Do you accept that the Bible teaches a fall that has impacted the stability of the physical world?
God put the tree that contained the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden. He didn't have to, but he did. Then, he ordered them not to eat from it. This is no different from putting a set of knives in a child's play room and then telling them not to touch it. Humans are like children compared to god, in fact some people say we're more like ants. So, just like I, as the one who knows better, would be held responsible when I leave knives within a child's reach, god, as the one who knows better, is responsible for putting something dangerous within his children's reach.
Then it gets worse:
"Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. " -Genesis 3:1
If I not only leave a set of knives in a child's playroom, but also a talking animal that said things to try and convince them to touch the knives, then it's difficult to conclude anything other than that I
wanted them to get hurt.
God created the concepts of good and evil, god created the talking snake that said the things that it said, god put the tree there when he could have just chosen not to create it, or at least left it up on the kitchen counter.
You may argue that Adam and Eve could have chosen not to disobey god, but remember they were going to live there for eternity and have lots of children. Is it really reasonable to expect them and all their unending numbers of children and grandchildren (also ew, incest) to be flawless for ALL of eternity? Don't you think that someone was
bound to mess up at some point? And if you do think it's reasonable, then doesn't the fact that it took no time of at all for them to mess up make it feel like they really didn't stand much of a chance?
Besides, what actual harm did eating the fruit do besides make god angry? It gave them shame that they were naked, OK, but honestly being naked wasn't actually hurting them.
And if the nakedness was a metaphor of how they became aware of all the bad stuff they could do, then that also implies that being ignorant of that bad stuff didn't mean they were going to be free from doing it, it just meant that they were free from the knowledge they were doing it.
But if the nakedness just represents the idea that "shame" was now a thing they could feel, meaning that "evil" was now possible for them to experience, then god is the one who's at fault because remember, nothing can pop into existence by itself; it has to have a creator. So god is the one who created shame and all the other bad stuff that the fruit made them aware of.
And if it was his grand plan to leave it where they could reach it, then that circles back to what I said before about how he put it there
expecting them to mess up, which means humanity truly did not stand a chance. Instead of just creating a system of "good go to heaven, bad go to hell" if that's what he wanted, he went through a whole thing of purposefully creating an excuse to get angry and punish them. It's not like he
needed to give a reason for his good go to heaven, bad go to hell system.
And if it's simply just mysterious of why god isn't perfectly analogized by a parent who wants their children to get hurt, despite the fact that that is
exactly what it appears to be in the stories we were given, then that's the exact type of non-answer I'd expect from a man made myth. This is supposed to be the TRUTH with a capital T, and yet the book we get that from leads to more questions than answers?
