rainbow walking

Often skeptical reviews tend to diminish the possibility of God's existence by attempting to defrock His moral stature using some particular incident in the bible or another. Case in point:

Hi Steve,
I hope Albert doesn’t mind my impudence but this is one of my favorite biblical topics so I’m going to shanghia this thread from Albert's OP and see if we can build some discussion from it. But please understand that mine and Al’s theological perspectives may differ somewhat.


Steve: “Adam and Eve were physically, morally, and spiritually perfect.”

Rw: To begin with my view of this claim is based on Gen. 1:21 where God declares everything He made to be “very good”. From this perspective I would say A&E were physically healthy, morally neutral, and spiritually in tune. If this is equivalent to perfection so be it, but “very good” is probably more cogent.

Steve: Please explain how a perfect being, without knowledge of good and evil,

John: First, a biblical clarification to that rectifies this confusion.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree wasGOOD for food,

rw: This was a judgment call made by the woman BEFORE she actually touched the fruit. Clearly this demonstrates that she had enough moral knowledge of good to determine this particular fruit was edible, the implications being she recognized that life was preferable and required caution to sustain.

All morality is a social construct and all social constructs are designed to preserve and promote human life so any act that preserves and promotes human life is a moral act requiring a moral choice further requiring knowledge of the alternatives and their consequences.

In as much as it appeared necessary to determine what was good to eat and what wasn’t we have a clear indication that the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil conveyed in that forbidden fruit was something entirely different from just a morally intellectual understanding.

In the second case we have this:

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

rw: There was a period of time when Adam complied with this command. From this we can deduce that he did so because he had some comprehension of the consequence of death and what that meant to him. So Adam had some knowledge that death was not a good consequence, compelling him to comply with the command until the serpent nullified the consequence by declaring that he not only wouldn’t die but would actually be rewarded.

So I offer this as evidence against a claim that A&E were devoid of knowledge of good and evil. What I posit they were devoid of was an experiential knowledge of evil, analogous to being told not to stick your hand in the fire because you’ll get burned but not completely comprehending this warning until you actually stick your hand in the fire and experience the consequence of getting burned. I believe this is the level of knowledge A&E were lacking until they touched the forbidden fruit.

I further hold they had experiential knowledge of good because they had fellowship with God and because they lived in the garden and enjoyed all the benefits of God’s provision. But I temper this with the realization that they may not have had full appreciation of just how good they had it until it was too late. Now let’s move on.

Steve: can commit or even perceive that they may commit an evil act or sin.

rw: Nowhere in the warning God issued to Adam did He declare that a violation constituted an evil act or a sin. God merely stated the consequence. It is important to understand that God’s purpose wasn’t to establish disobedience to be evil or a sin but to demonstrate that disobedience would invoke evil consequences and lead to sinful results.

For A&E the results became apparent almost immediately. They lost their spiritual attunement, their moral neutrality, and their physical and mental health was affected adversely.

It’s analogous to an eight year old being warned not to play in the street. A child who would have grown up to become an Olympic sprinter but in a moment of brash disobedience, following the lead of a neighbor’s child, he runs out into the street, is struck by a car and paralyzed for the remainder of his life. Did his parents warn him away from the street because they wanted him to learn that disobedience to one’s parents is evil and sinful or because they wanted to protect him from the evil and sinful results of disobedience?

Did the child recognize his disobedience as something evil and sinful? Not in the sense of knowing how harsh the consequences would be, no. But he was told not to do something and at the moment he did what he had been warned not to do, he knew he was doing something he shouldn’t. But the neighbor’s child was out there in the street and nothing bad was happening to him? Who’s really to blame?

In the case of A&E God had to be the car that struck them. There was no one else to convey the evil and sinful ramifications of the consequences. Much like the father who discovers his eight year old son playing in the street after being warned not to and delivers a firm spanking. The spanking is preferable to a lifetime of paralysis. And that is exactly where A&E were headed had God not intervened. Let’s look for signs of the paralysis creeping up on them.

For A&E the consequences begin to affect them personally first in their identities. Having stepped outside the parameters established by God had the effect of causing them to become more sensitive and aware of themselves. This is a clear sign that they were indeed culpable.

I remember my first cigarette at the age of ten. The heightened sensation of doing something sneaky forced me to be more cautious( hence, more aware), but this was nothing in comparison to that first drag and the coughing but noticeable physical sensation of euphoria that made me immediately focus on MYSELF and these wonderfully strange feelings. Twenty seven years later I finally overcame this addiction.

This heightened awareness leads to a more disarming conclusion. They are different from one another physically. They know this by making a COMPARISON and noting the differences. Suddenly they find themselves miles apart from this:

Genesis 2:24 … and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

rw: A COMPARISON led to the CONCLUSION that they were NOT one flesh. There were noticeable differences. But how did this lead to shame? Are we naturally ashamed of our bodies?

NOT UNLESS A COMPARISON IS MADE AND A DIFFERENCE IS DISCOVERED.

Make a mental note of this. Drop a flare here as a boundary marker because this, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely the consequential tool used to stoke the flames of war and genocide, racism and bigotry throughout man’s history: The COMPARISON that leads to the awareness of DIFFERENCES. They are not like us! Kill them!

But A&E hadn’t advanced to that stage yet. There were still several psychological steps to be made before we arrive at jealousy and anger. That didn’t manifest until their children were grown and Cain murdered Abel. The first stage was SHAME and their initial reaction was to cover their nakedness with makeshift clothing from the garden. Now we have a man and his wife hiding things from one another. This leads to further self awareness/reflection and a sense of aloneness and smallness in a great big world and fear creeps in. FEAR, that icon of paralysis. Then suddenly reality comes knocking.

Adam, “Oh crap, it’s God, we can’t let Him see us like this! Quick, let’s hide behind these trees until he goes away!”

Genesis 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Can we say BUSTED? But wait, it just gets better and better. Do they fess up and admit they did something they had been warned not to do?

Not really…they begin to exhibit the next damaging symptom of disobedience.
SHIFTING THE BLAME:

Genesis 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

Very clever Adam, blame it on God for giving you that confounded woman. Sure, feed her to the wolves to protect your own skin. How quickly we forget the joy and comfort and relief they bring into otherwise drab, dull and lonely lives. I’m sure God is going to appreciate the irony. Maybe you’d prefer going back to living inside your own skin as a separate and self aware human? Oh wait, what’s that around your waist? I see, you already left her.

“But”, you object, “she left me first! She’s the one who listened to that stupid snake and followed his advice and did what she knew she shouldn’t have and even brought some to me. Why should I take the blame?”

Adam, Adam, Adam…you just don’t get it do you? The damage wasn’t irreparable. The connection between the two of you could have been repaired. You were still connected to the One who created both of you and established that oneness the two of you shared. But you broke that connection and now look at you. All three of you are separated from one another. You know what you did was wrong regardless of how you try to justify it. Blame it on Eve or God…hell, blame it on both of them…just as long as you get off, right? Why’d you do it, man? What were you thinking?

Adam drops his head and begins drawing a line with his big toe in the dirt, “I don’t know, you know, it just seemed so natural and all, I mean, Eve was laughing and chewing away and telling me how good it tasted and laughing at my…thing…and telling me how I’ve just got to try it, and how I won’t believe the difference it has made in her life and God will never know anyway because He never comes around except in the evenings and…I don’t know what came over me. I just did it.

Everything that stupid serpent said would happen has happened, only he never said it was going to end up like this. It just isn’t fair.”

Steve: If they manage to do so due to “beguilement”, should a being without knowledge and intent be held accountable or even punished?

Did the consequences give them a choice? Could A&E have gotten away with it and not begun to experience the paralyzing effects? Not begun to notice their differences in a way that produced shame and introduced them to self esteem? Not have motivated them to attempt a deflection of the judgment for their actions?

If a world exists where bad things do happen to good people wouldn’t the best thing you could do for them be to prepare them for the inevitable? If they were going to die anyway; were going to procreate anyway and it was going to be painful anyway; if they were going to have to struggle to live as long as possible anyway? Wouldn’t it be wise to make a connection between their choices and these bad and painful things to motivate them to do good things? How do we teach our children, who we know will one day be grown and free agents, to choose the good and forsake the evil?

If the world was a place where knowledge of good and evil already existed, not because of any choice made by A&E, but for other reasons, and A&E were going to have to face that world, would it be better to let them learn the hard way or to guide them thru the process and ease them into it?

If such a world exists, where the knowledge of evil abounds and is available to be apprehended, won’t there always be someone tempting someone to learn it? Who is the more guilty; the temptor or the one who succumbs to the temptation? Can we create a world free from the knowledge of evil? That is the only way to eliminate the consequences. But first a standard of what is and isn’t evil must be established…yes?

Steve: Also, is lying wrong or even sinful?

Rw: The bible makes a clear distinction between misrepresenting the facts about a set of circumstances and “bearing false witness”.

Bearing false witness is related to telling a lie about someone that will bring them harm in some way. Both David and Abraham actually tell lies to protect their lives on several occasions yet the bible appears not to pass moral judgment on these behaviors. So, biblically, the moral significance attached to lying seems to be situationally specific. By lying here I assume you mean intentionally saying something that you know isn’t true.

Rw: This is a good question. I’ll provide a series of arguments on God’s behalf.

First an outline of the charge:

1. A&E died

2. But not on the literal day they ate of the forbidden fruit.

C1: Number one definitely makes the serpent out to be a liar

C2: Number two possibly makes God out to be a liar.

1st Argument The rendering is confused in the wording :

for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

A simple analogy: Let’s say you and I are friends and you share with me your deep financial problems and tell me that you are seriously thinking of robbing a bank to pay your bills. Now let’s say I respond by telling you, “Steve, the day you rob a bank is the day you will surely go to prison.”

Do I literally mean to convey that you will be thrown in prison on the literal day you perform the robbery? Would you take me to mean it that way? Probably not, why? Because you and I both know that even if you are caught in the act there is still a long process involved to get you into prison. Being placed in the county jail until your bond hearing and subsequent trial isn’t the same as prison. Would someone unfamiliar with the American legal process take me literally here? Probably.

Now should we literally interpret God’s claim here to mean that A&E will actually die the same literal day they eat the forbidden fruit? The above analogy, as reasonable as it may sound does not completely exonerate God from this charge. While somewhat plausible it is still ambiguous enough to be challenged.

Argument #2 The serpent doesn’t argue this point. He focuses on the consequence more than the timing. The serpent knows that he must cancel out the death threat to convince A&E that eating the fruit is o’kay. He utilizes a dualistic approach to achieve his objective:

(1). Convinces A&E that God has not been truthful with them

(2). Uses the further caveat of “opened eyes/equal to gods” enticement.

From a logical perspective, if the serpent actually saw the “literal day” as an issue in the death threat he likely would have accentuated it as further evidence of God’s duplicity? Instead he focuses his thrust on challenging the certainty of the consequent: you will not SURELY die

Argument #3 The connotations in the term “SURELY” is an additional clue to ascertaining God’s intent in issuing the consequence as it was issued. While SURELY connotes a definiteness or an established certainty it does not convey immediacy. In fact, it is often used to convey an established future occurrence. Sometimes it can be used to convey a contingency. But it is improperly used to convey an immediacy.

In the biblical context it raises some questions as to A&E’s status relative to death had they NOT disobeyed. Are we to take the use of this term to indicate that their death was not an established certainty? Or that the method of death was not an established certainty? Since the text does not specify HOW this SURELY will become a reality, we have no reason to privilege immediacy over a process of aging. The text does not say that God will kill them or that the fruit itself will kill them, only that their death becomes an emanant established fact in relation to touching or eating the fruit of that tree.

Argument #4 A crucial point in ascertaining God’s intended meaning is found in examining any possible clues to how A&E might have interpreted His command and the consequent. Did they view the consequent, as He issued it, as an immediate or certain but ambiguously timed event? There are actually several textual clues to consider in this vein. The first is this:

Gen. 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

The implications that the consequent will be transferred upon touch gives us reason to suspect that their view was more of an immediate death than a protracted one. The fact that the initial command has now been altered to include touching is also revealing as it indicates a possible REINFORCING of the command which begs the question of what may have transpired to produce the added emphasis on touching.

One could deduce from this a curiosity factor in the nature of A&E that may have prompted the reinforcement. If this were indeed the case we could view this reinforcement as further persuasion that the consequent was conveyed and understood to be immediate. The next textual clue is this:

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes,

This leaves us with a distinct impression that this was actually the first time Eve had ever really looked at the fruit on this tree. From this we could deduce that the impact of the command was forceful enough to keep them from even looking too closely at the fruit of this tree. I would say that an impression of immediate death would probably be the only threat forceful enough to keep someone from even looking at the source.

So now you’re probably scratching your head wondering why I would introduce this as an argument in God’s defense, right?

Another analogy: Have you ever had to EXAGGERATE a consequence to keep someone from doing something FOR THEIR OWN GOOD? (I must additionally qualify this with, “until such time as you were ready for them to do so.”)

As I said above in response to your question about when intentional mis-representation of the truth constitutes a moral infraction I hope I made it clear that the biblical distinction is specific. In life threatening situations it is acceptable to mis-represent the facts to preserve life. David pretended to be a lunatic and Abraham pretended that Sarah was only his sister, both did so because they feared for their lives. In neither case did the bible condemn these acts.

You be the judge.

Conclusion: The consequences of A&E’s decisions were not a punishment, they were inevitable. God tied the inevitable to morality to give humanity a leg up on the race to subdue a world full of conflict and strife, challenges and suffering; a world where the innocent would pay while the guilty would play; a world where life and death were bedfellows and danced together to the music of laughter and screams. A&E were dieing anyway. She was pregnant and Adam was getting lazy. It was time for a change. They had been protected and coddled long enough. Enter the Dragon.

Steve: For extra credit, indicate which character was specifically ordered not to eat of the tree and why a punishment would be in order for one who was not given the order.
Thanks in advance,
Steve, the mild mannered human

Rw: Textually Adam, realistically, both of them.