That's fine and dandy, however, where's the proof?

A lot can be said about this explanation. For example, if God needs to test his own creations, then we have to conclude that this version of God is not all-knowing. It also establishes that God is not all powerful (we could justify this for other very simple reasons but I'll withhold for the sake of the discussion) because he wanted something (obedience and love) from his creations, but he was unable to create humans in the correct way to accomplish this. The free will argument doesn't refute this fact because it would only mean that God is incapable of creating humans with free will that will always make the decision to obey him. So either way, it's like God can't have his cake and eat it too. How does a perfect being who creates everything end up with problems?

Either way, this is a case of faulty design by God or a demonstration of God's inability to properly convince Adam and Eve not to eat the apple. Even assuming God was limited in his design of humans by the necessity of free will, God is still responsible for the design of their observation and reasoning abilties (which they use to make their free will decisions), which means God simply designed them improperly to make to the right decision. Using the faculties God designed them with, they were unable to make the right decision. God's fault.

"The purpose with the creation of a man and a woman was to have them multiply so as to fill the earth.  That wouldn't quite have worked so well with two men now, would it?"

If God wanted the earth filled, he could have filled it himself. Instead of creating one or two, he could have created enough to fill the earth all at once. Or maybe he is once again limited in his abilities. Does he have to make a man and woman? No. He could have designed men to reproduce with each other, for example, and no such thing as women (which, after reading the Bible, it seems God would have preferred). He could have made an asexual creature that grows until it is almost two smaller creatures, then splits apart and repeats.

"A. He claimed that men didn't need God's rule to be trouble free -- therefore, the time for testing this was accorded."

It's funny, but Adam and Eve's only problems were those caused by God himself. What problems did they have before "the fall"? Would they have problems if God hadn't cursed them?

So, in actuality, the test was never conducted because God did not allow them to live without his rule. It's like, okay... we ate an apple, no problems yet, God gone. God comes back, God curses us... now we have problems because of God's rule.

That's what I think.

I think the OP is trying to say that if they had eaten the fruit after Eve would have pushed out a few kids then those kids wouldn't be tainted with the original sin.

I suppose at that point it would be up to them to decide if they wanted to munch on some fruit from the tree themselves. I assume there is a chance they would not after seeing what their parents did. Two groups of people - one with sin and one without? Guess they couldn't have "intersin" marriages.

It seems like if this god was fair then all of us would have gotten the option to take a bite of the apple - not just had some mark based on a decision so far removed from us today.

Look, we could always make up a story to fit particular facts. That's what this whole Adam and Eve story seems like to me - a what can we imagine to get from point A to point Z since the Bible leaves out B, C, D, E, F, G, H, ...Y.

The "Fall" commits an internal contradiction.

Many christians have little problem conceding that the story of 'Adam and Eve' is a metaphor and not a real historical event. But whether one holds that the story is allegorical or literal, the fact that the story contains an internal contradiction ought to concern every christian. Particularly when the story is supposed basis for original sin, and the supposed requirement of a savior.

First, let's cover a basic part of morality that every christian must accept in order for his moral system to be coherent: sin requires intent. And, in order to intend to do wrong, one must first know the difference between good and evil.

The book of James appears to affirm this, here:

James 4:17 -Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

And so here lies the problem: the Genesis story cleary tells us Adam and Eve were expressly forbidden moral knowledge, yet holds them accountable for sin, in fact, it holds that their acquisition of the knowledge of good and evil, was a sin!

Ergo, 'original sin' collapses.

I've never met a theist who could respond honestly to this clear error in Genesis. They usually just insist that contradicting a command devoid of any moral knowledge, is a sin, despite the fact that they are fully aware that sin requires intent. Their own actions demonstrate this: they would agree that it would be ridiculous to hold a dog morally culpable for eating a steak off a counter, or an infant morally culpable for refusing to share a toy with a toddler. Here, the theist is fully able to grasp that a violation of a command, even when the command itself can be acknowledged, is not a sin unless the individual is also able to grasp the moral ramifications of disobeying the command.

So it's rather 'surprising' that theists tend to miss that while Adam and Eve could e aware of the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that they miss that Adam and Eve were incapable of understading the moral ramifications of disobeying the command, abnd therefore, they were incapable of moral culpability.

Most theists simply refuse to deal with this problem, because the theist must argue in favor of an internal contradiction: either that Adam and Eve are morally culpable even without knowledge of good and evil (and thereby render moraltity incoherent) or, they must argue that they did possess such knowledge, despite the book of Genesis specifically ruling out this option.

For those who argue option 1: congratulations: you've just cut the legs out from under your system of morality. You've taken fairness, justice and even sanity out of morality altogether. I trust you'll agree that there's no need for further discourse between us... although I can point you towards a good psychiatrist.

For those who insist on option 2, that they "knew good, even though they didn't know good", please read Genesis 3:22:

"And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is 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 for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken."

There's a concomitant problem with this second option: If Adam and Eve had the knowledge of good and evil, then why are they seeking to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?!

For those who argue that they had 'implicit but not explicit knowledge', please recognize that 1) You're inserting something into Genesis, in an ad hoc fashion and 2) implicit knowledge is the basis for the development of explicit morality, ergo this both contradicts Genesis where it states they were created without this knowledge and 2) make 'god's' protection of the tree of knowledge ridiculous as it is moot! If they already have implicit moral knowledge, they have moral knowledge (!) as well as the means of making is explicit!

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

(Let's note, and then leave aside the fact that "Eve" is created after the command)

Genesis 3:6-7 makes it clear that they only know good and evil after eating the fruit:

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

****

Again: if eve already had knowledge of good and evil , what knowledge would she be gaining? Also recognize again that people learn morality implicitly, and that, developmentally, this implicit knowledge later becomes explicit when the child develops her self awareness. Ergo, having implicit knowlege of morality IS the basis of explicit moral knowledge AND is all that is required to have moral knowledge.

*****

3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

It's made very clear here that they only learn good and evil here, after the eating,

To those who still are in denial. the "god" character in the story makes it painfully clear that the knowledge of good and evil came after eating the fruit:

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is 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 for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Again, in the myth, god created them innocent, without such knowledge. In fact, they were forbidden it. They were not capable of moral or immoral action. The genesis account clearly states this.

People normally learn morality through experience - from concrete examples they form abstractions - morality is inculcated - and eventually, moral rules given to us are introjected.

Adam and Eve had no such experience, -they were created as adults without such knowledge. Nor were they provided an opportunity to learn morality. In fact, they were forbidden such knowledge. Therefore they could not follow the moral ramifications of disobeying, therefore, they are not morally culpable.

The garden of eden story is an oxymoronic story on several layers - the characters in the story have no knowledge of good and evil, and no knowledge of death, YET, for the story to be understood, to make any sense at all, it relies on the fact that you, the reader understand the difference between 1) good and evil and 2) recognize death as an unpleasant threat!

So the story works in that it relies on the fact that you DON'T follow the rules in the story! Theists use this implicit knowledge to understand the story, and then forget that this implicit knowledge is required for the characters as well. In short, theist don't actually HEED what the story says! They ignore the fact that the bible states, point blank, that adam and eve were innocent. They ignore the fact tha adam and eve have no knowledge of death.

We see this sort of error all the time in thought experiments like this: they "work" only because they rely on the fact that readers will NOT actually pay attention to the rules of the story! If a reader actually pays heed to the words, they will realize the internal contradictions make the story nonsensical.

Responses to the Contradiction:

It's interesting to see how theists respond to this problem. Most simply insist that they can contradict themselves: that adam and eve can know what sin is, even though the story specifically states this is untrue. They are able to do this because they simply can't imagine how an adult could be innocent. So they not only ignore the fact that the bible states, point blank, in genesis 3:22 that they were innocent, they also ignore the self refuting fact that adam and eve were eating from the tree in order to learn good from evil to begin with!

Other theists react by holding that there different sorts of knowledge of good and evil. This fails for several reasons: 1) because any sort of knowledge contradicts the bible's statement that they were innocent, (This is merely the fallacy of insertionism) and 2) , because the grounds for one sort of knowledge would lead to the other... we learn from particulars to general rules.

Other theists react by tossing the story aside as a fable. This is true, but it ignores the fact that the bible includes a self refuting story.

It's intriguing to watch theists squirm over this..... it's really the royal road to understanding theism.... the story is clearly contradictory, and how a theist deals with this issue tells us a lot about how they hold to their theistic beliefs....

I've offered up the argument to theists for years, and have never received a coherent, logical response. Typically, they insist the following, in clear disregard to reality:

1) They were told not to eat from the tree, so they disobeyed. Disobeying is wrong.

This fails, because it simply ignores the actual problem. While they could understand the rule, they are unable to grasp the moral ramifications of disobeying the rule, and THIS is the actual sin involved. Yes, god punished them for "disobeying", but the very point under contention is that this punishment is illogical, because sin requires intent, and without intent, their actions could not be immoral.

For a theist to simply insist that disobeying is a sin misses the key point: how could you have moral knowledge it was a sin if you didn't have any moral knowledge of sin?

So, why do they insist otherwise? Simple - all sane adults understand "right and wrong" and can't really appreciate what it would be like to be an adult and yet not know that 'disobeying" is wrong. So, theists naturally assume that "adam and eve" must know good and evil, anyway. This is the heart of Orwellian doublethink.

My theory is based on my experience that all theism is projective - a projection of the believer. The believer knows good and evil, ergo he can't imagine another viewpoint. It's humorous to see it, over and over, but I've yet to see a theist who can break away from this projection. Yet, we must remember that according to the myth, adam and eve are about a day old, and without this knowledge. They can walk, talk, "reason", but they are without the same knowledge of right and wrong that we all learn before we can even remember.

Another problem with response number 1: This response also suffers from another slight problem: it ignores the very fact that the entire point of christianity is that man bears responsibility for being immoral: i.e., sin requires intent. If god is simply punishing them because he can, this means that the 'problem of evil' completely undoes their religion (i.e. they can't use the "bad things are born of our free will" argument anymore)

2) They did know good and evil, just, they didn't know some sort of special knowledge concerning good and evil i.e., they had limited knowledge of good and evil, but not a generalization of good and evil.

This is the fallacy of insertionism - they insert these bizzare concepts into the story. In addition, it simply fails, because the very way that humans learn "right and wrong" is through abstraction of specific experiences! Implicit knowledge develops into explicit knowledge. Ergo this would make god's need to protect the tree pointless...

3) This kind of knowledge of good and evil could only be known by living in evil and personally, intimately becoming acquainted with the consequences.

Genesis 3:22 (NIV) wrote:

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

If what this theist claims about "knowledge of good an evil" is true, then according to Gen. 3:22 God has has lived/is living "in evil" and is "personally, intimately becoming acquainted with the consequences." Unless the Bible is wrong about God not being evil, this is not the meaning of "knowledge of good and evil."

4) The Christian worldview is that God is sovereign, ergo what he says, goes.

But the entire point of this story is that man bears responsiblity for his 'sin". To state "well, god is sovereign, he can do what he wants" would undermine the entire point of the fable - which is to absolve god of the guilty of creating evil, and placing the blame for "corruption" of the world on man.

Of course "god" could simply do what he wants, but then adam and eve are not culpable, and the entire story - along with the concept of original sin itself, are lost. If god simply obviates their free will, then as per Kantian ethics, 'god' is violating the categorical imperative itself, and making man a means to an ends.

1) If adam and eve had knowledge of good and evil, then why did god forbid them knowledge of good and evil? Please realize that implicit knowledge normally develops into explicit knowledge.

2) How can one do right or wrong, if they don't understand the moral implications of their actions? Are babies immoral when they take something that doesn't belong to them? Is a dog immoral for eating a steak I left out on the counter?

Responses from my own reading of the Bible:

-The fact that you can find a quote that says "God created the heavens and the earth" without any reference to days stems from the fact that there are *two* creation stories mixed together in Genesis (mashedup by Jewish priests in the sixth century B.C.)  Elohim, the god of mount Horeb created the heavens and the earth all at once (and created man and woman at the same time).  Yaweh, the god of mount Sinai created the earth in seven days (and created woman from man's rib).

-In my multiple versions of the Bible, God didn't  evict Adam and Eve from the garden for disobedience.  He evicted them so that they wouldn't eat from the *other* tree, the tree of life, and live forever.

 -None of my Bibles say anything about Satan or the devil in Genesis.  In fact, Lucifer doesn't appear at all until the book of Job, in which he's just an ordinary angel.  There's a *serpent* in Genesis, but there's no indication of any relationship between the serpent and some theoretical fallen angel who doesn't appear until the New Testament.

Hallelujah! Textom you are the first person ever, I've seen, to point this out (other than myself). Next to nobody recognises and comprehends this,

This sounds to me like what I did when my infant children grew to stand upright where they could reach dangerous objects. I barred them from the locations where there were dangerous objects and locked the doors.

As with all literature, it makes more sense when you read it in it's own context. Our idea of day is introduced to our reading of the book in spite of it giving it's own definition:

Before our calendar day is created, before the sun and moon, which were to be "as signs", day, the contextual day of genesis, is created as a separation of dark from light, IS (light) from VOID (Darkness on the face of the waters). Seven days in this context is more like seven dimensions extruded from nothing (zeroeth dimension).

The genesis philosophy is highly symbolic, as was common in ancient mysticism, given its own context in defining what was called a day it seems to say the earth and man were created in seven dimensions.

Hard to say, 'sin' is a very ambiguous term with a lot of iffy ideas attached to it. My estimation would be that a loving creator would have to act on consequences onbehalf of humanity, if humanity was too naive to do so for itself, which seems to be the case in genesis doesn't it? Thus I'd conclude that God judged Adam and Eve as naive in their sin and his actions in the story are in accord with such a judgement - initially anger then concern then protective action.

This is the best question, really. Yes maybe he was inviting sin, or perhaps it was a matter of co-habitation. Adam and Eve, the story goes, lived with God, among Gods things which he had around him for his own personal use as an experienced and older being.

I have an oven in my home, I use the oven every day, I don't remove it when babies are around, but it is not my intetion that they climb into it an injure themselves. On the other hand I am conscious of the reality that one day when they are adults they will use an oven too, it is appropriate to have it in their environment as long as only I am using it while they don't understand the consequences.

It's an ancient grandfather story, hence the answer is most definitely, No. This is all symbolism.

You missed the part in revelation where it says that the tree of life still stands and that humanity is destined to eat from it eventually?

"Where did Eden go?" is a good question. It's behind the sword and the angel, whatever that means in our contemporary terms.

The good thing with symbolism is that even after it has suffered a severe case of chinese whispers a solid central concept is usually salvageable from it anyway. In this case what seems important about the sword itself is that it is flaming (a source of light) and that it is double edged & turning left and right (it possesses some form of superpositional duality). Frankly, this sword guarding eden is described as having similar characteristics to reality as we know it.

Not unless he's repudiating 'original sin'! Saying 'god' did it so that they wouldn't eat from the 'other tree' changes nothing unless you completely change the rest of the story, it's just a different spin on the very same behavior: 'god' is still punishing them for their actions, rendering them morally culpable. 

One might as well say "we are not giving you life in prison for murder, but because your murderous act has proven that you will murder again"... whatever the spin  you give the action, one is still punishing in response of the action, holding one morally culpable.

Again, no theist ever gives this obvious paradox any serious consideration... because they can't afford to.... 

There's only one point that matters here: Sin requires intent.

Do you accept this or not?

I already point out that 'sidestepping' the moral issue places you in an even worse dilemma. See above.

Again, what matters here is whether you are accepting or rejecting intent as a necessary component of 'sin'

If you do, you must accept the contradiction.

If you do not, you must accept that you've rendered morality itself incoherent, and by doing so, cut out the legs of your religion in order to 'save' it.

Welcome to the pincer. 

I don't have to, seeing as the argument is not built on that passage. The argument is built upon the requirement of intent for a moral system.  How can you have a moral system without intent?! That's the key point here.

You're just eqvivocating: to know the good and to do the bad is an intentional, immoral action.  You are not desccribing a 'mistake', seeing as mistakes are unintentional.

What? It is the very basis of morality itself!

Yes, it does. Knowing the good and choosing to do otherwise is intentful... you're just in denial here.

And yet it's called "original sin", and held to be the basis for the requirement of salvation.

If by this you mean to say that you do not accept the requirement of intent in a moral system, then you render morality bankrupt and enter a world of complete insanity, where we can hold people moraly culpable for unintentional actions. Accidently step on my foot, and I have the right to send you to the morgue just the same as if you intended harm.

See the problem?

'Sin' requires intent. Attempting to solve the contradiction by removing this requirement only makes matters worse.

Yes, it does. If you are removing intent from your moral system, then you enter a world of insane anarchy.

So again, does sin require intent?

One more time: does sin require intent? Yes or no.

If you say 'yes', you are sunk.

If you say 'no' you are sunk.

Disobedience requires intent by the way.

Just a note to this point, see my post above re: Gen 3:22-24

You mean this:

This sounds to me like what I did when my infant children grew to stand upright where they could reach dangerous objects. I barred them from the locations where there were dangerous objects and locked the doors.

This argument is both irrational and insulting! First, your 'god' is not acting to 'bar' an infant from danger, he's first creating the danger, then creating creatures susceptible to the danger, and then actually  punishing and torturing his own creation for a situation he created and placed them in!

Comparing these actions to protecting an infant is insulting!

And outright crazy!  

This argument is bad that I've written a stock reply to it:

Loving Parents

• view
• edit

Loving parents seek to do whatever they can to keep their baby safe. If they could, they'd wish away any dangers of disease or disaster that might befall their child

No theist ever asks why a loving god creates a world where such things are possible in the first place..... I like to ask theists: If you were 'god', would you create a world where any of these things could even potentially happen to your own children? ?

Before you answer, consider this: Take a look at how parents actually care for their children: We do everything we can to create a safe haven, a safe world for our children. We spend hours, days searching for ways to create a safe place, free from the dangers of electricity or poison or sharp objects or even swallowable objects that could cause choking.

We devote time to finding the right foods, the right clothing, the right diapers (even something as minor as a rash is defended against) the right blankets, crib, pillow..... we purchase baby monitors, or make frequent examinations of the baby for safety.

We defend our child against disease, against crib death, against any possible danger that we can imagine.

Now a theist wants to tell me that someone who loves me infinitely more than I love my own child, is willing to place me, and the world's children in the midst of every single solitary imaginable harm in existence: poison, disease, natural disaster.....

The mistake theists usually make here is that they believe that these things are all 'givens', that there must be things like poison or disease, but if there is a loving, omnipotent god this is not the case. An omnipotent, omniscient creator must be perfectly responsible not only for putting our children in harm's way, but for creating the very dangers in the first place, both the dangers and our susceptability to them. Any or all of these entites would be completely contingent upon an omnipotent 'being'.

So I ask you: why is it that while no caring parent would go so far as to put their child in danger of getting a diaper rash, that an infinite loving god not only creates diaper rash, but disease and death?

Why not? Living for ever and ever in error and moral infancy. Sounds dangerous to me, horrifying even.

Meh, what a boring overprotective god you ask me to prefer. What's wrong with a little adventure?

Yes. Give it some thought.

No parent 'wants' their child to be in danger, sure, but all parents want their children to have everything they desire. What we sometimes don't consider is that people hardly ever desire comfort, security and protection. We all too often crave excitement, drama and conquest. A full life is a wonderful thing and it comes from putting yourself to the test, physically, mentally and emotionally.

The true mark of a loving parent is balance. Giving a little on the leash but knowing when and under what circumstances a line must be clearly drawn. It's not an easy call for the parent, and it's almost never evident to the child in the moment of reigning them back exactly why they are being held back at that point. A loving parent will not forget the childs desire to venture into the danger zone, though. A loving parent will remember and gently ease them towards their desired independence. The child often doesn't even know this is happening until its done while the loving parent, on the other hand, will tell them it is happening:" in time, you can do that thing, in time, your freedom will extend to that point you have desired. But, it will not be easy because with more freedom comes more responsibility for you, less responsibility for me. First take the responsibility, then it will be fine for you to have the freedom."

 The intention is not required in order for the sin to take place. Any action can fall short of some standard by default alone. 

I guess I can concede the grounds that error requires action which requires intent, that makes sense to me. But it does not imply that the intent must have a moral justification.

LOL, I suspect the said consequences are confined to a spiritual context, but that's not to say a tragedy in physical terms is not a spiritual tragedy, it may be, there's just not simple equality of the two that I imagine.

Yep, I'm repudiating original sin.  Or more accurately, I don't find any original sin in my Bible.  Never did.

The doctrine of "original sin" was invented by Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century A.D.  You can only actually find it in the Bible if you make a series of unfounded assumptions that are not actually in the text. 

You don't have to change the story--the story was already changed (or enhanced) to support the idea of original sin.

The word "sin" doesn't even appear in the Bible until the story of  Abel and Cain.  There's no sin in the garden. 

Again, not finding the punishment idea supported the Bible.  The idea that not eating from the tree is a law and that violating that law deserves punishment comes from our buddy Augustine.

When I read Gen 2-3, I see a fairytale about a God who tells the two people that if they eat from a particular tree, that the tree will cause them to die (not the God).  Then a snake (not a fallen angel) comes and tricks them into eating from it, and God explains to them (not condemns them to) what will happen now that they ate the poisoned fruit.  Then he kicks them out of the garden so they won't live forever.

I have real problems with Augustine's doctrine of original sin: I think it's responsible for a great deal of the bad stuff that Christianity has done since his time. 

Yep. I agree with that.

Now continue the analogy even further :

The child grows to an adult who lives with the scars of their youthful misadventure, he/she has anger and bitterness towards the parent for their part in his/her pain, and he/she harbours it endlessly always aching that unsupervised moment as though it were the only moment that ever existed.

 Or that child could grow to be an adult who likes who they have become, someone who embraces their scars and their pain as a catalyst in their own development of psychological being, unable to resent that which made them what they are today, unwilling to steep themselves in the bitter angry dispute over who holds the responsibility for the moments that defined the person they are and the life they now live. 

  God is still responsible, either way, for the original "sin" but humanity is the one who carries the scar, what becomes of them doesn't have to be bad simply because of the scar, it can be very very wonderful. 

Generally I like Genesis, can you tell? It is a deeply philosophical story, IMO. Still... that is JMHO.

And you don't find it at all relevant that god would have known exactly what they were going to do before he created the universe and that he would have (if it existed, which it doesn't) had the ability to create two people that would not eat the apple.  

 the story is incoherent on multiple levels. god tells the people not to do something knowing in advance that they would do it. the only reason it was possible for them to do it in the first place was because god orchestrated the situation to make it possible. they had no means of distinguishing the difference between following a rule and breaking one, and god could have created two peole that wouldn't break the rule but instead decides to create two people that he knew would break it. i think that the story is a test. a test to see who can be bent away from common sense enough to accept the religion.

I think that any analogy to reality that we try to make is going to be inherently flawed in some way since we are comparing the natural to the supernatural, acts of man to acts of God. Analogies are just easy to toss out.

 Instead of using analogies, let me go back and break it down into smaller pieces and then look at it from the perspectives of the people involved. First, let's break down what happened.

THE EVENTS:

1) God existed eternally.

2) God created everything.

3) In creating everything, God intentionally placed two magical trees and two naive people in the garden at the same time.

4) God says, "Don't touch the trees" and then either A) is not omniscient, or B) Sees what is about to happen and, for some reason, lets it happen.

5) They have no concept of good and evil at this point, so they are naive of God's authority in matters of "rightness". They obey because they are asked/told.

6) A serpent tells them they should touch the trees. In fact, it's perfectly okay to do so. They have no concept of good and evil at this point, so they are naive of the serpent's authority (or lack thereof) in matters of "rightness". They eat from the trees because they are told they can and should.

7) God sees this (if omniscient, it must be said that he was expecting this), and decides to take measures against Adam and Eve.

 Now for some perspective, taking both of god's possible reactions into account:

GOD'S PERSPECTIVE:

1) I have intentionally placed Adam and Eve in this situation. I created them in such a way that they would have no way of judging whether or not this act was correct or incorrect, and I knew this when placing them and the trees together, but I will punish them for this act anyway.

2) I will place a barrier to prevent Adam and Eve from performing this act again. I created them in such a way that they would have no way of judging whether or not this act was correct or incorrect, and I knew this when I placed them and the trees together, but I will set this barrier anyway, ignoring the fact that I could have done this to begin with, or I could have simply barred them from the trees alone, or I could have simply removed the trees from the garden  altogether, or I could have simply never placed them there in the first place, since doing so was completely unnecessary.

Arch Critique: "Makes a good story though!"

ADAM AND EVE'S PERSPECTIVE:

1) We had no way of knowing that we were doing anything wrong. We were simply doing what we were told was acceptable. We only knew the wrongness of our action after the fact. Thus, we are being injustly punished for an action that can only be described as an accident.

2) We did not understand what we were doing, but now that our eyes have been opened and we understand the world enough to make a well-founded decsion NOT to eat from the trees or to listen to others who might tell us it's okay, we are being barred from the garden and the trees altogether, thus denying us the opportunity to accept good over evil.

 Commentary:

God self-righteously fails to consider that he might have had any act in Adam and Eve's shortcoming whatsoever.

God takes measures that are either 1) Completely unjust, or 2) pointless and illogical, serving no purpose for mankind whatsoever.

Barring them from the garden AFTER they understand good and evil is almost the same as sending people to eternal torment AFTER they realize the truth. What good does it do? It doesn't allow them any opportunity to rehabilitate. In both situations, it's illogical and just plain mean!

I still fail to see how it makes sense without making God look bad.

 Actually I haven't yet met the Bible scholar who can tell me for sure how much time passes between the end of Gen 2 (God is done creating everything and they're naked in the garden with no shame) and the beginning of Gen 3 ("Now the snake was more clever than any of the wild animals...&quot.

Archbishop Usher obviously had some kind of inside knowledge, when he calculated the age of the earth, about how much lag there was between the first seven days and the time when the snake started making trouble.  But since the Tree of Life was keeping Adam & Eve immortal that whole time, I personally don't see how you can be sure it wasn't 15 billion years. 

as shitty a storyteller as the person was who came up with that piece of crap i still don't think they would just omit 15 billion years in the middle of the story. wouldn't they say something? also it seems like in 15 billion years something would occur that was at least mildly noteworthy. i think it's pretty fair to assume that much time didn't pass.

Yeah, why not, I'm with you.

B

I'm with you up to the point where you say punish.

No, the barrier is to keep the way between man and the tree of life, not a repeat of the original sin, a follow up act which presumably was worse under the circumstances. But I reiterate, the end of the book reprises the tree of life theme tending to indicate that some time passed tilling ground and giving painful birth to children makes it possible for man who has become like god to eat from the second tree.

Yes and he also put the snake in the garden, he could have left that bit out too.  but then this makes no issue in the absence of the 'punishment' dogma and that is where we leave off the same path.

 Well he fails to say it, but I wouldn't say he fails to consider it. Who knows what is being considered by an omniscient?

Well there is the possibility that it's neither of those things if the opposite of 2 is true.

Okay, so you admit that God purposely allowed Adam and Eve to make this mistake? Why would he do that?

Why is it initially considered bad for Adam and Eve to have the same knowledge or the same immortality as god?

But couldn't he have just prevented the way to the tree of life without removing them from the entire garden?

Doesn't removing them from the garden entirely seem like a punishment when allowing them to stay in the garden was a viable option? (i.e. isn't that kind of like grounding?)

Doesn't the ground-tilling and painful birth indicate that they are somehow being chastised?

If painful birth and tilling the ground for a period of time can possibly allow them access to the tree of life, then why was the tree bad in the first place?

Why couldn't god have nixed the entire tree plan and jumped straight to the result he wanted? If he is as powerful as he is claimed to be, what purpose would he have for using such a method?

But it does make an issue, I think.

Considering that you don't accept the "punishment" explanation, we'll stick to the "prevention" version. (I was trying to cover both explanations in the post you've quoted).

If god knew this was all going to happen, as you seem to have indicated by selecting "B" earlier, then why did he need the trees to accomplish this goal? He has essentially set Adam and Eve up, knowing what they would do, and then had a plan ready for when they did it. Is there anything else we can call this other than "trickery"? Why would an all-powerful god, capable of anything, need to use such a plan?

Now let's think about the snake he put in the garden.

If there is no snake in the garden, and if Adam and Eve are willing to do whatever they are told in their naivette, then there is never any catalyst for them to eat from the tree. The reason they did so was because they were naive about good and evil and the snake told them it was okay to eat from the tree, and that they should. They unwisely, in their naivette about good and evil, took the snake as a trustworthy source of information. So if the snake was not there, it's at least reasonable to think that the event might not have happened (unless there were other possible characters lined up, for which I would defer to the following paragraph).

But if God did put the snake in the garden, how was the snake able to make such a claim about the tree? Adam and Eve were specifically created to have no knowledge of good and evil, but what about the snake (or any character that may have assumed his role in his absence)?

If the snake was created as naive as Adam and Eve, then he would not have been able to be so evil as to lie to eve about it being acceptable to eat from the tree; however, it's arguable that he may have eaten from the tree himself before tempting eve. That line of thinking would probably make more sense considering that the snake was punished by being forced to crawl on his belly, but in your case that would create a problem since you're arguing that Adam and Eve were not punished. Why would one eater be punished when another was not? What does this say of god's justice? Also, would this mean that the snake also has the option of becoming like god? If not, why not?

If the snake was not created as naive as Adam and Eve were, then it must be said that the snake was initially more like god than man or woman.

Finally, one might argue that the one particular snake was created specifically by god for this one specific purpose, but then it would not make much sense for god to punish the snake, and it still would not answer the question as to why an all powerful god would need to use such methods.

I concede that I don't know that he did not put some of the fault on himself. But similarly, I don't believe that you can know that he did find some fault with himself.

However, we do know that he failed to make it known if he did, and then continued to carry out his plan on those in whom fault was found, and it's for that reason that I call him self-righteous. Because that's how he made himself look.

Also, it is strange to conceive of an ostensibly perfect being with perfect knowledge of good and evil finding himself in error, is it not?

It's also the possibility that I could leap into outter space if the opposite of "gravity exists" is true, but I would have to argue effectively for that claim before I could suggest its truth.

What was the point and logic behind these actions? What purpose did it serve for mankind?