If I Was God...#4

If I was God, I would be present on the earth and lovingly guide and spend time with my creation.  This would especially be the case with humanity.

We all probably have heard of instances in which a parent or parents kicked out a child from their home after the child committed some offense that was abhorrent to the parent(s).  Most of us are appalled when we hear such stories.  We ask ourselves, as we wonder in astonishment, "What loving parent would do such a thing?  That is way too excessive!  That is poor parenting."  

Yes, indeed it is, but isn't it the very thing that the bible God(s) did to Adam and Eve?  He lost control and angrily threw them out of the pleasant garden that was their home that provided all their needs.  All the blame goes on Adam and Eve, and they were thrown out into the cold and harsh wilderness.  Not at any point have we ever asked ourselves what blame God should bear for this unruly behavior.  

Not only was God unforgiving of Adam and Eve's supposed transgression, but where the hell was he to begin with?  Why the hell did he fail to do a better job of preventing Adam and Eve finding trouble in the first place?  Why, he's the one who set up the trap!  And then he kicked them out.  

Thereafter he continued to stay away.  He continued in his hard-heartedness, never softening and deciding to forgive, never tracking Adam and Eve down and inviting them back, never apologizing for such excessive punitive behavior and neglectfulness.  He has continued to be the absent parent and to allow chaos to run rampant.  He's left it up to the very species with which he found fault in the first place to pass on supposed guidance as how to live and has left it up to them to convince fellow species members to believe it all.  He won't bother to come down here himself and lovingly straighten it all out, forgive, and go about things a better way.  Maybe he's in his abode, drinking himself into a stupor.

Bravo!

This has been #4 in the "If I Was God..." series.

The Tree Story is Impossible: Part 2

Oh yes, that's right.  When using the brain with which I was supplied, I thought of two more reasons why the tree story is ridiculous, after I posted part one.

First:  Is death good or evil?  Adam and Eve obviously knew what it meant.  Notice when they were told by El/Elohim that they would surely die in the day the day they knew what good and evil was, they're not recorded as to having asked what "die" means.  But Eve repeated it to the serpent, saying Elohim said that they would die.  It all seems to imply she knew what dying meant.  So, clearly they already knew some evil before eating the fruit.

The simple revealing of what it means to die is some knowledge of good and evil.  I think Adam and Eve would likely think of their lives as good and that dying would be evil.

Second:  There was also the tree of life.  Why didn't they just eat from that tree first?  And what would that mean?  That they'd get spirit bodies to live forever?  Then they couldn't reproduce more flesh-bodied people so that their offspring could make their own choices whether to "know good and evil."

Did it mean they'd just stay alive as long as they continually ate from it?  But that wouldn't make sense, because it sounds as if they were going to live indefinitely in physical bodies, anyway, so long as they didn't eat from the Knowledge tree.  There was nothing saying, "You'll die eventually, anyway, so long as you don't eat from that tree."  From the post-eating words from the Elohim, it sounds as if they decided to guard the tree of life to prevent Adam and Eve from living forever.

So what if Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of life first and so would have lived forever?  Then what if they'd eaten from the knowledge tree afterward?  Or would that tree then be blocked off if they'd eaten from the tree of life first?   We already know that the Elohim said, after the garden couple had eaten from the knowledge tree, that they then were like the Elohim in that they knew good from evil.  So having the same knowledge of what is good and bad like the Elohim can't be tolerated, but living forever like the Elohim would have been tolerated, had they eaten from the tree of life first?

But if they'd have lived forever, then they'd eventually know good and evil, regardless of whether they'd eat from the knowledge tree, as I explained in my part one post.

And besides, later on in the bible the knowing what is good from evil is hailed as a good thing and that we should seek knowledge and choose the good and reject the evil.

It's making a lot of sense now why it's said a person needs to become like a little child in order to believe in all this nonsense.  A poor innocent child will usually just believe what their authority figures tell them, without question.

Of course, this is just the beginning of the breakdown of the absolute folly of the book people call the bible.  I am one of the many who bought into it all and now have gone into it fresh and unblinded, putting aside pre-indoctrination and can see it for what it is.

The Tree Story is Impossible

So, I was just thinking to myself a bit ago about my own creation story, how I would have done things if I was a creator of a world and people.

I was thinking about helping people learn as they go in life, which is pretty much what we do for our own children now, no different; correcting gently as things go along, and then it hit me:

There is no way the tree of the knowledge of good and evil story can be true.

1. If no one had eaten from it, then life would go along, but eventually something would come up where there would be a conflict of some sort.  Maybe it would be a disagreement on property ownership or one man lusting after another's wife and causing jealousy, or whatever.  This is where people would know good and evil.  No tree necessary.

2. If they were inherently perfect, where nobody would ever possibly enter a conflict of any sort, then they were never really created with free will, as free moral agents.  And in that case, why would they have been created in flesh in the first place, if being spirit-bodied is supposedly the state of perfection?

Also, how would it be sin to realize—to "know"— there are bad consequences for some actions, which is what happens when we learn something is bad, as it's learned normally through our experience or observation of someone else's?  It's called learning.

It's only foolish or wrong if, after learning, the behavior is repeatedly practiced.  Again, it can't be a transgression to come to the knowledge of good and evil, because if it is:

1. Then the god of the bible (which is no creator of mine, I know now) is the ultimate transgressor, since he knows good and evil.

2. It was inevitable.  We know how we come to know good and evil.  It's when we learn from experience or from the experiences of others.  If someone eats a fruit off a certain plant, and it kills him or her, we know not to eat that fruit!  In other cases, if we've seen lots of people eat that fruit with no ill consequences, but then someone comes along, and he dies afterward, we know it was only evil for him and similar others (he was allergic).  So we were forced into "sin," anyway, since it was inevitable to learn what good and evil is without the tree!

3. El, the Canaanite bible god, supposedly told Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit from that tree, but why put the damned tree there in the first place, if they're inevitably going to learn what's good and evil on their own, anyway?!  And then he tempted them with it by telling them not to do it but leaving the serpent in the garden with them.  Whatever that serpent was, whether a snake with legs or the Satan or whatever, it obviously knew things and talked, and it didn't even lie as people claim, because exactly what he said would happen did indeed happen.  Their eyes were opened so that the knew good and evil like El.  They also didn't die.  As a matter of fact, they supposedly lived nearly a millennium!  We don't live that long today.  If it was the supposed "second death" that was referred to, then damn, that's sick.  I love my babies waaaaay too much, and they've done a whole lot worse than simply eating something I told them not to (they've done that, too), and it's not in my heart to bring them back from the dead only to kill them again in flames.  I'm too loving for that.  And too just for that.  Feel like I should throw that one in, too.

As a matter of fact, even though I wish they (and myself) were perfect, I would rather live eternally with my kids just the way they are (the good outweighs the bad by far) than to burn them to death.

So how's that?  I challenge anyone to answer me on this.

Perhaps someone out there can show just how evil he or she is and show the true nature of his or her heart by trying to argue this, but I don't know who would want to do so.

My eyes are indeed open to knowing good and evil, and there's a lot more evil in the "old testament" books than good.  So for my choosing the good, who wants me to burn?

If I Was God...#2

If I was God, I would not feel the need nor desire to murder my son in wrath, much less in premeditation, in order to forgive my children of a transgression.

To believe in the Genesis version of the Eden story, starring Adam and Eve, El/God, and the talking serpent, means believing that the transgression of Adam and Eve was eating a fruit from a tree that would give them the knowledge of good and evil like God possessed.  There are many problems with this story, of course, and to read more of my comments on this, check out my posts from my retired blog (which I will soon repost on this blog):

Part 1: Why the Tree Story is Impossible

Part 2: Why the Tree Story is Impossible

Liar and Murderer From the Beginning

Knowledge of Good and Evil:  Bad or Good?

But for the purpose of this post, let's assume Adam and Eve were God's children, and they truly did something bad to upset him.  Is it moral to impute their transgression onto all their posterity?  One of my all-time favorite chapters in the entire bible is Ezekiel 18.  Of course Ezekiel was written a bit later than the first few books of the bible, and it certainly was written from a viewpoint of advanced morality.  Ezekiel 18—please do read it or review it—teaches that a son should not die for the sins of his father.  Never mind that many times God or his supposed servants do indeed punish sons or other relatives of those who have angered him or his servants.  

And then is it right to punish a separate person entirely, one who supposedly did nothing wrong, so that you don't take your wrath out on the person who did do what was wrong?  

So if one of my children did something to anger me and that broke one of my rules, would it be ok if I took another child, even if that innocent child agreed to be punished for the guilty, and punished him or her?  

I have no earthly idea I didn't reach this simple and obvious conclusion for so many years, until this year, but I see now more than ever how strongly people can be brainwashed, even when I was one who very carefully compared God and his supposed Firstborn and then man and a man's firstborn (which no doubt did lead to questions that bothered me, but never this one).  

I don't feel any need to murder my son to forgive anyone who transgresses against me.  Why does God, if he's so good?  Why am I so much more loving and forgiving than the bible god?  

If I was God, I would go to extremes to avoid killing any of my children. I certainly wouldn't murder my own perfect son to appease some anger-management problem I possessed so that I felt I could forgive other children or anyone else.

For a video demonstration that further makes my point, done by the talented DarkMatter2525, see Christian Justice on Youtube.

This has been #2 in the "If I Was God..." series at TruthSearching.com.