if you did and I'm glad you're not the only one to see the humor.;)

My intent is to agree with much af what Lee has brought up in his post. I don't think Adam is a villian, he did exactly what he was suppose to do, and just like every single other person who makes a mistake, he was forgiven of his sins just like we can be. i am responsible for what I do, not what someone else does(adam). I do things right because I want to not out of fear.

Unknown said...

If god was real, it would not need religion, scriptures, bibles, apologists, faith, myth, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, preachers, priests or material existence. The facts that reality is real, that existence exists, and that religion is a human invention are proof positive that the gods are fantasies.

Anonymous said...

Hi Rich,
That may be true for you personally but there are plenty of people who don't. You can see it in every day life, many people act differently when there is a boss around verses when they are not.
Don't you see? your boss is around. every subscriber to christianity agrees to have a boss. So 30% of the world are christians, who believe the boss is watching. of that 30% who does it out of love and who does it out of fear? I propose to you that no one really knows why they do it and it may be that the nature of the situation prevents any real love from developing.

I know what you are going to say, but I wonder if you really would buy into christianity if there were no payoff.

And I think it is something that every christian should do some introspection over.

anyway thats all i have to say about that. I got distracted.

Adams a "fall-guy"!

Anonymous said...

Craig,
I like your analogy. I can't find anything wrong with it (so far) and I've been casually thinking about how to represent the fall in everyday terms.

Anonymous said...

HI Rich,
Had they not sinned it looks as though there would have been no descendants at all. Until they ate from the tree, they had no clue they were naked.
I've seen you say this before and i let it go but now I have to ask, what the heck are you thinking?
Being naked in public is a social rule, not a natural one. And being left alone naked even without being embarrassed because they were 'breaking a god given social norm instilled in them by the fruit' they should still have been subject to hormones and pheromones and Adam would have got a woody just like eve would have become frisky, and I'm sure the rest would follow.

So it seems that the failure on Adams part would have been to not eat the fruit.
Adam's transgression separated us from God, which left us the ability to be able to choose for ourselves between the recently aquired knowledge of good and evil.

yada yada yada preach preach preach,

lets asign some values to some things and see how they play out.

God = 0, as he is perfect.
Adam = -2 because he was not perfect and sinned and because he can't be the same value as the christ
christ = -1 because he was god but tainted by man

so now god creates and things go to -2.
thats counterintiutive in a perfect being.

now we need a christ to set things right so we subtract -1 and we are back to -1.

Things aren't perfect but hey, god can be imperfect if he wants to because, well he's perfect.

Do you all see how incoherent this is? How can you not see? God created just so he could create an overall negative? That just goes against everything you say god is.

if god was like the greek gods, which seems to be the case throughout genesis 1-11, then this would be more coherent. But he's supposed to be perfect and John and Stan are right when they say that
- God needs nothing
- to create is worse than not creating.

Jeez!

so you rescue animals, thats great! Are you expecting god to put a little star on your chore sheet? if not, if god doesn't care about animals (like some fundamentalists argue) then you have some basis for reasoning this through.

Rich said...

Lee,
I've seen you say this before and i let it go but now I have to ask, what the heck are you thinking?
I thought you'd never ask.;)

Being naked in public is a social rule, not a natural one.

I'm not going at thingking about being naked as being right or wrong. Whether or not they would've eventually got busy in the garden without eating the fruit is what is in question. I am saying that they apperantly didn't realize they were naked until they ate, so I think if they didn't know they were naked, could they know what their parts were for and how to use them? Not really known but I think recognizing nakedness is key to a woody and friskyness.

Logosfera said...

Adam and Eve were like 1 year old children in a house with an electric plug and god was like a parent who told them not to insert iron nails in the plug while letting iron nails in the room. Upon seeing the the children inserted the iron nails in the electric plug the loving father punished them and a few billions of their descendants.

As far as I know such loving fathers are usually kept heavily sedated in mental institutions.

And even if god would give Adam and Eve the knowledge of good and evil the disobeying was bound to happen. Eventualy Adam and Eve would got bored and started to experiment. After all, isn't what god did after spending an eternity in solitude? Didn't he created this universe to play with it? To test if the man would fall? Seems like the "perfect" god required from Adam what he wasn't capable of doing (aka "to not experiment"). Like a high-school-drop-out parent who asks his kid to finish highshool before the age of 10... or he'll burn him alive.

Rich said...

Hi Lee,

Don't you see? your boss is around. every subscriber to christianity agrees to have a boss.

Yes my boss is around but I don't see him. When people know the boss is not around they don't act the same. I see this every day at work. So that group of people either do the right thing when the boss is visible because of fear or expectation of reward, my opinion. Those who do the right thing regaurdless of whether boss is visible or not, do the right thing because they want to.

I know what you are going to say

I hope I didn't disappoint.

I wonder if you really would buy into christianity if there were no payoff.

And I think it is something that every christian should do some introspection over.


I agree completely.

Do you all see how incoherent this is? How can you not see? God created just so he could create an overall negative? That just goes against everything you say god is.

I sent you an email a couple of weeks ago, which I apparently forgot to save as a draft, that I think added a little to this that, at least to me, clears some things up.

so you rescue animals, thats great! Are you expecting god to put a little star on your chore sheet? if not, if god doesn't care about animals (like some fundamentalists argue) then you have some basis for reasoning this through.

In fact the dog I have now is a rescue and doing quite well. I don't believe God doesn't care about animals. I don't know about stars on chore sheets but I'm working on a name in the book of life;)

BahramtheRed said...

Rich; I hate to be the one to tell you this but young horny people can get a "woody" just in the persence of an nice clothed member of the opposite sex.

They also like touching parts (which is human nature, despite different cultures liking different parts).

I have no doubt two naked people would figure sex out, just as two clothed people would.

Anyone ever hear of an expirement like this? I think I might have but it was probally ficitional...


BTW: I know certain chrisitian groups think adam and eve where busy. There was no sin before the apple right? Heck some even want to "recreate the garden in your own bed" -actual line I have heard by christians (admittedly meant for married couples)

Anonymous said...

Hi rich,
Yes my boss is around but I don't see him.
Do I need to remind you that you should believe that he's omniscient?

about that email. Did i respond? can you jog my memory about it because I think I may not have gotten it. I think I remember expecting a follow on that never came. As good as it is, email is not 100%.

Rich said...

Hi Lee,
about that email.

That must have been lost to cyber hell. That would be why there was no response. I was trying to expand you LDS knowledge.;)

bahramthered
Rich; I hate to be the one to tell you this but young horny people can get a "woody" just in the persence of an nice clothed member of the opposite sex.

Really? I had no idea. I never said that they wouldn't have figured sex out eventually. Isn't a knowledge of what nakedness is a good start to figuring sex out? From the story, they apparently had no idea that they were naked. Don't those young and horny ones you speak of have an understanding of sex already? I would say yes and they also would recognize that they where naked, or someone else was for that matter. Up to the point of eating of the tree, they did not understand that they were naked. Or are you disagreeing with that conclusion?

Rich said...

Robert_b
The facts that reality is real, that existence exists, and that religion is a human invention are proof positive that the gods are fantasies.

I thought you were going to say, "and that religions are religious.

BahramtheRed said...

I don't even see your point this time Rick.

Adam and Eve might very well have gotten sex right from god, according to your relgion. They might very well have understood it and been enjoying it long before the apple unleashed sin and consequence into the world.

If they where naked all the time (as they didn't know the difference) and without they wouldn't consdier gential contact any different than bumping hands or a hug, other than it felt better.

And cloths come off dam easily when wanted. So after the fall wouldn't have been much of an issue either, for learning or doing.


As for young people knowing about sex; I didn't when I almost got it the first time. All of 12 or 13 I was kissed the girl and she didn't stop me. All I knew of sex was that it was for grown ups, and they usally kissed before the scene went dark in movies. Maybe went for zippers and buttons before it went dark.

I saw more of her than young boys are suppose to according to your relgion, and I just wanted to see and touch more (and be touched more) before we had to stop (interuppted). Would we have figured it out? I don't know. That dress would have got stained for sure.

Anonymous said...

Hi rich,
I'll go search my email for it and if its there I'll respond.
thanks.

Anonymous said...

Hi rich,
I found an email that I didn't reply to because I thought you were just "waxing rhetorical". It ends with a discussion about false memories. I'll reply to it later. talk to you soon.

Anonymous said...

you all see some infinite God all i see is someone who loves himself more then anyone, you talk about God knows best richard will you say that when your burning in hell thats a big possibility that you will because i assure you ive never met one person who agree's on EVERYTHING the bible says and the bible does say if you take away from it God will take away from you your place in heaven just remeber that richard next time you critize others. Perhaps you all have a misguided notion of who God really is or maybe you all actually think for yourselves which basically is almost a sin in the christian church you say God is love i see a God who does things he himself says are wrong such as killing the innocent sodom and gomorah heh there must have been kids and kids during the great flood did they diserve to die religious poeple never question God cause all they want is to save themselves not there kids not there sons or daughters just themselves