Maybe Somebody Can Explain This to Me
Bill Maher likes to test people’s reason by asking them if they actually believe in a talking snake, referring, of course, to the tale of the Garden of Eden. Frankly, to me, the idea that the snake talks is perhaps the least troubling detail of the story. Maybe I’m just missing something; maybe a biblical literalist can set me straight here. Let me lay it out.
God is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent. God created us as we are, foibles and all. So right there, I begin to have some problems with the Eden story, because if God is (a) omnipotent and omniscient and (b) created us complete with our faults, then just at that the story of the garden falls apart–it’s clearly all God’s fault.
But let’s take it from the beginning. God creates Adam and Eve, but wants to keep them innocent of the knowledge of good and evil. Okay, we usually envy children their innocence, and say that ignorance is bliss; we may not agree with the idea of not teaching our children, but at least we can understand this part to a certain degree.
But here is where the story, taken literally, begins to take on a bent angle. God takes the quality of knowledge of good and evil, and places it in the garden where he has placed Adam and Eve. Right there I have questions: why put the knowledge in the garden–in fact, why make the knowledge accessible at all? Why not keep the knowledge of good and evil completely out of mankind’s reach?
And if God does decide to make it something which can be accessed, then why put it in the middle of the garden? Why not put it in a far-off place? Why not put in on top of a mountain beyond a thousand miles of desert? No, God puts it smack in the middle of the garden, right at the feet of the very beings he supposedly wants to keep it from.
But God goes further: he not only puts the knowledge in the garden, he makes it edible. Not so that you have to study hard or go to any effort at all to acquire the knowledge, but just eat the fruit and magically, you know all about good and evil.
Worse, God makes the knowledge a fruit–which is not just food, but food which has no other purpose than to be eaten, more so than any other kind of food. That’s what fruit is for: it’s a strategy that plants have to offer nutrition along with its seed, so that animals will eat it, then deposit the seed a distance away right in the middle of a pile of fertilizer. By putting the knowledge in a fruit and making the knowledge attainable just by eating it, and then putting it in front of Adam and Eve, God is essentially inviting them to eat it, despite his verbal warnings to the contrary.
But God doesn’t stop there. He then creates a serpent, imbues it with the power of speech understandable by humans, and gives it the will to deceive and entice the humans to eat what God has forbidden. Then he puts the serpent in the garden with full access to the tree, where (being omniscient) he knows that it will successfully tempt the humans.
Imagine taking a couple of kids, and commanding them to not eat yummy chocolate. Okay so far, so long as you keep the chocolate out of reach somewhere, on a high shelf perhaps. But then you not only put a big bowl of yummy chocolate in the middle of their playroom, but you invite grandma in, knowing that the moment you’re out of the room, she’ll start begging the kids to eat the chocolate. Then you go off for a walk for a few hours, and when you come back, you are shocked–just shocked–to learn that the kids actually ate some chocolate.
Really, I see no way possible of laying the blame at the foot of Eve, or Adam, or even the serpent. This was clearly the fault on one being and one being only: God. In this tale, if taken literally and read in the light of reason, God comes across as either a sadistic con man or a psychopathic moron. And apparently as someone completely incapable of accepting responsibility for his own actions.
First, when he comes across Adam in the garden, God acts like he was unaware of what Adam had done. Remember, God is omniscient–of course he knew, even if he was such an idiot that he didn’t see it coming just by thinking about the setup he arranged. It’s almost as if God is toying with Adam–setting this innocent kid up and then playing him along, as if he did not know exactly what had transpired, letting Adam squirm, cementing his feelings of guilt.
And then God metes out his punishments: condemning the snake to walk on its belly and pitting it against mankind; condemning Eve to sorrow and pain in childbirth, not to mention submission to men; and cursing Adam, sentencing him to hard, painful labor and eventually death.
The church itself takes it even further: it calls this “original sin,” claims that it makes every human being guilty regardless of their own actions; we must be forgiven by God (or, more precisely, his agents in the church), and/or be indebted to Jesus who, apparently died for the purpose of rescuing us from original sin–despite the fact that we are apparently still just as guilty of that sin as we ever were. So now we have to beg God/the church for forgiveness and be indebted to Christ for saving us from sins that we are still responsible for.
Does this, or does this not, all come across as a rather transparent con game?
Now, take the story in a different way: not literally, but as a parable, which chronicles our path from naked animal to thinking being, causing us pain in our knowledge, the fear of ultimate death, the labor of agriculture–even the pain of giving birth due to a larger cranium. A story which speaks to rebellion of youth, a desire to become wise, even to outgrow childhood and leave the house of one’s parents. There is a lot which can be gleaned from the story if not taken literally.
But taking the story literally robs it of meaning, makes God into an abusive, manipulative ass, and shows up the church as conning the people into being forever beholden to them, no matter what.
Or am I missing something?
The explanation finally hit me, last week: God has a boss. And he’s being held answerable to whoever this boss is.
(I’ve tried to get some discussion going on this, here, but nobody seems to want to take a bite at it.)
Well interesting paradigm, but all those questions, just prove that if you search about God, you better read the bible, instead of just speculating on the purposes of God.
First of all… Adam and Eve were not kids, they were full adults, thus comparing them like kids in the “chocolate/grandma” example is out of proportion. You cannot assume they were kids, as they were created adults.
As for the tempation, this is nothing but a case of Authority. God made it clear that by eating the apple, this would bring them all bunch of bad things (Birthpains, hard labour, death, etc…). God was clear about this. Then came the serpent and tempted them. You have to remember that God created us with “Free Will”, aka power to choose. Adam and Eve Choosed BY THEIR OWN WILL (they could have said No) to eat the apple, thus having to assume the consequences of their acts. This is just a simple test of God to see who is faithfull to him and his word. Adam and eve choosed to eat the apple, and go contrary to God’s order and will for us.
Please note… Adam and eve were victim of the serpent, therefore the both have a 50% of guilt in this story, they were tempted and they fell for it. But based on the proverb “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”, we can clearly see that the real guily party is the Devil (D- Evil).
As for the part of being indebted to Jesus… at least he wont ask for your hard earned tax money in order to bailout “his saints” >>>> It’s a free gift. It;s up to you to accept it or not.
Perhaps I’m out of the loop here, not really being a big religious type, but I see both points, one stated by Luis and the other stated by our friend who has no problem stating he has found God.
One of the greatest story books off all time is the Bible. Written by a multitude of authors, many unnamed and unknown (if not all), as well as some of the deeds in the Bible themselves, too, unproven. Though it is not a complete farce either.
For instance, it seems to give impeccable geographic locations that have been proven time and time again by archeological digs, only going off some words of scripture and local towns folk (if they had that luxury).
But then again, I can just as well write a story (whether it has religious meaning or not) about a real place, let’s say England, more specific, London. Create a character so life like, with his own thoughts, feelings, friends, social phobias, hopes, dreams and fears. Any great story has a message the author wants to convey, be it that “Life is an ever wonderful thing”, or just as well “Human life is short, brutish, and savage, filled with pain and the irony that is life and death.”
I have seen many snakes and none of which have spoken to me, nor have I ever waltzed around au natural in public either.
This is my opinion, just as it is those who have posted before me, but from my findings, the stories of the bible are not supposed to be taken at its most literal sense (I mean, we no longer stone people for instance), but a more, if you will, metaphoric sense.
Interpretation of story has been going on for decades, not just the bible, but others as well.
As an example, I leave with this story, which is true, and without speculation.
One of my English professors at my college was once attending a conference on teaching the subject of English at the college level and it many branches. There was one particular meeting on poetry where a professor, for a great number of hours, proclaimed a certain Robert Frost poem was about suicide. When the floor was open for questions and opinion, another professor opened up with a challenge, saying it was about his disdain of organized religion. This debated heated for another hour, with almost half the room divided on either side. Then suddenly, a coy man with glasses in the back raised his hand. A silence fell on the room as people turned to look at this man, and then he spoke.
“Quite frankly, I don’t believe that the poem is about suicide OR disdain of religion.”
Both of the professors where equally shocked at this man’s notion when one asked,
“How do you know that?”
The man replied with a smirk, “Because I’m Robert Frost.”
Just think about it.
As one of my friends mentioned: the God of the old testement acts like a two year old: He’s jealous, angry and he plays hide and seek and abuses his own power. God matures as he goes through the bible, until the New Testament where he often displays the altruistic outlook of a young adult.
I read Bush on the couch, many years ago. The analysis relied upon a school of thought that individuals are conscious of leaving the placidity of the womb for the harshness of reality – often blame themselves. The self blames itself, for having been kicked out of the womb. This is the same as the garden of eden story. It’s a psychological reflex.
Also, I like the idea that the story reflects our leaving the trees behind and descending on to the savanna and gaining a general awareness of things.
Man’s problem is that he is of finite mind and limited means and that he is prone to suffering in an hostile universe. Most religions attempt to help humans cope with that reality.
On a larger level, the problem of Religion is that it looks at creation from the perspective of the Human condition. Try taking a look at creation from the perspective of God.
What is God’s condition?
God is infinite and of unlimited means AND has free will (actually no one knows this, it’s just a theoretical statement and a logical assumption). Angels, so to speak, are God’s creation that have the characteristics of God, less the free will. Humanity has the characteristic of God, less the infinite and unlimited means. Angels cannot have an independent thought. In fact, God because he’s infinite in knowledge can’t really know something or someone new or different than himself.
As my friend said, God’s condition is: He’s bored and he’s lonely.
So he sets his hand to create. The human condition is: we have independent minds in an existence filled with uncertainty. This allows us to have independent mind. We are and we create newness. The existence of suffering makes our decisions to be ones of consequence. (this also manifest itself in evolution: when a species takes on a new attribute it has consequences that lead to suffering if the attribute doesn’t enhance survival).
The problem religion has, is explaining how there can be a God and a good God that would allow human suffering. The bible takes several different stabs at this: one is that it’s all our fault, we create suffering. The other is, suffering is God’s test of man.
I think Christianity misses the boat. The message of Christ is that God became man to put himself through suffering so that God could be in communion with his creation. How can God be a good God and create suffering? The Christian answer is, God finds suffering so important to creation, that, rather than rid creation of suffering, he instead puts himself through it. In that way, he’s in communion with us. From this angle, God doesn’t suffer to redeem anything we did, he suffers to redeem something he did: create creation with suffering.
Of course the problem with that is that it really doesn’t help humans cope with suffering. That is always the big problem.
Luis, I perfectly understand and agree with you.
When we criticize the Bible, the first defense line of the religious people is to blame for not knowing or understanding it. I read the Bible 33 years ago and I might have forgotten the details. So, when jahtom commended us to better read it, so I did. Here is a reference sample from one of many online Bibles (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis2.htm):
Genesis 2
….
15 The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it.
16 The LORD God gave man this order: “You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden
17 Except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die.”
18 The LORD God said: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him.”
19 So the LORD God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name.
20 The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man.
21 So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
22 The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man. When he brought her to the man,
23 the man said: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.
Genesis 3: The Fall of Man
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ”
4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman.
5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
…
First, God never made clear one consequence: death. Men after Adam died in vain for lesser reasons than knowledge; therefore, his mistake is reasonable and a liberation.
Adam and Eve were not adults in facto. Why? Because they did not have the knowledge and the notions of good and bad. They were treated as kids and they were actually kids. They were “dependents” like children: not feeding themselves, not having sex, following the rules, but not necessarily understanding them. They would not have been allowed to a R-rated movie because they would not understand it. God’s punishment is unlawful by our standards: a judge does not sentence a person which cannot stand the trial and understand the sentence or the punishment. Adam and Eve did not understand what death is because nothing ever died in the Garden of Eden.
Anyway, these opinions are not for religious people and I expect lots of rebuts. This is for Luis and I stand for him and his courage to address these subjects. Luis, keep up, you are not alone.
Reading Genesis 2-24, it struck me the fact this paragraph it is talking about conjugal union before those notions ever existed, before Adam and Eve found about sex, marriage and parents; it must be one of those paragraphs where you have to take it parabolically.
Luis, a future debate could be about God’s discrimination of Cain, which led to fratricide: “The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
5 but on Cain and his offering he did not”
“In this tale, if taken literally and read in the light of reason, God comes across as either a sadistic con man or a psychopathic moron.”
Best line of the day.
Of course your mistake would be in taking anything religious into the light of reason. Faith does not want to be reasoned out… anymore than reason is comfortable with belief without evidence (i.e. faith).
The thing about that story that always got me is that the snake was right, and he gets punished! God said Adam & Eve would die if they ate the fruit. The snake said they would gain knowledge. God was lying and the snake was telling the truth. So what morals is this teaching?