If I Was God...#3

 If I was God, I would not tempt my children to do evil.  The biblical book of Genesis talks about a god or gods setting up a tempting tree called The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and instructing his/their newly-made human couple to not eat from it, else they'd face execution.

Of course, the story is nonsense in so many ways, and I've already laid that out in depth in the following posts:

A Liar and Murderer From the Beginning

The Tree Story is Impossible

The Tree Story is Impossible: Part 2

Knowledge of Good and Evil: Good or Evil?

But let's pretend the story is real.  Let's pretend an advanced being created all living things on this planet and set up that tempting tree.  Why did he set up a tree with that name?  Why would he create a tree whose fruit would help you know right from wrong and then threaten to kill you if you ate from it?

But then let's go further and ask why any god would tempt any human or other animal to do something that he would exact punishment for if said human or animal gave into temptation.  That is the big question here. 

Many years ago, when my firstborn was an infant, I read a sample few pages online of a book entitled To Train Up a Child by Michael and Debi Pearl.  I was quickly horrified by the contents.  In the years since I've read other excerpts posted all over the Internet by others who have read the entire book and were also appalled.  The book is basically a child abuse manual, but it uses the bible to justify the abuse.  It's pretty crazy that some of us read the bible and came away with a stronger-than-ever desire to treat our children with gentleness and respect and to strive to guide our children the way Jesus would do so, and yet other people apparently have read the bible and think they need to act as fierce dictators, tyrannically and cruelly oppressing their children.

Since I've read the Genesis story just as it is, though, as well as all the other horrible stories like God mind-fucking the Egyptian pharaoh, I understand.  I see how these people get these ideas and justify them.  Of course, I do believe that people who naturally want to teach lovingly and lead by example, like Jesus, are prone to grab ahold of those teachings for confirmation, whereas people who are naturally tyrannical are drawn to the twisted parts of the bible in order to confirm their desired methods.

In the aforementioned book, the authors spoke of deliberately enticing infants with pretty objects and then hitting them after the infant grabbed the items.  It also discusses horrors unrelated to temptations, like pushing a child in a pond to teach them not to play near it, making a child touch a hot surface to teach them they can be burned, and pulling a little four-month-old infant's hair when he or she bites during nursing when their teething gums hurt!

If I don't want my children doing something, I try to get them not to do it.  I sure as hell do not deliberately entice them to do something I truly do not want them to do!  What in the world?!  Who has ever heard of such an insane concept?!

When I tempt, I want the person to do something.  That is what tempting is all about.  If a parent is tempting a child in a case in which the end goal is to punish that child, the parent is a sick individual and not fit to parent.

If I was God, I would not tempt my creation to do what I deemed as evil and worthy of death.

This has been #3 in the "If I Was God..." series at TruthSearching.com.

Knowledge of Good and Evil: Good or Bad?

Is eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil good or bad?  I personally love eating from that tree.  I like to grow in knowledge so that I can become wise and discerning, so that I can make moral decisions that benefit me and others.

And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it (Deut. 1:39)

We have on one hand the teaching that we are conceived in sin (Psa. 51:5 ) and that sin has fallen on all mankind due to Adam's and Eve's so-called "sin" (Rom. 5:12 ).  But here we see the teaching that little children do not possess knowledge of good and evil.  If the "sin" of Adam was that he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and this is the sin that has been passed on, why is it that little children do not in fact know good from evil?  And of course we know this is true.  Modern psychology has come a long way, and it's known that until around the age of seven, give or take a year, a child does not possess his own concept of good and evil and can only rely on what authority figures tell him until that point in development.  This goes back to what I demonstrated in a previous post, namely that once you reach a certain age and a certain circumstance, you will "know good and evil."  And knowing good and evil is a good thing, because then it allows you to make a moral decision, to choose either good or evil. 

For my people are foolish, they know me not; they are sottish children, and they have no understanding; they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge (Jer. 4:22).

This speaks on the bible god's behalf that his people are foolish and don't know to do good, because they have no understanding and no knowledge, that they're only wise to do evil.  First of all, since when is it wise to do evil?  Knowledge is the first step.  A person needs knowledge.  Then the person can make a moral and wise decision or a foolish and evil decision.  From these learning experiences and observations of others' experiences, persons obtain understanding.  Secondly it seems apparent that the so-called "sin" of Adam didn't befall these people.  They were "wise to do evil," because they did not possess the knowledge and understanding of the difference between good and evil.  There is entirely too much nonsensical double speak in the bible.

And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yes, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs (Ecc. 12:9)

This teaches that someone is wise if he teaches a person knowledge.  I agree with this.  I believe it's wise to teach knowledge to people.  Knowledge greatly benefits mankind and enables them to make moral decisions and obtain wisdom and understanding.  This statement in Ecclesiastes is completely contradictory to the notion that it was bad to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  It basically teaches that the bible god is not wise, because he refused to teach Adam and Eve knowledge.  It teaches that the serpent was wise.

Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him show out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom (Jam. 3:13).

This statement exalts the man who is wise and knowledgeable.  It teaches that people should pay attention to those who are knowledgeable and have shown by his works that he is wise.  Here we see one more instance that the bible god is shown to be unwise and wicked for wanting to keep people in the dark and to punish them for finding out something.  Today there are millions of "Christians" and "Muslims" and "Jews" who beat faith into people, commanding fellows to not dare question what their holy texts say, to never read other texts, to never listen to science, to never question anything.  They beat fear into people, teaching that they will burn forever in hell if they stray.  They do not want them to grow in knowledge and become wise and full of understanding.  They go to strong measures for their fellows to "just believe" and "keep the faith."  If you do dare to question anything and choose knowledge, they often will shun you, reject you, condemn you, and hate you.

Source: Uncertain, perhaps demotivation.us

Butter and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken (Isa. 7:15)

Here again we see that there is a time before a child is old enough to know good from evil and know to refuse the evil.  Children of a certain age, if they are doing evil, it's because they do not know it.  They can walk out in front of a moving car (evil/bad) and not know the horrible result.  They can take another person's possession and not understand that they are transgressing the other person's property rights.  This once again makes it clear that eating from a tree has absolutely nothing to do with knowing good and evil and that knowing good and evil is actually a good thing so that one can "know to refuse the evil." 

And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and all discernment; so that ye may approve the things that are excellent (Phil. 1:9-10).

In order to exercise good discernment and to approve the things that are excellent, one must abound "yet more and more" in knowledge.  You're not going to be able to be endued with knowledge and discernment in order to approve good things if you do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (symbolically speaking)! 

Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish justice in the gate (Amos 5:15a).

It's impossible to hate evil and love good if one does not possess the knowledge of good and evil.

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.