A Literal Genesis Entails An Evil God

[FallentoReason]

I'm in the middle of a Facebook discussion between me and two Christian guys from my former church. It's been real fun so far hearing from both of them, and with one of them we're currently on the topic of Adam & Eve. Basically, I said that I don't understand why God created A&E without the knowledge of good and evil from the beginning. His answer had in it these propositions:

p: A&E ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil
q: A&E are given free will
r: free will is the ability to choose between good and evil

So his actual answer doesn't matter, because just from what he's already assumed we can come to the conclusion that God is evil.

Since he basically said that since not p, it means that A&E don't know what good and evil are just yet, but q i.e. they have free will. Put q and r together and we can see that free will entails that the being(s) must therefore have knowledge of good and evil, otherwise how do they freely go about choosing between good and evil? There's a contradiction in the narrative.

I say God is evil because I proposed to him that the only way to salvage the majority of the narrative is to assume that A&E were simply amoral before eating from the tree. This is the only logical solution because otherwise the tree is redundant if they were made with knowledge of good and evil from the beginning. But if they were amoral, then God punishing the beings he created to be incompetent in a situation he planted them in is just about the definition of a malicious being seeking to do harm. Therefore, if we must take Genesis literally, then I propose that we have no choice but to then admit God is not omnibenevolent, not even benevolent, but outright evil for creating beings that would by default be incompetent relative to the situation he arranged.

[Darth]

Whereas a nonliteral genesis means that all Jesus stuff that follows is pointless, there would be no reason for Jesus to die.

[goodnews]

In a nutshell / The doctrin of Adam & Eve being created in Gods perfect image and then falling from grace is not scriptual, by eating from the tree of knowledge they broke Gods commandment, which was His plan, why else did He put this tree smack in the middle of the garden, with a juicy fruit on it, then send His creation Satan to tempt Eve ? God did not need to make them sin, He just created the circumstances needed. Adam & Eve where no differant than us today, they where carnel minded and therefore prone to sin, think about it, Eve before takeing one bite of the fruit had allready sinned, as she coveted with vain lust after the lies of Satan. The eating of the fruit was just the physical action required, so God could deliver them out of His earthly nest and into our world to learn good and evil. What most of "christiandom" does not realize, is that God has not finnished creating us yet !

[FallentoReason]

Whereas a nonliteral genesis means that all Jesus stuff that follows is pointless, there would be no reason for Jesus to die.

Hence the hasty choice by the believer in claiming it's all part of humanity's history.

---

In a nutshell / The doctrin of Adam & Eve being created in Gods perfect image and then falling from grace is not scriptual, by eating from the tree of knowledge they broke Gods commandment, which was His plan, why else did He put this tree smack in the middle of the garden, with a juicy fruit on it, then send His creation Satan to tempt Eve ? God did not need to make them sin, He just created the circumstances needed. Adam & Eve where no differant than us today, they where carnel minded and therefore prone to sin, think about it, Eve before takeing one bite of the fruit had allready sinned, as she coveted with vain lust after the lies of Satan. The eating of the fruit was just the physical action required, so God could deliver them out of His earthly nest and into our world to learn good and evil. What most of "christiandom" does not realize, is that God has not finnished creating us yet !

So how do you reconcile the truth that the narrative tells us this being is malicious with his other self, who is loving towards everyone? The first ever being to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder perhaps?

[goodnews]

Your argument is how you perceive your own truth, according your own opinion, of how you understand the narrative, but the actual truth in the narrative, is far greater and loveing than your biassed assumptions will permit you to understand. When it comes down to it, you are no differant than your two Christian freinds as neither of you really want to understand the narrative, as its your own opinions that drive you and not the truth !

[Tonus]

I say God is evil because I proposed to him that the only way to salvage the majority of the narrative is to assume that A&E were simply amoral before eating from the tree.

I find it an interesting point, not because of the placing of the tree or the lack of morality on Adam and Eve's part, but because of the introduction of the serpent.

Imagine that god creates the garden of Eden, places Adam and Eve in the garden, and tells them that only one thing is off-limits: the fruit of one particular tree. It may not matter that Adam and Eve don't know right from wrong; simple fear and/or empathy may have been sufficient, in that they did not want to take an action that their creator had forbid them. And if we assume that the garden was large and well-stocked with everything they needed, there wasn't any temptation from the existence of this particular tree. So it could be an experiment of sorts-- was there any flaw in humanity which would lead them to disobey under those circumstances?

But he introduces the serpent into the picture. And the serpent tells Eve that she has something to gain and nothing to lose by eating of the fruit. Without a moral center and without the understanding that she was being lied to, eating the fruit suddenly seemed like an attractive option. There doesn't seem to be a way that she couldn't have failed this "test" because she was practically wired to fail it. And thus, everything that followed was indeed god's plan. He didn't grant humanity a conscience until it was too late to prevent the action that would reverberate for the next six thousand years.

[John V]

I'm in the middle of a Facebook discussion between me and two Christian guys from my former church. It's been real fun so far hearing from both of them, and with one of them we're currently on the topic of Adam & Eve. Basically, I said that I don't understand why God created A&E without the knowledge of good and evil from the beginning.

The simplest answer is that you're using a different meaning of knowledge than is used in Gen 3:22. They had knowledge acquired by instruction - see vv. 2-3. Verse 22 refers to experiential knowledge, which by definition can't be given before the experience.

[Godscreated]

I'm in the middle of a Facebook discussion between me and two Christian guys from my former church. It's been real fun so far hearing from both of them, and with one of them we're currently on the topic of Adam & Eve. Basically, I said that I don't understand why God created A&E without the knowledge of good and evil from the beginning. His answer had in it these propositions:

p: A&E ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil
q: A&E are given free will
r: free will is the ability to choose between good and evil

So his actual answer doesn't matter, because just from what he's already assumed we can come to the conclusion that God is evil.

Since he basically said that since not p, it means that A&E don't know what good and evil are just yet, but q i.e. they have free will. Put q and r together and we can see that free will entails that the being(s) must therefore have knowledge of good and evil, otherwise how do they freely go about choosing between good and evil? There's a contradiction in the narrative.

I say God is evil because I proposed to him that the only way to salvage the majority of the narrative is to assume that A&E were simply amoral before eating from the tree. This is the only logical solution because otherwise the tree is redundant if they were made with knowledge of good and evil from the beginning. But if they were amoral, then God punishing the beings he created to be incompetent in a situation he planted them in is just about the definition of a malicious being seeking to do harm. Therefore, if we must take Genesis literally, then I propose that we have no choice but to then admit God is not omnibenevolent, not even benevolent, but outright evil for creating beings that would by default be incompetent relative to the situation he arranged.

When parents bring a child into the world are they being evil, they knowingly are exposing the child to all the dangers this world has to offer. Is this loving the child, or an evil act by allowing the child to have to experience all the world can throw at the child.
This is the reasoning you are using with God, so by your reasoning parents are evil by bring a child into this world.

[Minimalist]

In a nutshell / The doctrin of Adam & Eve being created in Gods perfect image and then falling from grace is not scriptual, by eating from the tree of knowledge they broke Gods commandment, which was His plan, why else did He put this tree smack in the middle of the garden, with a juicy fruit on it, then send His creation Satan to tempt Eve ? God did not need to make them sin, He just created the circumstances needed. Adam & Eve where no differant than us today, they where carnel minded and therefore prone to sin, think about it, Eve before takeing one bite of the fruit had allready sinned, as she coveted with vain lust after the lies of Satan. The eating of the fruit was just the physical action required, so God could deliver them out of His earthly nest and into our world to learn good and evil. What most of "christiandom" does not realize, is that God has not finnished creating us yet !

Wow....you think your god is just as much of a dick as we do. Why do you profess to follow such a despicable being?

What's wrong with you?

[Raven]

When parents bring a child into the world are they being evil, they knowingly are exposing the child to all the dangers this world has to offer. Is this loving the child, or an evil act by allowing the child to have to experience all the world can throw at the child.
This is the reasoning you are using with God, so by your reasoning parents are evil by bring a child into this world.

Apples and Oranges, dude. Your omnimax God knew before he even did it what would transpire. So I guess you could call this the world's first case of entrapment. Something much frowned upon in our legal system. He knew what they would do, and he went and did it anyway. Why did he not stick them in the world the way he knew already they would end up? The end result was the same, and he'd have saved everybody a bit of trouble.

On the other hand, my wife and myself have brought forth 4 (now adult) children, 3 of whom have reproduced on their own. Nothing evil in that. We had a responsibility and we lived up to it when we decided to have offspring.

But for an omnimax creator to pull a fast one on two child-like beings the way he did - that's evil. Who would not want knowledge. He should have been happy they wanted to grow. But no, it's his way or the highway. He'd have made a good Republcan.