Interview With God




Monkey's Uncle
Fun With Atheism Issue, Fall/Winter 1985
Editor: E.T. Babinski


Reporter: Why Evolution?


God: Because I wanted man to discover the immensity of my creativity throughout time as well as in space. I wanted man to stand far enough back in space and time, in order to view my majestic artwork properly. You must admit, a 6000 year old creation with the earth in the middle of it would only give man an enormous ego -- having all of space and time revolving around him! Instead, he has finally woken to the fact that he must seek a deeper center to space and time, not a superficial one. I also wanted to show man, via evolution, that I could do anything -making man out of an amoeba!


Reporter: Rather like the trick of turning black, crumbling coal into...diamond!


God: Exactly! And man, like diamond, is also made of billion year old carbon! Besides, I could have used any number of substances, hidden up my sleeves, to form man out of 'nothing'. But, out of an amoeba? That's what I call a trick!


Reporter: So do I! But what about the dinosaurs?


God: I wanted you to find their bones and tremble in awe. All that you find is my gift, to induce awe, surprise, even laughter. Take penguins for instance! Look for all the things you can in my cosmos. It is the grandest easter egg hunt ever! and don't forget to hunt for me too! I am the divine Fox! Hunt, and always be prepared to be... surprised!


Read More »

Postcard from Nietzsche




Monkey's Uncle
Fun With Atheism Issue, Fall/Winter 1985
Editor: E.T. Babinski


(The following 'creation account' was found on the back of a postcard little Friedrich Nietzsche mailed his Dad from a summer camp in Switzerland, after having just been tossed off the Alps, as a prank, by the bully who slept in the bunk below him.)


Dear Dad:


IN THE BEGINNING...
..the earth was formless and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep. Naturally, the Spirit of God had holes, huge ones, in his hiking boots from treading on the void for so long, whilst he kicked a can...
...OVER THE SURFACE OF THE WATERS.
Many eons of darkness passed till one day (or was it night?) his foot missed the can and he mumbled, "Boy, I wish there was a little...light."
Instantly, THERE WAS LIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Enough LIGHT to fill the shadowy gap between each and every pair of soon-to-be-created misplaced front teeth in the cosmos! Enough LIGHT to make darkness take a taxi to Edison, New Jersy, and attempt to strangle Thomas Alva Edison in his sleep! Enough LIGHT to fill Times Square, Tokyo, and Tolula Bankhead's cranium!
"Holy Shit!" God exclaimed, blinking in surprise, "the word I said... suddenly became a thing!" Whereupon God bit his tongue crushingly. For knowing he was God, he also knew it was impossible for him to go back on his word.
Meanwhile, God peered glumly at all the holy...shitty things he'd just created.


Please, PLEASE let me come home before another holy shitty thing happens to me at camp!


Your loving son, Freddie

Read More »

Theistic Evolution



Monkey's Uncle
Fun With Genesis Issue, Summer 1985
Editor: E.T. Babinski


THEISTIC EVOLUTION -- AN UNFINISHED SYMPHONY
The cosmic hierarchy I perceive resembles a row of drunken, dancing Russian revellers. Or it resembles the pointlessly abundant yet beautiful filagree lining the margins of medieval manuscripts. Or its like the endlessly extravagant music of Bach. God's play is likewise, splendiforous! And as I gaze at the universe I do not see an ironclad PURPOSEFULNESS clenched tightly between God's teeth, but an utter extravagance of space--God's gracious gratuitous improvisation of immensities! I surmise that God, like most great artists, needed a cosmic-sized loft' in which to loose the reins of His creativity. None of that crowded cluttered desktop appearance that might suggest God was a business executive in a three button suit savagely seeking to increase his net worth...No, He sets off each star like a prime jewel, against infinite yards of black-velvety space.


The Big Bang was a festive firework! Imagine God bellowing, "Everybody stand back! Gimme room! I'm gonna create!" He rolls up His sleeves, and infinite space appears a blank artist's canvas. He points a finger at the center of the canvas and a bright ball of light instantly begins to sparkle there. A few angels fly over to take a peek. 'It's ticking!" they chime. God remains impishly silent. Suddenly, KA BOOM!! The sparkling ball of light discharges into zillions of tiny bits careening all over the canvas. As the sparks settle, God nudges one shoulder towards a rather far off insignificant spark, spinning near the edge of the Wheel of the Milky Way Galaxy. All the angels then bend toward that spark with eager eyes and ears, for it suddenly begins ticking. In only a third of the time it took for the Big Bang to subside, that star flares up: Nine little sparks shoot forth from the sun, and they slowly begin to cool. But now the pace accelerates even more. The third planet is ticking! Suddenly a veritable explosion of life floods the oceans of that tiny planet! (The Cambrian Era!) followed quickly by more explosions, the Devonian, Pennsylvanian, Cretaceous, faster and faster...age of mammals, for ever since the first creative act the pace has been inversely astronomical! Life explodes in profusion upon the earth like kernels of sunripened popcorn.


One day an angel, examining this strange world hears a sound in a tree overhead... a hairy little creature in the tree is ticking! BOOM! Hunters-gatherers, Agriculture, Civilization...then one day a man heard the ticking of the universe in his own heart. He obviously took this as a sign that an imminent explosion was on the horizon. He preached the apocalyptic end of all things, a new heaven, a new earth. "Come closer God! Abba, Father!" he cried. "just a step closer, and the sky will surely tear asunder, the veil of the Temple will be torn in two, and grave stones will be kicked aside like pebbles!" Tick, Tick Tick!


Hammer, hammer, hammer! "Pass me another nail, Cestus, this one didn't go all the way through his feet. (An Unfinished Symphony...)

Read More »

The Fall of Man Taken Allegorically



Monkey's Uncle
Fun With Genesis Issue, Summer 1985
Editor: E.T. Babinski


THE FALL OF MAN TAKEN ALLEGORICALLY
"All the optimism of the age had been disheartening for this reason, that it had always been trying to prove that we fit in to the world. The Christian optimism is based on the fact that we do not fit in to the world. I had tried to be happy by telling myself that man is an animal, like any other which sought its meat from God. But now I really was happy, for I had learnt that man was a monstrosity. I had been right in feeling all things as odd, for I myself was at once worse and better than all things. The optimist's pleasure was prosaic, for it dwelt on the naturalness of everything; in the light of the supernatural. The modern philosopher had told me again and again that I was in the right place, and I had still felt depressed even in aquiescence. But I had heard that I was in the wrong place, and my soul sang for joy, like a bird in spring... That is the inmost philosophy of the Fall. In Sir Oliver Lodge's Catechism, the first two questions were: 'What are you?' I could only answer, 'God knows.' And to the question, 'What is meant by the Fall?' I could answer with complete sincerity, 'That whatever I am, I am not myself.'" --G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

Read More »

Naming the Animals in Eden



Monkey's Uncle
Fun With Genesis Issue, Summer 1985
Editor: E.T. Babinski


EVER WONDER WHAT GOD WAS THINKING ABOUT WHEN HE CREATED THESE BEASTIES?


Dinosaurs in Eden


Adam must have had a lot of fun naming the above animals, but did you know that there are some animals that Adam didn't name
like the "geep," for instance? A "geep" was produced in Cambridge, England in 1984 by crossing early-stage cells of the embryos
of a goat and a sheep! (cf. Science Digest, Jan '85, p. 52)

Read More »

Carnivores, Meat Eaters in Genesis



Monkey's Uncle
Fun With Genesis Issue, Summer 1985
Editor: E.T. Babinski


"TO EVERY THING THAT MOVES ON THE EARTH. I HAVE GIVEN EVERY GREEN PLANT FOR FOOD."


In the October ' 83 issue of Bible-Science Newsletter (on page 16) one reader asked:


While I am a Christian, I have difficulty reconciling the Bible a particular account of creation with nature. In Genesis 1:30 the animals were given plants to eat, but not meat. How can Genesis 1:30 be reconciled with all the carnivores? Were carnivores created after the fall of Adam? Or are we supposed to believe that carnivores actually were "designed" and "structured" for plant eating and that their present apparatuses employed for pursuing meat is contrary to what they were actually destined to do? Can you list some special books or references which show that carnivores can be made to live contentedly on a vegetarian diet?
M.R., Long Beach, California

To which the editor replied:


1. We cannot obtain direct evidence supporting either the Genesis or evolutionary account of carnivorous origins.


2. A "meat-eaters" teeth and claws are well suited to eating plants with fleshy stems and tough skinned fruits, like for instance, the fleshy trunk (in reality a vine) of the banana tree. One may speculate that though animals today do not generally eat material such as banana stalks, the animals which once filled that niche have switched to meat.


3. The editor also quoted Henry Morris to the effect that carnivores today can live on a vegetarian diet if they must, though they cannot be made to exist contentedly on such a diet. He also added that his own cat loves corn on the cob and sauerkraut. Lastly, he suggested that plants existing before the Flood provided more complete nutrition than plants do now.


But questions still remain. Like...


1. True, we cannot obtain direct evidence supporting either the Genesis or evolutionary account. But there does exist fossil evidence of large skeletons with smaller skeleton remains of their final meaty meal tucked neatly in their rib cages. Futhermore, no one seems to doubt that many dinosaurs were carnivorous. (Or there must have been some very big banana stalks for Tyrannosaurus Rex to chew on, while gazing longingly at the brontosaurus-burgers he could be eating instead.) And since these and other fossilized remains were supposedly laid down by the Flood, this evidence does refute claims made by many creationist authorities (cited by the editor) that "all animals were vegetarian before the Flood."


2. Where did these heavily clawed and sharp toothed animals learn to stalk their prey prey, after living on nothing but banana stalks before the Flood? Of what use were special adaptations of hollow fangs, and their accompanying venom, and the spider's ability to build a web in the garden of Eden. if the spider only ate green plants? Were green plants, like Venus fly traps, allowed to eat flies in Eden? Did the female praying mantid mate without having to bite off the male's head to induce copulation? Did the bees and wasps in Eden have stingers? Did the wasps partially paralyze a caterpillar, then use their ovipositors to insert their eggs into its flesh, afterwhich the eggs hatched and ate the caterpillar from the inside out? The editor explains that "all abilities and features known today were present in perfection (in animals in Eden) although, like recessive genetic traits, they may not have been expressing themselves." So I guess God utilized his foresight and creative ability to include the genes for venomous poisons in plants and animals, web-making in spiders, stingers in bees and wasps, etc., to be expressed later. Thank God.


3. Creationists deplore evolution since it requires millions of years in which billions of creatures fed on one another, with over 50% of all known species (as evidenced in the fossil record) becoming extinct. To creationists this is a 'brutally harsh' scenario inconsistent with a creation that God found to be initially "Good." But is the evolutionary tale more 'brutally harsh' than God wiping out all life on earth in a great Flood; punishing animals that knew no sin for man's sin; making carnivores out of harmless herbivores; or even making his own Son suffer extinction on the cross? (Not to mention the eternal suffering awaiting 'the many.') Compared with the brutal harshness of a fundamentalist's unquestionable God. it is the evolutionary scenario that appears rather 'Good!' After all, evolution is no worse than the 'brutal harshness' going on around us right now.


"The Biblical words about the genesis of heaven and earth are not words of information but words of appreciation. The story of creation is not a description of how the world came into being but a song about the glory of the world's having come into being. 'And God saw that it was good' (Genesis 1.25). This is the challenge: to reconcile God's view with our experience." --from The Wisdom of Herchel, ed. by Ruth Marcus Goodhill

Read More »

Geocentricity of Genesis



Monkey's Uncle
Fun With Genesis Issue, Summer 1985
Editor: E.T. Babinski


THE GEOCENTRICITY OF GENESIS
According to Genesis the earth was made first. All the rest of the universe was an accessory. On the fourth day of creation the sun, moon, and "the stars also"--mere trifles, lumped together at the end of the inventory--were brought into existence. These were "created" and "set" in heaven "to give light upon the earth." With as much reason it might be said that mice were made to eat cheese. The celestial systems do not exist for the sake of the earth any more than an army exists for the sake of a single soldier. He gets his share of rations, but he is not the object of the combination. Astronomy shows us the insignificance of our planet. It is but a drop in the ocean, a grain of sand on the sea shore. We know of at least 182 stupendous objects revolving in regular orbits round the sun, of which the earth is far from being the largest. For them also, and not merely for the sake of the earth, does the sun "rule the day." And when we look beyond our solar system into the mighty universe of other suns and planets we might well ask what light is ruling each of them. The Genesis account, compared with our wealth of knowledge, does appear like a geocentric dream. When Anaxagoras dared to suggest that the sun was as large as the Peloponnesus he startled his Greek contemporaries. What must have been the notions of a pre-scientific people like the ancient Hebrews? For them it must have been easy to regard the sun, moon, "and the stars also" as mere satellites of the earth, set up in the sky as lanterns for the human race. Calvin stated, in his Commentary on the Book of Genesis, that "God himself took the space of six days, for the purpose of accumulating his works to the capacity of man." Inotherwords, the creation of all the various planets and suns in the cosmos revolved conveniently around man's weekly time schedule, measured in earth days. How geocentric can you get?

Read More »

Two Creation Accounts in Genesis



Monkey's Uncle
Fun With Genesis Issue, Summer 1985
Editor: E.T. Babinski


IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES?
Genesis contains, not one, but two creation accounts. The first runs from Gen 1.1 to Gen 2.3. While the second runs from Gen 2.4 to Gen 2.25. Noticeable differences exist between the two accounts:


1. In the first, creation is completed in six days (1.31). In the second, only one day is mentioned (2.4).


2. In the first, the earth emerges from water, whereupon plants appear the next day (1.9,10). In the second. the 'whole face of the ground or earth' requires moisture before plants may grow (2.6).


3. In the first, the trees are created before man (1.12,27). In the second, man is created before the trees (2.5-9).


4. In the first, beasts are created before man (1.21,24,27). In the second, man is created before the birds and beasts (2.18-19 'It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a helper...and God formed every beast').


5. In the first, man is created in the image of God (1.27). In the second, man is made of the dust of the earth, and merely animated with the breath of life (shared by all living things, cf., Gen 2.7,19; 6.17; 7.15,21,22 & Eccles 3.19,20); and it is only after eating the forbidden fruit that 'the Lord God said, Behold. the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil' (2.7; 3.22).


6. In the first, man is made lord of the whole earth (1.28). In the second, he is merely placed in the garden of Eden, 'to dress it and to keep it' (2.8,15).


7. In the first, God enjoins the primal pair to 'be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth' (1.28). In the second, the pain of childbirth is imposed upon the woman as a curse (3.16), and she has no offspring until after the expulsion from the garden of Eden (4.1).


8. In the first, man and woman are created together, as the closing and completing work of the whole creation, created also, as is evidently implied, in the same fashion, to be the complement of one another, and, thus created, are blessed together (1.28). In the second, the beasts and birds are created between the man and the woman. First, Adam is placed by himself in the garden, charged with a solemn command, and threatened with a curse if he breaks it; then the beasts and birds are made, and man gives names to them 'but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him' so God makes a woman from Adam's side, but merely as a helpmate for man (2.7,8,15,22).


The fact is, that the second account of creation, together with the story of the Fall (Gen 3), is manifestly composed by a different writer. This is suggested at once by the circumstance that, throughout the first narrative, the Creator is always spoken of by the name Elohim (God), whereas, throughout the second account, as well as the story of the Fall, he is always called Jehovah Elohim (Lord God), except when the writer seems to abstain, for some reason, from placing the name of Jehovah in the mouth of the serpent (3.1,3,5). This accounts naturally for the above contradictions. It would appear that, for some reason, the productions of two pens have been here united, without any reference to their inconsistencies. (The above is from Bishop Colenso's work on the Pentateuch)

Read More »

Does Genesis Pose More Questions Than The Book of Revelation?



Monkey's Uncle
Fun With Genesis Issue, Summer 1985
Editor: E.T. Babinski


DOES THE BOOK OF GENESIS POSE MORE QUESTIONS THAN THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS?
Among questions frequently raised (concerning the Genesis account) are the following:


"If God created everything (Gen 1), why did he create problems for himself by creating a serpent (Gen 3.1) who would lead his creations astray? Why did God create a tree he did not want Adam and Eve to know about, and then go out of his way to warn them against it? God grew angry when he found out he had been defied. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, didn't he know? Why couldn't he find Adam and Eve when they hid? If God had not wanted Adam and Eve to taste the fruit of the forbidden tree, why didn't he warn the serpent? Could God have prevented the serpent from tempting Adam and Eve? If yes, why didn't he? If no, does that mean that the serpent Was as powerful as God?"--Harlan Ellison, from his classic short story, "Deathbird"


According to Gen 2.15-23 Eve was created after Adam had already been given the prohibition with regard to the forbidden fruit. Eve apparently heard the prohibition only from Adam. She believed the serpent (the craftiest of all creatures) and has been blamed for the Fall of mankind (by Paul in I Tim 2.14-15). Was Eve framed?


According to Gen 2.17 Adam was to die "in the day" that he ate of the forbidden fruit. Moreover, the phrase translated "you will die" is mot tamut in Hebrew. The same phrase occurs in numerous passages in the Old Testament. For example, in I Ki 2.37, Solomon threatens Shimei, "The moment you go and cross the Kidron Valley, know that you shall die (not tamut)." Sure enough, when Shimei violates the king's orders, he sends his hatchet man, and Shimei is killed. Other parallel passages support this one in showing that mot tamut refers to a punishment by execution which is to take place immediately after the transgression. However, Adam lived 930 years (Gen 5.5)! This fact vindicates the serpent, who told Eve correctly, that "in the day that you eat (the fruit)... shall not die...(but) your eyes shall be opened" (Gen 3.4-5). Eve, of course, understood that God's prohibition involved immediate death, as when she argued with the serpent, "but God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.'" (Gen 3.3) So apparently the serpent knew more about the truth of the matter than Eve! (The preceding two questions are from Don Morgan's Crusade Publications)


Why wasn't Eve startled by the talking snake? Was it common for animals in Eden to talk? Or is Genesis an allegory, like Aesop's Fables, which also contain talking animals?


Having brought "luminosity" into existence, Jehovah "divided the light from the darkness." How was this done? And how did light and darkness ever mix? Darkness is a minus quantity; it is simply the absence of light, as cold is the absence of heat. (The ancient Babylonian creation epic, Enuma Elish, mentions Anu killing one half of Chaos (Apsu), and stealing his tiara of light, thus dividing the light from the darkness!)


Why did God not create two couples instead of one? Adam and Eve's sons must have had children by their sisters. Surely an all-wise and all-good Creator would have prevented the cradle of the race from being stained with incest.


After completing the work of Creation the Lord "rested." According to Exodus 31.17, he "rested and was refreshed," like someone mowing the lawn who takes a swig at a can of beer. According to Dr. Geddes, and other learned editors of an annotated Bible published in 1774, the true meaning of the Hebrew original is, "on the seventh day he rested, and fetched breath." (Sir William Donville, The Sabbath, p. 54) What a pretty piece of anthropomorphism! (The preceding three questions are from George Williams Foote's book, Bible Romances)


Why did God have to rest after he made the world? What does God do when he rests?
What does He do in His spare time? --graffiti


I've always wanted to ask, Why six days? What's the Lord's hurry? High labor costs?
--Wm. R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers


You ask me what God was doing before he created Heaven and Earth... He was creating Hell for people who asked questions like that --
Augustine of Hippo


Read More »

Three 'Whys' Men: Voltaire, Shaw, Twain



Monkey's Uncle
Fun With Genesis Issue, Summer 1985
Editor: E.T. Babinski


THREE 'WHYS' MEN: VOLTAIRE, SHAW, TWAIN
Asking 'why' is not a sin. It is a privilege adults grant each other, and even one that an adult may grant a child. Furthermore, even Jesus patiently answered Nicodemus' idiot question, "How can a man enter his mother's womb and be born a second time?" The history of theology is itself a history of the questioning process, wherein men progressively dared to ask every question allowable concerning the Bible, and finally some that weren't allowable...


Is the book of Genesis literal or allegorical? Did God really take a bit of Adam's side in order to make a woman? How did God create the light before the sun? How was the firmament formed in the midst of the waters since there is no firmament, this false imagination of ancient Egyptians, Babylonians & Greeks? There are some who conjecture that Genesis was written only after the Hebrews had some knowledge of the erroneous philosophy of other peoples. . . I wholeheartedly long to eat of the fruit that hung from the tree of knowledge, and it seems to me that the prohibition against it is strange; having given man reason, God should have encouraged him to learn. Did he want to be served by a dunce?..How shall I make the history of the Tower of Babel sound plausible? This tower must have been higher than the pyramids of Egypt (and the Twin Towers of Manhattan--Ed) since God let them be built! Did it reach to Venus or at least to the moon? (Since Voltaire wrote this, man has reached the moon, without interference by God--Ed) -- Voltaire, from "Zapata's Questions"


According to Paul of Tarsus, death entered the world through Adam's transgression (Rom. 5; I Cor 15. 21-23). In other words, Paul assumed that there was no death before Adam's Fall...No Death? No conceivable way that Adam could die? He had a body--gravity existed. Couldn't he fall off a cliff; out of a tree, breaking his neck? Or get sucked down by a rapid river while swimming? Or choke on an apple core? What about the animals? Couldn't a brontosaurus step on an ant (oops)? Or a monkey swallow a fly, or squash a caterpillar while swinging from branch to branch? Notice that if a single instance of death occurred in Eden then Paul is in error. While, if what Paul said was true, this raises another question. It means that God threatened Adam and Eve with a punishment (death) that they had no experiential knowledge of. And that hardly sounds very threatening, to be threatened with what must have appeared to them to be an invisible club. George Bernard Shaw in his play Back to Methuselah tackled the question his own unique way: "(The Garden of Eden. Afternoon. A glade in which lies a fawn all awry. Adam is staring in consternation at the fawn. Eve arrives and notices the animal.) E: What is the matter with its eyes? A: It is not only its eyes. Look. (He kicks it.) E: Oh don't! Why doesn't it wake? A: I don't know. It is not asleep. E: Not asleep? A: Try. E: (trying to shake it and roll it over) It is stiff and cold. A: Nothing will wake it. E: It has a queer smell. Did you find it like that? A: No. It was playing about, and it tripped and went head over heels. It never stirred again It's neck is wrong. (he stoops to lift the neck and show her.) E: Don't touch it. Come away from it... Adam, suppose you were to trip and fall, would you become like that? A: (he shudders.) E: You must be careful. Promise me you will be careful. A: What is the good of being careful? We have to live here for ever. Think of what for ever means! Sooner of late I shall trip and fall. It may be tomorrow; it may be after as many days as there are leaves in the garden and grains of sand by the river. No matter: some day I shall forget and stumble. E: I too."


On Paul's notion that death entered the world through Adam, Mark Twain had this to add: "Whoever has lived long enough to find out what life is, knows how deep a debt of gratitude we owe to Adam, the first great benefactor of our race. He brought death into the world." Among Twain's other opinions... "Adam and Eve had many advantages, but the principal one was that they escaped teething." "Adam was but human--this explains all. He did not want the fruit for the fruit's sake, he wanted it only because it was forbidden. The mistake was in not forbidding the serpent; then he would have eaten the serpent." (above quotes from Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar)

Read More »

Why Man Must Question God



Monkey's Uncle
Fun With Genesis Issue, Summer 1985
Editor: E.T. Babinski


WHY MAN MUST QUESTION GOD
Genesis states that God habitually "walked in the garden in the cool of the day," so, presumably, there were open channels of communication between Him and man. If so, why didn't Adam or Eve ask God, "We're curious as to why You don't want us to eat any of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We really like it here, and we don't want to seem ungrateful, but Your rule on this matter doesn't make much sense to us, and we'd really appreciate it if you explained it to us"? Of course they did not ask this. Instead, they ate the fruit without taking the effort to pose a question or communicate with God on a reasonably adult level. . . Were Adam and Eve afraid of what might happen if they were to question God? Instead, they took the easy way out, the shortcut of sneakiness, to achieve knowledge not worked for, and hoped they could get away with it. They did not. To question God may let us in for a lot of work. But a moral of the story is that it must be done.--M. Scott Peck, from The Road Less Traveled, Simon & Schuster, NY, 1978, p. 272 & 274.


WHY GOD MUST ANSWER MAN
Like Scott Peck, above, I believe that man must question God. However, I disagree that Adam's only reason for not questioning God was either because Adam was lazy or fearful, or being sneaky. There is another reason. Adam may have suspected all along that God simply would not have given him a straight answer. And perhaps God would not have! Take the following conversation: "Hey, God, must I avoid eating the fruit you've placed in the middle of the garden?" "Because if you eat of it, you'll die, Adam." Why will I die? Is the fruit poison? Or is it your favorite fruit you'd rather not share with anyone? If it's just your rule that I'll have to die, will you ever change the rules? If so, when? If not, why not?" "AH, ah, BECAUSE! Enough questions! Rules are rules!" "But they seem like reasonable questions to me and Eve. And if you won't discuss them with me (Adam spies talking snake in tree) I'll find someone else." "Fine. Adam. But don't tell me I didn't warn you. (God walks off). "Hey there Mr. Serpent! Why is God so frustrating? My mind is bursting with a thousand questions and newly born thoughts! I'm so curious, and this is all so new to me!" "I understand where you're coming from, Adam. Lately I've been sucking on this fruit and a lot's been made clear to me." "So, that's where you learned to talk! Boy, that fruit must be great stuff!" "Here, try a piece." (Snake shakes branch with his feet, and a piece of fruit falls into Adam's palm. Adam takes a bite. Whereupon God leaps out from behind a nearby bush!) "GOTTCHA!!" The moral is that having your questions frustrated is another road to temptation. So God must answer man!

Read More »