The Original Sin Was Committed by God, Not Man

By Daniel Miessler on September 30th, 2008: Tagged as Christianity | Religion

eden

When debating someone who believes in the fundamental components of the Christian narrative, i.e. the choice by man to eat the apple, the fall, original sin, and the subsequent return to God, I choose to focus not on the specifics but rather on the first and most important events. These are the creation of man, and man’s choice to eat of the tree of knowledge.

  1. Why did God create man? Why does an omnipotent and omniscient being create us in the first place? Did he want companionship? Was he bored? Was he curious as to the limits of his own powers? None of these explanations fit with an all-knowing and all-powerful being. Something there has to be missing in order to desire to create such a lowly and fragile life form in the first place.

  2. Why create man with a desire for anything other than God? Quite simply, if the purpose of man is to love God, then why not create him just to do that, and with no desire to do something else?

  3. Even worse than creating man to desire something else (step 2), why create an perfect source of that which he desires (the tree of knowledge) and then create a third actor (Lucifer) to taunt him into making the wrong choice? Is this not the very definition of “set up for failure”?

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die. — Genesis 2:17

The Free Will Gambit

Seeing that this is horribly illogical, all Christians are trained to fall back on the specious argument of free will. The idea is that despite the fact that God put everything in place for man to fail, he also gave man free will. So he had the option to choose correctly, and he should therefore have made the right choice.

This is absurd.

Let’s try another, scaled-down version of this experiment that will prove how silly this concept really is. Sit a two-year-old in a high chair with candy on one side of their tray and spinach on the other side, and stand back with an open hand.

If the baby reaches for the candy, slap the hell out of it.

Ah, but that’s not fair because…..why? Because babies are programmed by evolution to prefer sweet tastes, so it’s unfair to ask them to choose the right one because it’s not as pleasurable?

Ok, here’s a better question: who determines what tastes good and what doesn’t?

Right, God does. And who determined how attractive the tree of knowledge was to man in the garden? Right, God did. And who decides how attractive “loving God instead”, i.e. “spinach” was to man at that very moment in the garden? Right again–God.

So if God controls all the variables, where’s the free will?

Desires > Free Will: The Well Scenario

Free will is subservient to the strength of natural desires. If I just spent three days in a well, with no food or water, when I get rescued I have the choice to a) drink water and eat food, or b) go ride a bike. Are those equal choices for your supposedly “free” will?

Or how about you have the same well scenario, but this time you have two options when you get out: a) consume food and water, or b) go help the homeless at your local shelter. Oh, you’d choose food and water? Selfish. You had the option–help others or indulge your own dark desires. You chose wrong.

It’s the same in the garden. Here’s what God essentially offered:

You can either a) stay with your creator in love an harmony forever, or you can go with Satan and Eve to Earth, where you’ll learn about a billion interesting and naughty things (which I programmed you to find attractive). Oh, but if you choose the one that I designed you to find irresistible (and that I hired Satan to seduce you towards), I’ll punish you…

It’s the choice at the well all over again. God determines the strength of every single one of your desires. Is it your “choice”, as a man, to find platinum blonde women attractive? Is it your “choice” to like the taste of steak or beer?

Or, even better, assuming you’re a heterosexual male, could you decide to be gay right now? Could you exercise your free will and simply choose to like men instead of women? No, not really. So how much of a choice is it, really, when you’re asked whether you want to have sex with an attractive woman or an attractive man? Where is your free will when the directions and strengths of your desires are determined for you?

So I ask again: if God controlled all of the following in the garden…

  • The attractiveness of staying with God
  • The attractiveness of the tree of knowledge
  • The seductiveness of Lucifer
  • The gullibility of Eve
  • How likely Adam would be to do what Eve had already done

…and we all agree that God did control these things…how did man really make a choice at all?

Simple answer: he didn’t.

Lucky for us the story isn’t true at all. It’s nothing more than one of thousands of these highly similar narratives created by man throughout history. 99% of the world accepts that 99% of the other nearly identical stories are completely untrue, so it’s only a matter of time before we clear up that last 1%.:

Links

[ Fiction Based on Fiction | dmiessler.com ]
[ Free Will: The Necessary Delusion | dmiessler.com ]

  • Steve

    Hi,

    There’s no comments on your bible as fiction page linked from here so I thought I’d put a correction here. The epic of Gilgamesh isn’t a few hundred years older than the bible, it’s almost a few thousand years older – The epic of Gilgamesh is estimated to be from around 2500 BC. The doctrine of Christianity (upon which the Bible is based) was not uniformly defined until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The King James version of the Bible (commonly accepted in Western anglophilic cultures outside of catholicism and certain other areas) was not published until 1611 AD whilst the modern King James version (which is almost identical to the modern International English language bibles we see today) was actually completed in 1769.

    In the U.S. (and some other countries) the American Standard Version of the bible is used, originally published in 1901 with the most recent version from 1999.

  • Steve

    Hi,

    There’s no comments on your bible as fiction page linked from here so I thought I’d put a correction here. The epic of Gilgamesh isn’t a few hundred years older than the bible, it’s almost a few thousand years older – The epic of Gilgamesh is estimated to be from around 2500 BC. The doctrine of Christianity (upon which the Bible is based) was not uniformly defined until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. The King James version of the Bible (commonly accepted in Western anglophilic cultures outside of catholicism and certain other areas) was not published until 1611 AD whilst the modern King James version (which is almost identical to the modern International English language bibles we see today) was actually completed in 1769.

    In the U.S. (and some other countries) the American Standard Version of the bible is used, originally published in 1901 with the most recent version from 1999.

  • Marc Geerlings

    I do the same as you as I debate this, but I focus on a other question. I first make sure that we are on common ground about the free will and make sure we (the one I debate and I) are on the same wavelength about free will. The pre-conditions are:

    1. Humans have free will.
    2. God has free will.

    The I ask why did God choose to give humans a other free will then himself? Because the believer believes God has a free will, but he is also sure that he (God) will never choose the wrong side. Not in the past and not in the future. If you call that free will, which is debatable, why does God choose to not give the same free will to his creation as the one he has. The whole thing about the fall would have been avoided and adam and eve would be his pals forever! By omitting this God, has higher standards for his creation then for himself!

    Now imagine that the believer goes on and switch to the position that God has no free wil :). That are my favorite debates

    Conclusion God is a bastard…. (if he existed)

  • Marc Geerlings

    I do the same as you as I debate this, but I focus on a other question. I first make sure that we are on common ground about the free will and make sure we (the one I debate and I) are on the same wavelength about free will. The pre-conditions are:

    1. Humans have free will.
    2. God has free will.

    The I ask why did God choose to give humans a other free will then himself? Because the believer believes God has a free will, but he is also sure that he (God) will never choose the wrong side. Not in the past and not in the future. If you call that free will, which is debatable, why does God choose to not give the same free will to his creation as the one he has. The whole thing about the fall would have been avoided and adam and eve would be his pals forever! By omitting this God, has higher standards for his creation then for himself!

    Now imagine that the believer goes on and switch to the position that God has no free wil :). That are my favorite debates

    Conclusion God is a bastard…. (if he existed)

  • Andre

    Next time please read the Bible before condemning God. just shows ur level of ignorance. Answer: 1. to rule the Earth 2. that’s obstruction of free will 3. there’s no use creating something if u know what it is. just like playing a game, it’s no fun winning all the time(except that mankind is serious business) 4. babies are exempted from any fault until they can tell right from wrong and it’s the job of the parents to teach them. 5. If u create a robot, isnt it ur right to destroy them as u please!? heck some people did that to their animals. 6. since being gay is a choice, it’s called free will. 7. if God controlled all of the following in the garden – God has absolute right to do so, thats one point u will never grasp. It’s good enough that He gave us free will. Some of us dont even treat fellow humans the same way, and also fellow creations. What right have u to torture lab rats?? Did u give birth to them?? And if it’s the strong over weak thingy, wouldnt that make u the next Hitler??

  • Andre

    Next time please read the Bible before condemning God. just shows ur level of ignorance. Answer: 1. to rule the Earth 2. that’s obstruction of free will 3. there’s no use creating something if u know what it is. just like playing a game, it’s no fun winning all the time(except that mankind is serious business) 4. babies are exempted from any fault until they can tell right from wrong and it’s the job of the parents to teach them. 5. If u create a robot, isnt it ur right to destroy them as u please!? heck some people did that to their animals. 6. since being gay is a choice, it’s called free will. 7. if God controlled all of the following in the garden – God has absolute right to do so, thats one point u will never grasp. It’s good enough that He gave us free will. Some of us dont even treat fellow humans the same way, and also fellow creations. What right have u to torture lab rats?? Did u give birth to them?? And if it’s the strong over weak thingy, wouldnt that make u the next Hitler??

  • Andre
    1. babies are exempted from any fault until they can tell right from wrong and it’s the job of the parents to teach them.

    Then what is the purpose of baptism? If a baby dies before being baptized I was under the impression that they go to limbo, that doesn’t sound like they are exempted from original sin, which means that it has nothing to do with their parents. Why don’t you try reading the bible?

    1. since being gay is a choice, it’s called free will.

    HAHAHAHAHA, and I thought your post was ridiculous and ignorant before I saw this point.

    1. if God controlled all of the following in the garden – God has absolute right to do so, thats one point u will never grasp. It’s good enough that He gave us free will. Some of us dont even treat fellow humans the same way, and also fellow creations. What right have u to torture lab rats?? Did u give birth to them?? And if it’s the strong over weak thingy, wouldnt that make u the next Hitler??

    Your first sentence makes absolutely no sense. Read it again “if God controlled all of the following in the garden – God has absolute right to do so, thats one point u will never grasp.” You start out with trying to make a point, but then you follow it up with words that don’t form a proper sentence, God has absolute right to do what? And if you don’t bother completing your point of course no one will grasp it.

    And this one… “Some of us dont even treat fellow humans the same way, and also fellow creations. What right have u to torture lab rats?? Did u give birth to them??”

    So, we are allowed to torture things if we give birth to them? Is that your defense of God. Do you actually go around saying “hey, God made us, so he can follow rules that none of us are allowed to follow, even though he apparently made us in his image”, of course you don’t because that would make you sound stupid (oops… too late for that).

  • Andre
    1. babies are exempted from any fault until they can tell right from wrong and it’s the job of the parents to teach them.

    Then what is the purpose of baptism? If a baby dies before being baptized I was under the impression that they go to limbo, that doesn’t sound like they are exempted from original sin, which means that it has nothing to do with their parents. Why don’t you try reading the bible?

    1. since being gay is a choice, it’s called free will.

    HAHAHAHAHA, and I thought your post was ridiculous and ignorant before I saw this point.

    1. if God controlled all of the following in the garden – God has absolute right to do so, thats one point u will never grasp. It’s good enough that He gave us free will. Some of us dont even treat fellow humans the same way, and also fellow creations. What right have u to torture lab rats?? Did u give birth to them?? And if it’s the strong over weak thingy, wouldnt that make u the next Hitler??

    Your first sentence makes absolutely no sense. Read it again “if God controlled all of the following in the garden – God has absolute right to do so, thats one point u will never grasp.” You start out with trying to make a point, but then you follow it up with words that don’t form a proper sentence, God has absolute right to do what? And if you don’t bother completing your point of course no one will grasp it.

    And this one… “Some of us dont even treat fellow humans the same way, and also fellow creations. What right have u to torture lab rats?? Did u give birth to them??”

    So, we are allowed to torture things if we give birth to them? Is that your defense of God. Do you actually go around saying “hey, God made us, so he can follow rules that none of us are allowed to follow, even though he apparently made us in his image”, of course you don’t because that would make you sound stupid (oops… too late for that).

  • D.R.

    Let’s assume that it was (as some claim) a red delicious apple on the Tree for Adam to (not) eat. What else was in the garden? Well, everything. So, Adam could have had a granny smith apple, or an orange, or a red delicious apple from a different tree. What made that tree different from all the others? God said He didn’t want man to eat the fruit. So it’s not a choice between sweets and spinach. It is not a choice between eating and riding a bike. It is not a choice between eating and helping someone at a homeless shelter. Those are not true free will choices in the sense of all things equal. Now if you had a purpose to ride a bike and the choice was worth sacrificing your life for the greater good, then it still is not equal. I also feel desires are what we make them. We place value in spinach because we know about vitamins and what the body needs. Our body does desire those vitamins so spinach does taste acceptable or even good. I am sure you can get those vitamins from other plants that we don’t eat because they also have downsides of material we can’t use or some such. We place value in sweets early in life because energy comes easiest from sugars, but also because they taste like fruit that can have other values. At least, I don’t recall seeing sugar flavored candy, and I doubt we truly value it as such even though we adults look at many candies as that. So when it comes to food, our desires are based on the information we have programmed ourselves to believing. There is some basics, but mostly it’s programming. Whether it’s the need to be the best, to be unique, to live a long, healthy life, to be a part of something that is not accepted by those that you don’t wish to associate with, or even most of our programming is self induced and what isn’t can be changed if you choose to do so. So it’s only a matter of time before we clear up that last 1%. As for those comments… Just because Christianity wasn’t uniformed, doesn’t mean it did not exist. The texts are all older than that, so it’s not like people sat down in 325AD and said, “Hey let’s make up a story about a guy. Let’s call his name Adam.” That would be copying and reinventing. I don’t think things went down like that. Moving on, I don’t know the purpose of baptizing babies either. And I’m Christian. Find an instance in a Bible where babies were baptized. Find an instance where anyone was baptized when they were not making the choice. Of course, find proof that Adam is to blame for our choices too. And find a rule made that we are not allowed to follow.

  • D.R.

    Let’s assume that it was (as some claim) a red delicious apple on the Tree for Adam to (not) eat. What else was in the garden? Well, everything. So, Adam could have had a granny smith apple, or an orange, or a red delicious apple from a different tree. What made that tree different from all the others? God said He didn’t want man to eat the fruit. So it’s not a choice between sweets and spinach. It is not a choice between eating and riding a bike. It is not a choice between eating and helping someone at a homeless shelter. Those are not true free will choices in the sense of all things equal. Now if you had a purpose to ride a bike and the choice was worth sacrificing your life for the greater good, then it still is not equal. I also feel desires are what we make them. We place value in spinach because we know about vitamins and what the body needs. Our body does desire those vitamins so spinach does taste acceptable or even good. I am sure you can get those vitamins from other plants that we don’t eat because they also have downsides of material we can’t use or some such. We place value in sweets early in life because energy comes easiest from sugars, but also because they taste like fruit that can have other values. At least, I don’t recall seeing sugar flavored candy, and I doubt we truly value it as such even though we adults look at many candies as that. So when it comes to food, our desires are based on the information we have programmed ourselves to believing. There is some basics, but mostly it’s programming. Whether it’s the need to be the best, to be unique, to live a long, healthy life, to be a part of something that is not accepted by those that you don’t wish to associate with, or even most of our programming is self induced and what isn’t can be changed if you choose to do so. So it’s only a matter of time before we clear up that last 1%. As for those comments… Just because Christianity wasn’t uniformed, doesn’t mean it did not exist. The texts are all older than that, so it’s not like people sat down in 325AD and said, “Hey let’s make up a story about a guy. Let’s call his name Adam.” That would be copying and reinventing. I don’t think things went down like that. Moving on, I don’t know the purpose of baptizing babies either. And I’m Christian. Find an instance in a Bible where babies were baptized. Find an instance where anyone was baptized when they were not making the choice. Of course, find proof that Adam is to blame for our choices too. And find a rule made that we are not allowed to follow.

  • Mark Cunningham

    If god created us, then he’s a fuckin moron. I really have to lend credit to the idea that we created ourselves. I think we were the ones that were bored.

  • http://notupyet.... Mark Cunningham

    If god created us, then he’s a fuckin moron. I really have to lend credit to the idea that we created ourselves. I think we were the ones that were bored.

  • http://vegatee.blogspot.com/ vegatee

    Being gay is a choice?

    Oh dear.

    We do not get to choose to whom we are attracted. I am a heterosexual woman. I do not choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. I also do not choose to not be attracted to the same sex. It’s not a choice. I can’t make myself be attracted to the same sex anymore than a homosexual person can make him/herself be attracted to someone of the opposite sex.

    Next time you feel the urge to utter such absurdities, consider your own “choice” in feeling attracted to the opposite sex. Can you choose not to be attracted to them?

    Honestly.

  • http://vegatee.blogspot.com/ vegatee

    Being gay is a choice?

    Oh dear.

    We do not get to choose to whom we are attracted. I am a heterosexual woman. I do not choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. I also do not choose to not be attracted to the same sex. It’s not a choice. I can’t make myself be attracted to the same sex anymore than a homosexual person can make him/herself be attracted to someone of the opposite sex.

    Next time you feel the urge to utter such absurdities, consider your own “choice” in feeling attracted to the opposite sex. Can you choose not to be attracted to them?

    Honestly.

  • CINDY

    VERY UNTERESTING CONCEPT…NOT SURE IT I AGREE WITH U!

  • Aubrey

    Why is this tagged as “Christianity?” This is the farthest thing from Christianity. This guy is an idiot.

  • http://dmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    The farthest thing from Christianity? Have you read Genesis?

  • Jess

    Love without choice is not love at all. For man to love God, he needs to be created with the ability to choose.

    Preferences are highly dependant on precedence. A child will generally choose what he has been conditioned to choose. Adam and Eve knew and enjoyed Gods prescence.

    What remains remarkable is that they chose the unknown over the known.

    It is also remarkable how similar your reasoning is with that of the devil. Mix a little truth in with the lie and the lie becomes far stronger, as it has a semblance, a facade of truth to it.

    I am grieved that in your personal choice to discard God you set out to be a stumbling block to others. Certainly make your own choice based on your own sight, but stop muddying the waters with false and misleading discussions such as this.

    BTW, The purpose of Baptism is like that of adoption. God in effect signs a legal document that states that he takes this child/person into his own family.

    Baptism is a covenant, a legal, binding agreement. God makes promises to the child/person. His promises never fail. All of them come true.

    As with adoption, a person may grow up to reject the adoptive parent and return to the misery of the preadoptive condition.

    Acceptance/rejection of this adoption is another example of free will.

    Rejection of such love places the baptised person in a place of greater judgement than the one who has not been baptised.

  • Jess

    Love without choice is not love at all. For man to love God, he needs to be created with the ability to choose.

    Preferences are highly dependant on precedence. A child will generally choose what he has been conditioned to choose. Adam and Eve knew and enjoyed Gods prescence.

    What remains remarkable is that they chose the unknown over the known.

    It is also remarkable how similar your reasoning is with that of the devil. Mix a little truth in with the lie and the lie becomes far stronger, as it has a semblance, a facade of truth to it.

    I am grieved that in your personal choice to discard God you set out to be a stumbling block to others. Certainly make your own choice based on your own sight, but stop muddying the waters with false and misleading discussions such as this.

    BTW, The purpose of Baptism is like that of adoption. God in effect signs a legal document that states that he takes this child/person into his own family.

    Baptism is a covenant, a legal, binding agreement. God makes promises to the child/person. His promises never fail. All of them come true.

    As with adoption, a person may grow up to reject the adoptive parent and return to the misery of the preadoptive condition.

    Acceptance/rejection of this adoption is another example of free will.

    Rejection of such love places the baptised person in a place of greater judgement than the one who has not been baptised.


Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs