An Athiests Guide to the Bible: The Disobedience of Man (including “God Pronounces Judgement” and “Adam and Eve are sent out of the Garden”)

In the previous Guide we looked at the Garden of Eden as a place, now we are looking at the events that transpired there, according to the biblical narrative. As per previous Guides, I will look at the scientific likelihood, as well as the actual biblical story and how it fits within the scheme of other stories within the bible. So, let’s jump in …

Now the snake was the most cunning animal that the Lord God had made. The snake asked the woman, "Did God really tell you not to eat fruit from any tree in the garden?"

Well, I’ve never met a talking snake and we have quite a few species here in Australia, so I can’t speak to the veracity of this claim but if God is all-powerful then it’s very possible for him to make a snake able to talk or a woman able to understand snake. But all-knowing God didn’t know that in making the snake, this would happen? And we know that God supposedly endowed humans with free will, but did he do this for other creatures, too?

"We may eat the fruit of any tree in the garden," the woman answered, "except the tree in the middle of it. God told us not to eat the fruit of that tree or even touch it; if we do, we will die."

First off, God told Adam not to eat the fruit, now it’s that they can’t eat or even touch it? Me thinks God keeps moving the goalposts, or did the writers add a little flourish? We keep coming back to this duel idea of the bible being the word of God, in which case it should have no changes, additions, or contradictions, or it’s a book written by man to be used to explain a world they couldn’t explain and to control a population by appealing to a higher authority.

The snake replied, "That's not true; you will not die. God said that because he knows that when you eat it, you will be like God and know what is good and what is bad."

Again, God’s all-knowing/all-powerful vibe is taking severe hit because, even with the idea of free will, God has to know what every single possibility will be, yet he still created this as a possibility. Now the snakes calls out God as a lie, and is ultimately proven right, meaning that the snake could be seen as the good guy in this story, telling the truth, while God has lied from the get go.

The woman saw how beautiful the tree was and how good its fruit would be to eat, and she thought how wonderful it would be to become wise. So, she took some of the fruit and ate it. Then she gave some to her husband, and he also ate it. As soon as they had eaten it, they were given understanding and realized that they were naked; so, they sewed fig leaves together and covered themselves.

In this section we find a small contradiction. In the previous Guide the tree was named – The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It is often shortened to the Tree of Knowledge and the passage above certainly implies that it is simply knowledge that is gained from eating the fruit, yet why be so specific only a few paragraphs earlier in naming it Knowledge of Good and Evil? While it might not seem be too much of a difference, the knowledge of everything that God knows is vastly more than simply the knowledge of good and evil.

Regardless of whether we take the knowledge to be of everything or just good and evil, the realisation of nakedness is written as a bad thing, and we know from other passages in the bible that anything to do with sex, genitals or the like is regarded as sinful. It starts early in the bible, as we can see, and doesn’t let up. Whatever knowledge the tree has given to Adam and Eve has been placed within the tree by God, so God is responsible for not only their nakedness for it being seen as evil or sinful.

That evening they heard the Lord God walking in the garden, and they hid from him among the trees. But the Lord God called out to the man, "Where are you?" He answered, "I heard you in the garden; I was afraid and hid from you, because I was naked." "Who told you that you were naked?" God asked. "Did you eat the fruit that I told you not to eat?" The man answered, "The woman you put here with me gave me the fruit, and I ate it." The Lord God asked the woman, "Why did you do this?" She replied, "The snake tricked me into eating it."

Problem number one is that when Adam and Eve hide from God, he apparently doesn’t know where they are, and has to call out to them. This whole passage reads as a parent who knows their child has done something wrong and is playing dumb. It seems a little petty for an all-knowing God to be playing such a human mind-trick on Adam and Eve.

But then problem number two is that Eve lies. The snake doesn’t trick her. He was absolutely truthful. Why does she lie? Surely having eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, and now being as wise as God, she knows that God is all-knowing and will surely know she is lying. It’s a bizarre circumstance.

Then the Lord God said to the snake, "You will be punished for this; you alone of all the animals must bear this curse: From now on you will crawl on your belly, and you will have to eat dust as long as you live. I will make you and the woman hate each other; her offspring and yours will always be enemies. Her offspring will crush your head, and you will bite her offspring's heel."

Here we come back to the scientific inaccuracies of the bible. All-knowing God curses the snake to crawl on its belly, which it does, and to eat dirt, which it clearly does not. It sounds more metaphorical than a literal eating of dirt, but did the people who wrote the bible know what snakes eat, or did they actually assume that snakes ate dirt?

The idea of snakes and humans being enemies is also somewhat dubious. It is highly likely that an innate fear of snakes, due to many of them being poisonous, is responsible for this part of the curse. We also know that many people are not afraid of snakes or, at least, a live and let live relationship with them. The concept that all of Eve’s offspring would be afraid of snakes is obviously not true, yet all-knowing God says it will be.

Lastly, I’m not sure that snakes are particularly afraid of humans, and probably have not enough brain power to come up with the idea of any other species as being an enemy. Snakes, depending on species, are only aggressive when threatened. I once went bushwalking through a local national park and came across and red-bellied black snake sunning itself on the path. I am not particularly afraid of snakes but I live in Australia and many, including red-bellied blacks, are poisonous so I have a healthy respect for their abilities. My first thought wasn’t to kill the snake, I was in its territory. I just waited for it to slither off into the bush and continued on my way. It wasn’t worried about me and I wasn’t worried about it, we just avoided each other.

And he said to the woman, "I will increase your trouble in pregnancy and your pain in giving birth. In spite of this, you will still have desire for your husband, yet you will be subject to him."

This part annoys me, as a woman. First of all, God lied to Adam and Eve when he told them they’d die the same day if they ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Then he doles out a punishment far in excess of what the “crime” calls for. This makes God out to be a petty, vengeful god with no moderation or sympathy. Also, God is clearly male or created by males, with the style or explanation of the punishment – pain for something only women can go through and subjugation.

And he said to the man, "You listened to your wife and ate the fruit which I told you not to eat. Because of what you have done, the ground will be under a curse. You will have to work hard all your life to make it produce enough food for you. It will produce weeds and thorns, and you will have to eat wild plants. You will have to work hard and sweat to make the soil produce anything, until you go back to the soil from which you were formed. You were made from soil, and you will become soil again."

And what is God’s punishment for Adam, who is just as culpable as Eve? A bit of hard work in the garden. A bit of weeding, and cultivating the land. Doesn’t quite seem fair. As I have already mentioned, the bible has a misogynistic bent throughout its entire duration, and that misogyny has pervaded Christian culture to this day.

I have to say, not all Christians are misogynistic, but many do cling to the tenants set out in the bible which has caused many problems all over the world. I’m not even talking about extremists, or fundamentalists. We will deal with different reactions to events that go against biblical societal norms as we continue through the bible with these Guides.

Adam named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all human beings. And the Lord God made clothes out of animal skins for Adam and his wife, and he clothed them. Then the Lord God said, "Now these human beings have become like one of us and have knowledge of what is good and what is bad. They must not be allowed to take fruit from the tree that gives life, eat it, and live forever."

So, now we’re back to the knowledge being that of good and bad. This explains why God had to make clothes for Adam and Eve, rather than the fig leaves they were wearing since eating the fruit, because they haven’t become wise like God, as described earlier. We also find God using the word “us” implying other God-like beings. This is completely in line with religions which predate Christianity and Judaism. The God of the bible is just one of many Gods or God-like beings. This actually makes far more sense than monotheism and we’ll talk about the idea of monotheism versus polytheism when we get to the ten commandments.

Also, what’s the deal with Adam and Eve not having eaten from the Tree of Life already? If I were in the Garden of Eden and was told there was a tree which made you live forever, it’d probably be the first tree I’d eat from. But the bible is full of these little oddities.

So, the Lord God sent them out of the Garden of Eden and made them cultivate the soil from which they had been formed. Then at the east side of the garden he put living creatures and a flaming sword which turned in all directions. This was to keep anyone from coming near the tree that gives life.

God is really weird. Instead of removing the Tree of Life to avoid tempting anyone to get to it, he put a flaming sword and some creatures there to protect it. Obviously, it’s a powerful sword because it was created by God, but of all the things he could have done, why a flaming sword? And which living creatures? Dragons? That’d be pretty cool. Moths? Not exactly the scariest of creatures. A large 3 headed dog like in Greek mythology? We’ll never know, I suppose.

In the end, this part of the bible is a way to explain certain things in life – like pain during child birth and the need to cultivate the land – and to give an excuse for the ongoing degradation of women by painting them as weak in being “tricked” by the snake and to continue the subjugation of women as it’s their curse and God’s will (as opposed to allowing themselves to be governed by the free will given to them by God.)

Until, next week …

Discipline and the word “no”

In my profession I deal with a lot of children. Most of them are pretty good. They listen, they follow instructions and they are polite. They can also be loud, annoying and confrontational. They are normal children. They have good and bad days, just like everyone else. If you’re lucky and know what you’re doing then the good days outnumber the bad days.

In my profession I also deal with a few spoilt children and a few children who never hear the word “no” from their parents. Some of them have a Nanny who enforces some sort of discipline. Many of them have little real discipline at all. I had one child who would cry everytime I said that they couldn’t have something or do something. After a whole lesson of this I knew that something had to be done if the child came back. The child did come back and before the lesson even started I took the child aside and said to them that I wouldn’t tolerate them crying everytime they heard me say “no.” I also explained to the child the reasons why I say no (usually safety or time constraints). Some people will say that children can’t be reasoned with. I think it depends on the child. Some children can be and I was lucky that this child could be. I also think it comes down to how you reason with the child. Giving them owner ship of their actions is, I feel, very important.

Of course, discipline isn’t always about saying “no.” There has to be a positive reinforcement of desirable behaviours. There also has to be an understanding by the child of the consequences of their actions. There is no point punishing a child for doing something they shouldn’t have if they didn’t know they weren’t allowed to do it. Setting clear rules is important. Depending on the age of the children, the simpler the better.

For under 5s, the basics are:

• No hitting, kicking or biting
• Stay with the group
• Ask to get a drink or go to the toilet
• Listen to the instructor

For children who are at school most of the basic social rules should have been dealt with at school. The ones I most often need to emphasise are:

• Keep your hands to yourself
• Wait your turn / No pushing in

Of course, these are my rules for work but the same basic rules apply at home. My son knows there are rules and knows that there are consequences if he breaks the rules. He sometimes forgets the rules. He sometimes tries to get around the rules. In the end, he’s a child, he’s pushing boundaries. He wants to find out which are all the time rules and which are sometimes rules.

An all the time rule is one which applies no matter where you are, no matter who you’re with. For our household these include “no hurting” (hitting, kicking, biting, pinching, etc) and “manners” (please, thank you, excuse me, sorry, etc). Bubba is pretty good with those.

A sometimes rule is one which doesn’t always apply. It might have to do with the volume of speech or the speed of movement in different places. For example, at the park Bubba can be noisy and run around but in a restaurant he has to be quiet and sit down. It might also be a rule that is in place for a fixed period of time. Staying out of the kitchen while someone is cooking is one. Playing quietly while someone has a headache is another.

There are several strategies for dealing with behaviour problems that I have found to work. From a young age, since he understood the concept of numbers, he learnt that he had 5 seconds to stop doing whatever I didn’t want him to do. If I counted from 5 to 1 he was in trouble. If he stopped before I got to 1 then he’d just get the lecture about not doing it.

I also use the three strikes rule. It’s pretty simple. If Bubba does the same thing wrong 3 times in the one day then the big punishments get wheeled out. An example from a couple of weeks ago was Bubba was told not to jump off the arm of the lounge chair and when he did so I told him off. A while (maybe 2 hours) later he did it again. He got told off and timed out for a minute and told that if he did it again he’d have to pack away all his toys. After the time out he went back to playing for an hour or so, then jumped off the arm of the chair again. He got told off, time out for 5 minutes then I made him pack up his toys.

Time out is a tricky punishment to master. I was once told that the time out should only be as long as the child is old, so if the child is 3 years old then the time out should only be 3 minutes. It’s not a bad rule but I’ve never met a child under the age of four who has any concept of time when they are angry or annoyed. Time out also only works if the time out place is not somewhere they enjoy being. When Bubba was younger I used his step stool for going to the toilet and he had to sit facing the front door. It meant that is wasn’t all that comfortable and there was nothing to keep him entertained.

The child also has to know that the time out will finish. Telling them to go to time out for 2 minutes tells them that the punishment will end but it’s important that they know that it is a straight 2 minnutes. If, after 1.5 minutes they get up and wander off, the time must start again.

The important thing to remember about discipline is follow through. If you set a consequence then you have to be prepared to make it a reality should the need arise. Threatening to give their toys to charity only works so long as they believe you will actually do it and once that belief is gone it’s near on impossible to get it back, and it becomes increasingly hard to set consequences that they will believe. It’s a bit like Maxwell Smart saying to the KAOS Agents that he has an army of Control Agents surrounding their hideout, then saying “would you believe a well trained poodle?” when they don’t believe him.

As I said at the beginning, positive reinforcement of desirable behaviours is always a good option. Some people think it’s bribery. Personally, there’s nothing wrong with bribery as long as it’s not routine and not expected. Rewarding a child with love, praise and affection is a far better method than sweets and toys.

The hardest thing to do where discipline is concerned is to be the disciplinarian in the face of other parents who don’t discipline their child to your standard. Young children apply the “monkey see, monkey do” philosophy to their actions. If the rest of the children are throwing sand then your precious angel will probably also throw sand. You can’t let the inaction of other parents stop you from disciplining your child. Some of the other parents may not have noticed and will be glad you said something. Some of them won’t care. Some will think you’re over-reacting. Their reaction makes no difference to what you should do. If you think it needs disciplining then do it.

It is hard for the child who gets disciplined when none of the other children do. One way you can minimise this feeling is to tell the whole group not to do it. I use this technique a lot at work. Rather than isolate one child (especially if they are new to the class), I tell the whole group not to do it; however, if they continue to do the undesirable behaviour then individual attention is required. This can work in social situations as well. I have quite often reminded my friends children of the correct way to behave. It doesn’t always work but your child won’t feel like they are being picked on, at least by you.

The last word to be said on discipline is that it’s important for children to understand the “my house, my rules” concept. This is very important to me at work as the children have to understand that, while they may be allowed to run around and wreak havoc at home, while they are with me in my “house” they have to follow my rules. The same applies to my son when he goes to other peoples houses or to the shops or wherever really. For example, I have a rule that bubba is allowed to play with a small football inside as long as he keeps it below the height of his own knee. Other people may have a “no balls inside the house” rule. I can’t tell him the rules for every single persons house but I can give him the understanding that different people have different rules.

In the end, everyone finds their own disciplinary style and if it works for you and your child, then that’s awesome news. Don’t allow other people to dictate to you how you should and shouldn’t use discipline, even me, but do allow them to offer advice. The more information you have to work with the better it is, even though it may seem that every piece of advice you get contradicts every other piece. If you find that your style isn’t working then try to work out what specifically isn’t working, why it isn’t working and how you can change it. Remember, changing your mind is not a sign of weakness but a sign of growth.