If God is love, why does he punish innocent people?

[mereatheism]

I have a site that raises the question: "If God is love, why does he punish innocent people?"

This site aims to test the Christian claim that God is love (1 John 4:16)... we'll examine an overlooked evil: intrinsically evil acts that are recorded to have been committed by God himself.

The essay then proceeds to list three clear cut cases in the Bible in which God is acting in an unfair way that seems to contradict the claim that God is love. Namely, the essay profiles the plague of the firstborn in Egypt, entrapment in Garden of Eden, and the destruction of Midian. The site also establishes a psychological profile for God, debunks common Christian responses, and explains the different possible alternatives to the god of the Bible.

The essay is only around 5000 words (large part are quotes from the Bible) and is hopefully not too dry. Thanks for reading and I look forward to replying to all messages!

[Easyrider]

The Egyptians were hardly innocent. They had been abusing and enslaving the Hebrews for centuries.

[McCulloch]

The Egyptians were hardly innocent. They had been abusing and enslaving the Hebrews for centuries.

Were the Egyptian first-born and all of their mothers all guilty?

[McCulloch]

This site aims to test the Christian claim that God is love (1 John 4:16)... we'll examine an overlooked evil: intrinsically evil acts that are recorded to have been committed by God himself.

How can anyone claim that God has committed evil? If you take one particular horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma, then whatever God does is, by definition, good. God cannot do evil simply because it is God who defines what is good. Entrapment, genocide, revenge and sadistic eternal torture are all good things when God does them.

[Confused]

I have a site that raises the question: "If God is love, why does he punish innocent people?"

This site aims to test the Christian claim that God is love (1 John 4:16)... we'll examine an overlooked evil: intrinsically evil acts that are recorded to have been committed by God himself.

The essay then proceeds to list three clear cut cases in the Bible in which God is acting in an unfair way that seems to contradict the claim that God is love. Namely, the essay profiles the plague of the firstborn in Egypt, entrapment in Garden of Eden, and the destruction of Midian. The site also establishes a psychological profile for God, debunks common Christian responses, and explains the different possible alternatives to the god of the Bible.

The essay is only around 5000 words (large part are quotes from the Bible) and is hopefully not too dry. Thanks for reading and I look forward to replying to all messages!

Good site with good questions, the problem I see most giving you is that the site references the OT which many claim is not a literal book to be taken as actual events that occurred. Now, since I am overly confused on that issue, I am saying that only as a head up.

How can God be intrinsically evil? Can you say you know what the motives for God's actions were? Can you say that by doing the acts mentioned, it didn't in fact set into motion positive changes. Can you say what the world would be like had God not done these things? So God is evil relative to what? His actions? Mans interpretation of Him or His actions? We can't know these things, so how can you make a claim of Him being intrinsically evil?

[mereatheism]

The Egyptians were hardly innocent. They had been abusing and enslaving the Hebrews for centuries.

God punishes the Egyptian children who definitely had nothing to do with any enslavement. "Why doesn't God kill Pharaoh in the first place if he has no qualms about killing people?"

[mereatheism]

Good site with good questions, the problem I see most giving you is that the site references the OT which many claim is not a literal book to be taken as actual events that occurred. Now, since I am overly confused on that issue, I am saying that only as a head up.

That's certainly true, a lot of Christians don't take the OT literally. However, looking at the OT allegorically doesn't really help. I mean what exactly is genocide or child slavery a metaphor for?

How can God be intrinsically evil? Can you say you know what the motives for God's actions were?

I would argue these sorts of questions are solipsistic. Can you say you know what the motives for Ted Bundy's actions were, etc? As the argument can be used a defense for anyone doing anything, I don't think it's very persuasive.

Can you say that by doing the acts mentioned, it didn't in fact set into motion positive changes. Can you say what the world would be like had God not done these things?

This would be along the lines of "Anne Frank should thank Hitler for her bestseller and if Hitler didn't exist then there could have been an even worse dictator. How can you know?"

So God is evil relative to what? His actions? Mans interpretation of Him or His actions?

Yes, man's interpretation. We are humans so who else's?

We can't know these things, so how can you make a claim of Him being intrinsically evil?

If we can't know these things, how can we know anything about the nature of God?

[ZAROVE]

This is my first post, but Ive debated a while. And, may I say htis much, that your esay is worde din such a way as to diliberatley slant the readers perception.It also seems laced with Juvinality, which betrays the intent, which is to slant ones view, not to anylise properly.



To take this issue at credit, Ill examien eahc story in Chronological order, startign in Eden, then to the Egyprians, which peopel seem intereste din right now.

*********

After making hundreds of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars, God finds time to build a resort for the pinnacle of the universe: man.

No where int he Scriptures does it say man is the Pennacle of the Universe. You begin by asserting an unproven point base don assumptisn made by the majority. WHich is Ironic sicne you wan tot overturn the majorital percpetions, yet rest yor case often on them.



How ironic would it be if man turns out to be flawed and can't even follow simple directions:

Except man wasn't flawed, or perfect. THis is why I tire of peopel supposing the word "Christain" to mean "Modern Neo-Conservitive Evangelical Protestants."



IE, the Eastern Orthodox saw man as beign created wiht the potential for perfection, btu nto yet perfect.Man is created ot sek union with God.



Mormins also see mankinds origins as a means of trainign their soul, to develop.



Bth of these views acocrd with classical Christainity that our life is lead to learn lessons in how to lvoe one another and God.This world then is invisioned as a Shchool, in which we learn from. C.S.Lewis elaborate don tbis in "Mere Christianity", the book whose name was used ot make your own "Mere Atheism" sites name. We live to learn the virtues. We ae mad elimited and weak so we can learn to overcome these obsticles. We are given choices and are then givne a chance ot learn form our choices, even our mistakes.



All this woudl indicate mankind's life on Earth is simply a pilgrimage toward reunification with God, and some get lost, ontheir own, along the ay.



Thus, man is set to live ot learn, and cant be expected ot yet be perfect.







Genesis 2:8-9, 15-17 NIV
Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground - trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

God: "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Someone forgets to call the exterminator man and the story quickly escalates as God's perfect creation has an infestation of Satan in the form of a snake:



Actually that's another presumption.Neither Judaism, nor classical Christanity before the third century, identify the Serpent as Satan.Nor does the Biblical text in Genesis or any aprt of the New Testament, refer to the tempter as Satan in the form of a Serpent. ( Or, possessing the bodyof one.)



Likewise, why is it perfeclty acceptable to kill the Serpent? The seprent, at this point, has himself commited no sins. Yet you seem tothink it is wrong to punish humnity, and perfeclty accptabel to outright kill an innocent serpent.

This same fualty logic plays out below.



Genesis 3:1-7 NIV
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.

Serpent: "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

Woman: "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 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.'"

Serpent: "You will not surely die for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

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. 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.



Thus, the woman of her own free will violated Gods commandment. And had her husband likewise do so.



God then finds out, which shouldn't come as a surprise since you've read this story before and God is all-knowing (I guess he was testing himself).



THis is the sort of shaklow mokery that prevents me form seeing this as a serious attemot at anything.



God promptly lays the smack down:



Well, that and the word "SMackdown".



Genesis 3:11-13, 16-19 NIV
God: "Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

Man: "The woman you put here with me - she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

God: "What is this you have done, woman?"

Woman: "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

God: "Woman, I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

God: "Man, cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."



Gid essened the punishment and they didnt die.Seems fair tome.





Party's over. God, for reasons unknown,



The reasons aren't Unknown, and are clealry stated int he text. God gave a direct order. Do not eat form this one, spacific tree.They did so.THe punishment was Death. Yt God showed mercy and didnt kill them.



But the reaosns ar eplain and evident to anyone readign the text.



gets uptight about Adam and Eve living forever if they ever eat from the tree of knowledge.



I like how so many who are critical of the text tepresent the sin as "Gettign knowledge". They didnt eat of the tree of Knoweldge.They ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Their is a Distinction.





He hires a security guard:



I like how tyou oversimplify and distort things.





Genesis 3:22-24 NIV
God: "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

True. But this is fitting.





Whether one reads this story historically or metaphorically, the main point stays just the same: humans did bad, humans got punished. But is that a fair judgment?

More than fair. God didnt kill them, as he said he would, and merley banished them.





I don't think so as there are a few troubling points in the story:



Troublign by whose standards? One who seeks ot be torubled will be no matter hwat transpires.



1. God allows the evil serpent to live in his garden.

WHich is a problem why? Keep in midn that you woudl have him kil the Serpent.But the Serpent, until he tempted Eve, was not evil. The Serpent was merley a Serpent.Evil itsself is simply doing that which is not good or right, and has no objective existance.It is confined ot actiosn and thoughts. Nothign is in itsself evil, in fact.

All this beign said, the Seprent, along with Adam and Eve, had free will to make such a determination.

And it seems your perfectly fine wiht the idea that the Swprent cna be killed before comittign any sins, and yet you complain about hte Egyptian firstborn who, for all you kmow, woudl have gorown up and commited the same crimes or worse on the Hebrew slaves?

Based on foreknowledge of the Seprents actiosn, God shoudl have killed the Seprnt, which still may not have roevented Mankinds fall, and may have lead ot a worse situation.

Yt soemhow Killing the Egyptian firtsborn as wrong because you, personally dotn know what they woudl have done in the future and presume that this makes htme innocnent?

It seems your judgement is absed on your own limited view and youmake no attmeot whatsoever of seeing it form Gods perspective.

2.God does not want Adam and Eve to know the difference between good and evil.
Actulaly thats an oversimplification as well. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, mistakenlyu seen as a tree of basic knowledge overall, was rooted in guilt and shame. Soemthign they coudl eaisly have lived without was the personal, direct knowledge of guilt and shame.

3.God plants the temptation himself, neglects to tell Adam and Eve about the serpent (who is "more crafty than any of the wild animals"), knows the outcome, yet he permits the situation to unfold. In the justice system, this is called a set up or entrapment.
1: Why warn them of the Serpent?

2: The Genesis creaiton accoutn isnt 100% consise, and he may have told themn of the Serpent.

3: The Justice system where? You judge another culture by th standards of the modern westenr world?

4: Its not veen entrapment by the US Justice departments definition. To entail entrapment one has to prove that the party invovled, in this case God, direclty lead them to partake of the fruit after prohibiting it. Foreknowledge of an event that will transpir is not identical to responcibility for it. Its not entrapment because God didnt make it happen. (Again, knowing it will happen is not identical to making it happen.)

4.God is threatened by the notion that Adam and Eve could live forever if they eat from the tree of life.
No he's not.Nor will you find this in the text.

5.Worst of all: Adam and Eve know that they have done something evil only after eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When God commands Adam not eat from the tree, he simply does not have the capacity to understand the command as he is given the faculty to discern the difference between good and evil only after eating from the tree of knowledge.
This isnt true either. Adam and Eve had the capacity to udnerstand Gods simple commandment "DO not do this", just as my cats know the rule sof my house. What they lacked was the ability to discern good and evil, not right and wrong, which is a more basic concept.



Some questions for Christians:



OK.

1.Why does God allow the serpent to roam free in the Garden of Eden? Why doesn't he tell Adam and Eve about the serpent?
The erpent had as much a right to life as anyone else, and you cannot punish sins until they are commited. And you do not really know what God told them of the Seprent.

2.Why does God not want Adam and Eve to know the knowledge of good and evil in the first place? Does God want Adam and Eve to be ignorant robots?
Because the Knowledge of good and evil is a moral concience that allows a sence of guilt, shame, and reproach and lends itsself tot he culpability in acts that ar enot right.

And again, not knowing the fdifference between good and evil is not the same thign as not understanign right and wrong. Likewise, one cna lack a moral concience and still have free will. Animals lack moral concience, and yt ar enot mindless robots.



3.What does God go through with this exercise despite the fact that he already knows the outcome? Is he testing his omniscience?

For the benifit of the created beings.In this case mankind and the serpent. Besides, no oen ever said everyhtign in tiem was static and their wa sonly one outcome possible.

4.Why does God feel threatened that Adam and Eve could live forever if they eat from the tree of life?
He didnt.Nor does the text say he did.This is presumption on your part.

5.Most importantly: How are Adam and Eve supposed to know what is good and what is evil if they have not eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

They wheren't, this is the point. But they coudl still know right and wrong.
Synopsis: God entraps Adam and Eve by planting the forbidden tree in the middle of the garden and by allowing the serpent to roam free.

Just using the word "Entrapment" doesnt make it entrapment. Definign entrapment as simply knowing n advance soemthign will happen isnt the same thign as priving its a real entrapment. Entrapment in the law is when the party actulaly guides or leads the pother party into the act, which God didnt do.



And againm allowign the seprent to roam free isnt a problem either.He allowed man to roam free.He allowed all other animals to roam free.



Why do you focus only on mankind?





Furthermore, since Adam and Eve lack the knowledge of good and evil the moment they commit their sin, they cannot be held accountable for not knowing that disobeying God is evil.



But they still knew they had disobeyed God even before hte act. Again, right and wrong, though related to good and evil, is not the same thing.



You might as well blame the blind for not seeing or the deaf for not hearing.





Except one can know right and wrong wihout knowign good and evil.

Under such perverted thinking, parents might as well throw their children out to the streets for wanting to learn how to read.

Why? The two arent related,and you again link "The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" with "KNowledge" in general, which is fallacious htinking.





If such an act were actually committed, the parents would hopefully be charged with child abuse and neglect. Why does God get a free pass?



Because your distorntign things and not really seing them as they truely are.





Note that God originally does not forbid Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of life. So why does an all-knowing God fear Adam and Eve's immortality only after they have been banished from the garden?

Can you demonstate that he's afriad?

[mereatheism]

This is my first post, but Ive debated a while.

By the misspelled words, I presume under the name METACROCK.

And, may I say htis much, that your esay is worde din such a way as to diliberatley slant the readers perception.

Half of it are direct quotes from the Bible.

It also seems laced with Juvinality, which betrays the intent, which is to slant ones view, not to anylise properly.

I think the domain name and huge MERE ATHEISM header betrays the intent, but okay.

After making hundreds of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars, God finds time to build a resort for the pinnacle of the universe: man.

No where int he Scriptures does it say man is the Pennacle of the Universe. You begin by asserting an unproven point base don assumptisn made by the majority. WHich is Ironic sicne you wan tot overturn the majorital percpetions, yet rest yor case often on them.

What is the pinnacle of creation if not man according to the Christian?

How ironic would it be if man turns out to be flawed and can't even follow simple directions:

Except man wasn't flawed, or perfect. THis is why I tire of peopel supposing the word "Christain" to mean "Modern Neo-Conservitive Evangelical Protestants."

The definition of flawed is imperfect. The definition of perfect is without flaws. Is there a middle ground I'm unfamiliar with here?

IE, the Eastern Orthodox saw man as beign created wiht the potential for perfection, btu nto yet perfect.Man is created ot sek union with God.

Right. So God created something that wasn't perfect. Moving on.

Mormins also see mankinds origins as a means of trainign their soul, to develop.

Ditto.

Bth of these views acocrd with classical Christainity that our life is lead to learn lessons in how to lvoe one another and God.This world then is invisioned as a Shchool, in which we learn from. C.S.Lewis elaborate don tbis in "Mere Christianity", the book whose name was used ot make your own "Mere Atheism" sites name. We live to learn the virtues. We ae mad elimited and weak so we can learn to overcome these obsticles. We are given choices and are then givne a chance ot learn form our choices, even our mistakes.

This is relevant to Mere Atheism because _____________.

All this woudl indicate mankind's life on Earth is simply a pilgrimage toward reunification with God, and some get lost, ontheir own, along the ay.

The evidence for this, apart from sincere assertions, is _____________.

Genesis 2:8-9, 15-17 NIV
Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground - trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

God: "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Someone forgets to call the exterminator man and the story quickly escalates as God's perfect creation has an infestation of Satan in the form of a snake:

Actually that's another presumption.Neither Judaism, nor classical Christanity before the third century, identify the Serpent as Satan.Nor does the Biblical text in Genesis or any aprt of the New Testament, refer to the tempter as Satan in the form of a Serpent. ( Or, possessing the bodyof one.)

How does this change a single thing?

Likewise, why is it perfeclty acceptable to kill the Serpent? The seprent, at this point, has himself commited no sins. Yet you seem tothink it is wrong to punish humnity, and perfeclty accptabel to outright kill an innocent serpent.

The serpent has the intention of tricking the humans. If I have the intention of murdering someone even if I had not committed the actual murder, am I perfect? I don't think so.

Genesis 3:1-7 NIV
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.

Serpent: "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

Woman: "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 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.'"

Serpent: "You will not surely die for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

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. 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.

Thus, the woman of her own free will violated Gods commandment. And had her husband likewise do so.

No. They only knew they had done wrong AFTER they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They did not know the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE eating from the tree. It's really that simple.

God then finds out, which shouldn't come as a surprise since you've read this story before and God is all-knowing (I guess he was testing himself).

THis is the sort of shaklow mokery that prevents me form seeing this as a serious attemot at anything.

No, it raises a rather serious question: why would God knowingly do this if he knows what's going to happen? Why does a perfect God do anything? He knows the outcome, he knows everything. It must be truly a bore for him.

Gid essened the punishment and they didnt die.Seems fair tome.

One more time: They only knew they had done wrong AFTER they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They did not know the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE eating from the tree. It's really that simple.

Party's over. God, for reasons unknown,

The reasons aren't Unknown, and are clealry stated int he text. God gave a direct order. Do not eat form this one, spacific tree.They did so.THe punishment was Death. Yt God showed mercy and didnt kill them.

Another time: They only knew they had done wrong AFTER they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They did not know the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE eating from the tree. It's really that simple.

But the reaosns ar eplain and evident to anyone readign the text.

Yet another time: They only knew they had done wrong AFTER they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They did not know the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE eating from the tree. It's really that simple.

gets uptight about Adam and Eve living forever if they ever eat from the tree of knowledge.

I like how so many who are critical of the text tepresent the sin as "Gettign knowledge". They didnt eat of the tree of Knoweldge.They ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Their is a Distinction.

Yes, the distinction is that they didn't know BEFORE eating from that tree that it was an evil act. Only eating from the tree gave them that knowledge.

He hires a security guard:

I like how tyou oversimplify and distort things.

Infinite God in his infinite wisdom did get an angel to guard the entrance.

Genesis 3:22-24 NIV
God: "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

True. But this is fitting.

For the umpteenth time: They only knew they had done wrong AFTER they had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They did not know the knowledge of good and evil BEFORE eating from the tree. It's really that simple.

1. God allows the evil serpent to live in his garden.

WHich is a problem why? Keep in midn that you woudl have him kil the Serpent.But the Serpent, until he tempted Eve, was not evil.

No. The serpent was the "most crafty" creature, aka created by God. Ergo, the serpent was evil from the get go and knew what was doing was wrong. Crafty implies such.

The Serpent was merley a Serpent.Evil itsself is simply doing that which is not good or right, and has no objective existance.It is confined ot actiosn and thoughts. Nothign is in itsself evil, in fact.

All this beign said, the Seprent, along with Adam and Eve, had free will to make such a determination.

And God had the free will to plant the "most crafty" of creatures in the garden fully knowing how it would turn out.

And it seems your perfectly fine wiht the idea that the Swprent cna be killed before comittign any sins, and yet you complain about hte Egyptian firstborn who, for all you kmow, woudl have gorown up and commited the same crimes or worse on the Hebrew slaves?

One more time: the serpent was the "most crafty" of the creatures.

Based on foreknowledge of the Seprents actiosn, God shoudl have killed the Seprnt, which still may not have roevented Mankinds fall, and may have lead ot a worse situation.

Yes, a loving God would not allow "most crafty" criminal access to innocents who did not at the time know the difference between good and evil.

Yt soemhow Killing the Egyptian firtsborn as wrong because you, personally dotn know what they woudl have done in the future and presume that this makes htme innocnent?

Were the children "crafty" from the start?

It seems your judgement is absed on your own limited view and youmake no attmeot whatsoever of seeing it form Gods perspective.

God's perspective is to let a crafty creature roam in his perfect creation.

2.God does not want Adam and Eve to know the difference between good and evil.
Actulaly thats an oversimplification as well. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, mistakenlyu seen as a tree of basic knowledge overall, was rooted in guilt and shame. Soemthign they coudl eaisly have lived without was the personal, direct knowledge of guilt and shame.

Oh, does this appear anywhere in the Bible? You correct me for noting that Satan was made synonymous with the serpent, but is your interpretation anywhere in the Bible? No, I don't think so: you're just making it up.

3.God plants the temptation himself, neglects to tell Adam and Eve about the serpent (who is "more crafty than any of the wild animals"), knows the outcome, yet he permits the situation to unfold. In the justice system, this is called a set up or entrapment.
1: Why warn them of the Serpent?

The same reason you'd want to be warned if a rapist was on the loose.

2: The Genesis creaiton accoutn isnt 100% consise, and he may have told themn of the Serpent.

Yeah and he could have baked them a nice cake too. It still doesn't explain how people without the knowledge of good and evil can be held responsible for not doing the difference between good and evil.

3: The Justice system where? You judge another culture by th standards of the modern westenr world?

Yeah, what tough standards: don't blame people for something they cannot possible know.

4: Its not veen entrapment by the US Justice departments definition. To entail entrapment one has to prove that the party invovled, in this case God, direclty lead them to partake of the fruit after prohibiting it. Foreknowledge of an event that will transpir is not identical to responcibility for it. Its not entrapment because God didnt make it happen. (Again, knowing it will happen is not identical to making it happen.)

God planted the tree, created the humans as little toys and pets, and then allowed the crafty serpent to take it to them. That's entrapment, sorry.

4.God is threatened by the notion that Adam and Eve could live forever if they eat from the tree of life.
No he's not.Nor will you find this in the text.

"He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Seems like paranoia to me.

5.Worst of all: Adam and Eve know that they have done something evil only after eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When God commands Adam not eat from the tree, he simply does not have the capacity to understand the command as he is given the faculty to discern the difference between good and evil only after eating from the tree of knowledge.
This isnt true either. Adam and Eve had the capacity to udnerstand Gods simple commandment "DO not do this", just as my cats know the rule sof my house. What they lacked was the ability to discern good and evil, not right and wrong, which is a more basic concept.

Good and evil ARE right and wrong! What is good is right, what is right is good; what is wrong is evil, what is evil is wrong. It's SIMPLE definitions, Metacrock.

1.Why does God allow the serpent to roam free in the Garden of Eden? Why doesn't he tell Adam and Eve about the serpent?
The erpent had as much a right to life as anyone else, and you cannot punish sins until they are commited. And you do not really know what God told them of the Seprent.

Is plotting to kill the president a crime? Does it only become a crime after the assassin pulls the gun?

2.Why does God not want Adam and Eve to know the knowledge of good and evil in the first place? Does God want Adam and Eve to be ignorant robots?
Because the Knowledge of good and evil is a moral concience that allows a sence of guilt, shame, and reproach and lends itsself tot he culpability in acts that ar enot right.

This text appears in Genesis _:_?

And again, not knowing the fdifference between good and evil is not the same thign as not understanign right and wrong. Likewise, one cna lack a moral concience and still have free will. Animals lack moral concience, and yt ar enot mindless robots.

Are you saying animals know the difference between right and wrong, but don't know the difference between good and evil?

3.What does God go through with this exercise despite the fact that he already knows the outcome? Is he testing his omniscience?

For the benifit of the created beings.In this case mankind and the serpent. Besides, no oen ever said everyhtign in tiem was static and their wa sonly one outcome possible.

The benefit? Man suffers from this! If he had never been created it would have been less suffering.

4.Why does God feel threatened that Adam and Eve could live forever if they eat from the tree of life?
He didnt.Nor does the text say he did.This is presumption on your part.

Um, no: "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Why not?

5.Most importantly: How are Adam and Eve supposed to know what is good and what is evil if they have not eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

They wheren't, this is the point. But they coudl still know right and wrong.

Your distinction between good/evil and right/wrong is incoherent.

Can you find anything written by anyone that makes this difference? Or is this some ad hoc, thrown together explanation? I'd love to look at it.

But they still knew they had disobeyed God even before hte act. Again, right and wrong, though related to good and evil, is not the same thing.


As above, please refer me to any source that explains the difference. I think you're just making it out.

Except one can know right and wrong wihout knowign good and evil.

Yes, please show me a site/page/essay that explains the vast differences between these two paired concepts. Thanks!

Note that God originally does not forbid Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of life. So why does an all-knowing God fear Adam and Eve's immortality only after they have been banished from the garden?

Can you demonstate that he's afriad?

"He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." It sounds like its out of some low-budget movie.

Metacrock, weren't you banned from this site?

[Confused]

Good site with good questions, the problem I see most giving you is that the site references the OT which many claim is not a literal book to be taken as actual events that occurred. Now, since I am overly confused on that issue, I am saying that only as a head up.

That's certainly true, a lot of Christians don't take the OT literally. However, looking at the OT allegorically doesn't really help. I mean what exactly is genocide or child slavery a metaphor for?

How can God be intrinsically evil? Can you say you know what the motives for God's actions were?

I would argue these sorts of questions are solipsistic. Can you say you know what the motives for Ted Bundy's actions were, etc? As the argument can be used a defense for anyone doing anything, I don't think it's very persuasive.

Can you say that by doing the acts mentioned, it didn't in fact set into motion positive changes. Can you say what the world would be like had God not done these things?

This would be along the lines of "Anne Frank should thank Hitler for her bestseller and if Hitler didn't exist then there could have been an even worse dictator. How can you know?"

So God is evil relative to what? His actions? Mans interpretation of Him or His actions?

Yes, man's interpretation. We are humans so who else's?

We can't know these things, so how can you make a claim of Him being intrinsically evil?

If we can't know these things, how can we know anything about the nature of God?

Well argued. You seem to see my dilemma. Can we know the nature? If one does exist, we can't know anything because the method He has chosen to educate His flawed creation is apparently just as flawed. The rebuttal you will hear will be that we, being such an imperfect sinning creation, can't possibly understand God because we are so inherently sinful that His goodness can't be comprehended by us.

I will take a stab in the dark here and give a very general answer to your overall OP: God doesn't punish innocent people because all man is born sinful. Because of this clause, it would appear that He isn't punnishing anyone innocent.