Does having faith mean not seeking knowledge?

[nobspeople]

Recently someone said, when discussing knowledge, "It would have been much easier, less painful, to know by listening to God and by letting him explain it." Outside of God never explaining much of anything, it got my mind wondering if faith, itself, equates to (at least partial) lack of knowledge or the need to understand more.

A few things people don't know but accept by faith:
how God came to be
what God is
how God forgives
what lies beyond the reached of our universe
how God created all things - even things we don't know about yet
how can all of the earth save for one family be guilty enough to drown in a flood (even babies that were just being born - as it's a good assumptions that this was happening without the bible specifying)
why animals need to suffer for what people did and be drowned in the flood

The list can continue but this one is what I want to discuss:
Why did God not want Adam and Eve to eat from the knowledge of good and evil?
Christians say God doesn't want robots, but when Adam and Eve ate from the tree, they weren't acting like robots, but pure individuals. Yet, they (the story goes) condemned mankind for wanting to know the knowledge the tree held.
People could counter by saying they simple wanted to disobey God - they would have eaten from any tree - but because the bible points to this particular tree and its title or name, I don't believe it was simple rebellion.


God doesn't seem to want us to know more as outlined by this story of the tree, but he does want faith. So it seems, at least in part, God doesn't want us to know certain things and rely almost strictly on faith in him.
If that doesn't sound like robots.....

So what did that tree hold, exactly, that God didn't want them to know?

[1213]

...

Bible tells all flesh was corrupted and had become violent, also animals, which is why they were destroyed.

I'm going to use the knowledge that I have available to notice how contrary Christianity is from one believer to the next.
No faith is needed of course as we can see the evidence before us. When there is good reason for believing something, for example that Christianity and beliefs in it are all over the board, no faith is needed as good reasoning takes the place of faith. Supply the good reasoning and there is no need for faith.
...

But what has that to do with my saying? Do you have some good reason to think it is not true that all was corrupted before the flood?

[The Tanager]

Then there is contradiction. If the creation is to be seen as faulty, the creator is faulty - by default. In simply terms, if a god is at fault for creating beings which have the ability to commit evil, and they do commit evil, then the god is at fault as well.

What all do you understand by the term "fault"? God is responsible for evil being committed because He made it possible, yes. But that's a necessary effect of giving humans libertarian free will (which is doing a good thing, in my opinion; it's not a flaw).

[The Tanager]

Based on the Genesis/Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil storyline, it seems God didn't want A&E to know certain things and, instead, 'just listen' to him (what many call, today, having faith in him).

God didn't say "don't eat from it because I said so," though. He gave them the reason, that they would die. The story clearly shows what this death means - spiritual separation from God (they hid from God, get defensive, etc.) and becoming mortal (they lose access to the tree of life). We have no reason to believe the humans didn't know this ("death" wasn't an undecipherable sound to them).

That, to me, equates to a type of programming which, ultimately, leads to the concepts of robots.
When A&E had a chance to make a decision, and did so, it wasn't what God wanted (aka going against programming).

I don't understand why you call that "programming." What term would you use to refer to God determining their exact choice? It can't also be "programming," at least to be helpful for our discussion, because that is clearly different than simply wanting them to make a certain choice but allowing them the freedom to choose.

He got mad (for some stupid reason)

They made a decision that "wasn't what God wanted." That is logically equivalent to saying "He got mad"; those are the same thing.

Kicked them out of the garden and thus, mankind was cursed with sin by God simply for A&E making a decision he didn't want them to make.

They got kicked out so that they couldn't corrupt the world (since they have decided to choose for themselves what is good and evil instead of listen to omniscient wisdom on the matter) for all eternity. They are kicked out as a mercy to the world.

That's how it's taught in many protestant churches (and a few others I have attended) based on my experience.
Is that right or wrong?

I don't doubt that some churches may teach it that way or teach it in a way that leads to that confusion, but I think it Biblically inaccurate.

That's immaterial as that's what's taught by people (seemingly) chosen by God. And they weren't chosen by God, he hasn't done much, if anything, to stop the wrong teaching which is pushing people away from him.

I see Christians as those who have been brought into God's reign, but that we continue to struggle against that, learning to unlearn all the selfishness and self-centeredness and deciding for ourselves what is good and evil is not an easy or quick death. If God were to just immediately change us to be morally perfect, that would be wiping out our free will, effectively destroying us and putting robots in our place.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #34]

God didn't say "don't eat from it because I said so," though.

I don't recall saying 'because I said so'.... did I?

He gave them the reason, that they would die.

Which, if left unexplained (the story doesn't elude to any explanation as to what 'die' meant) it was pointless as they wouldn't have understood.

The story clearly shows what this death means - spiritual separation from God (they hid from God, get defensive, etc.) and becoming mortal (they lose access to the tree of life).

Hindsight is 20/20, something A&E didn't have at the time.

We have no reason to believe the humans didn't know this ("death" wasn't an undecipherable sound to them).

You have every reason to think this, but there's nothing in the story that I've seen that explains this to them and nothing showing they understood. Granted, you have to assume this for it to make sense to you. I, on the other hand, only read what's there not what I want to be there.

I don't understand why you call that "programming."

That's unfortunate to you as I explained it.

They made a decision that "wasn't what God wanted." That is logically equivalent to saying "He got mad"; those are the same thing.

Trying to place logic in the bible is like trying to send a square through a round hole - it's pointless as the bible is illogical most, if not all, the time.
Fundamentally, they did something God didn't want them to do, then he got angry enough to kick them out and curse them with death. Try to twist it as you see fit, but that's the facts as I see them.

They got kicked out so that they couldn't corrupt the world (since they have decided to choose for themselves what is good and evil instead of listen to omniscient wisdom on the matter) for all eternity.

Something God could have prevented at the very least. But he didn't. It was 'Do this or that. Do that and you'll die'.

They are kicked out as a mercy to the world.

That's the most hysterical thing I've EVER seen in here. Yeah mercy to the world: a world with no sin to a world with sin and all the negativities that come with it and that's mercy?!? X100

I don't doubt that some churches may teach it that way or teach it in a way that leads to that confusion, but I think it Biblically inaccurate.

And they'd likely say your POV is inaccurate. Funny thing, that bible: you can make it say just about anything you want that fits your fancy. And then fight wars, kill and argue over it.

If God were to just immediately change us to be morally perfect, that would be wiping out our free will, effectively destroying us and putting robots in our place.

I find it amusing when people handicap a supreme being by placing their limited understanding of all things on said being. Granted, that's the best we got, but it's not enough.
If you want to cap your god's abilities, based on your (our) pitiful understand of how everything works - if that's the excuse you want to make for your god - by all means.
Others expect more from a god than human understanding.

[William]

Then there is contradiction. If the creation is to be seen as faulty, the creator is faulty - by default. In simply terms, if a god is at fault for creating beings which have the ability to commit evil, and they do commit evil, then the god is at fault as well.

What all do you understand by the term "fault"? God is responsible for evil being committed because He made it possible, yes. But that's a necessary effect of giving humans libertarian free will (which is doing a good thing, in my opinion; it's not a flaw).

Yes I do understand your reasoning but also remind you that when I am critiquing Christian Mythology, I stay aware of the fact that I myself have no judgement on matters of good and evil. I remain neutral in relation to that question ["what is good and what is evil"]

It is not my opinion that we exist in something good or evil. All I am reflecting back to you [your argument] is that IF there is fault to be found in the creation [you think so, yes?] THEN it is a faulty creation created that way by a faulty creator [not a true god].

From this, it has me asking "Would a true god have created this environment and placed self conscious life forms into it?"

Christianity tells me "yes" but I am unconvinced.

However, by removing [or at least suppressing] the good/evil thinking processes [lens] from the equation, and observing nature through an understanding of non-judgmentalism, I find that the question becomes redundant - unnecessary. How can a human being understand any difference between a 'true god' and a 'false god'?

The answer is that we cannot, so we ought not...yet Christians think [generally give the impression] that they can and that they have figured that out...

[The Tanager]

I don't recall saying 'because I said so'.... did I?

That's equivalent to what I understand "'just listen' to him (what many call, today, having faith in him)." If that's not equivalent to you, then you have a chance to correct my misunderstanding.

Which, if left unexplained (the story doesn't elude to any explanation as to what 'die' meant) it was pointless as they wouldn't have understood.

The story clearly shows what this death means - spiritual separation from God (they hid from God, get defensive, etc.) and becoming mortal (they lose access to the tree of life).

Hindsight is 20/20, something A&E didn't have at the time.

That is an assumption on your part. You may have written the story by defining the word prior to showing the results, but that isn't the only valid way to tell the story. Normally stories aren't told that way.

You have every reason to think this, but there's nothing in the story that I've seen that explains this to them and nothing showing they understood. Granted, you have to assume this for it to make sense to you. I, on the other hand, only read what's there not what I want to be there.

That's simply saying "I'm right" without supporting you being right. You aren't simply reading what's there, we are both going beyond what is directly written in our interpretations. We have to because the author isn't just answering a list of questions that we have. I've given support for my view. Your support is basically that the author should have directly answered those questions and since he didn't that your assumptions make better sense of the author's intentions. I find that principle clearly flawed. The author is not beholden to answering your list of questions directly.

That's unfortunate to you as I explained it.

You haven't fully explained it because you ignored my question of what term you would then use for another widely used (and perhaps most commonly used) meaning of 'programming'. I don't care what terms are used as long as the concepts are understood and kept straight. So, what term would you use to refer to God determining Adam and Eve's choice, had He done so?

Trying to place logic in the bible is like trying to send a square through a round hole - it's pointless as the bible is illogical most, if not all, the time.

Empty rhetoric that begs the question.

Fundamentally, they did something God didn't want them to do, then he got angry enough to kick them out and curse them with death. Try to twist it as you see fit, but that's the facts as I see them.

More empty rhetoric. Of course we each think the other is twisting things.

Something God could have prevented at the very least. But he didn't. It was 'Do this or that. Do that and you'll die'.

Yes, God could have prevented it...by making them robots, which is worse than being a being with libertarian free will.

That's the most hysterical thing I've EVER seen in here. Yeah mercy to the world: a world with no sin to a world with sin and all the negativities that come with it and that's mercy?!?

At that point if God allowed humans to never physically die, then corrupt humans could live forever continuing to bring their corruption on the world. The mercy is God limiting each human's individual lifespan and the amount of corruption they can individually cause or add to.

If your critique is really that it would be more loving and merciful for God to have chosen morally perfect robots rather than create beings with libertarian free will, then please explain to me why you think that is the better choice.

And they'd likely say your POV is inaccurate. Funny thing, that bible: you can make it say just about anything you want that fits your fancy. And then fight wars, kill and argue over it.

Of course they would. Funny thing, that Bible and most any writing from any worldview whatsoever, and scientific data: you can make them say just about anything you want that fits your fancy. However, some interpretations better fit the data than others. Ideas are argued and people are killed by people in all worldviews.

I find it amusing when people handicap a supreme being by placing their limited understanding of all things on said being. Granted, that's the best we got, but it's not enough.
If you want to cap your god's abilities, based on your (our) pitiful understand of how everything works - if that's the excuse you want to make for your god - by all means.
Others expect more from a god than human understanding.

I see no problem in handicapping all beings by clear logic. Having an understanding that is illogical is not an improvement. If you want to think irrational things might be true, by all means. Others expect more of their worldview.

[The Tanager]

What all do you understand by the term "fault"? God is responsible for evil being committed because He made it possible, yes. But that's a necessary effect of giving humans libertarian free will (which is doing a good thing, in my opinion; it's not a flaw).

Yes I do understand your reasoning but also remind you that when I am critiquing Christian Mythology, I stay aware of the fact that I myself have no judgement on matters of good and evil. I remain neutral in relation to that question ["what is good and what is evil"]

It is not my opinion that we exist in something good or evil. All I am reflecting back to you [your argument] is that IF there is fault to be found in the creation [you think so, yes?] THEN it is a faulty creation created that way by a faulty creator [not a true god].

From this, it has me asking "Would a true god have created this environment and placed self conscious life forms into it?"

If you are only talking about "fault" in the sense of being 'responsible,' then you can remain neutral in that sense. We are in agreement that the God of Christian "Mythology" is responsible.

But if you are talking about this showing God to have a "fault" in the sense of being a 'flaw' (as the question "Would a true god have created this environment..." MAY be doing) then you aren't remaining neutral in relation to what is good and evil. Please clear up whether you mean that question in that way or not.

However, by removing [or at least suppressing] the good/evil thinking processes [lens] from the equation, and observing nature through an understanding of non-judgmentalism, I find that the question becomes redundant - unnecessary. How can a human being understand any difference between a 'true god' and a 'false god'?

The answer is that we cannot, so we ought not...yet Christians think [generally give the impression] that they can and that they have figured that out...

You tell me that is the answer but I am unconvinced.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #37]

That's equivalent to what I understand "'just listen' to him (what many call, today, having faith in him)." If that's not equivalent to you, then you have a chance to correct my misunderstanding.

Yes, you 'misunderstood'

You may have written the story by defining the word prior to showing the results, but that isn't the only valid way to tell the story.

Which is an enormous problem with the bible - a book that (some say) is the only path to eternal life: multiple ways to tell and understand one story.

That's simply saying "I'm right" without supporting you being right.

Why I don't have to support I'm right to you when I make a statement that's not meant to sway anyone. A simple statement is just that - a statement.

we are both going beyond what is directly written in our interpretations.

If it's not explicitly said, I don't assume. If that doesn't work for you, that's your issue, not mine.

You haven't fully explained it because you ignored my question of what term you would then use for another widely used (and perhaps most commonly used) meaning of 'programming'.

I have, at least twice. If you don't accept it, again, not my problem.

Yes, God could have prevented it...by making them robots, which is worse than being a being with libertarian free will.

Limiting God based on human concepts. I find that disingenuous, at the very least. But again, if that works for you, have at it.

The rest of your reply is simply arguing which isn't productive to the topic of this thread.

[Clownboat]

...

Bible tells all flesh was corrupted and had become violent, also animals, which is why they were destroyed.

I'm going to use the knowledge that I have available to notice how contrary Christianity is from one believer to the next.
No faith is needed of course as we can see the evidence before us. When there is good reason for believing something, for example that Christianity and beliefs in it are all over the board, no faith is needed as good reasoning takes the place of faith. Supply the good reasoning and there is no need for faith.
...

But what has that to do with my saying? Do you have some good reason to think it is not true that all was corrupted before the flood?

Nothing, just pointing out how contradictory Christian beliefs can be.

As far as corruption before a flood... You have not shown corruption, you just subscribe to one of the available religious beliefs that makes such a claim. There is also no evidence for a global flood. Therefore, to discuss one would be to give it credit it doesn't yet deserve IMO.

Christians still contradict each other though. Thanks Holy Spirit!

[William]

What all do you understand by the term "fault"? God is responsible for evil being committed because He made it possible, yes. But that's a necessary effect of giving humans libertarian free will (which is doing a good thing, in my opinion; it's not a flaw).

Yes I do understand your reasoning but also remind you that when I am critiquing Christian Mythology, I stay aware of the fact that I myself have no judgement on matters of good and evil. I remain neutral in relation to that question ["what is good and what is evil"]

It is not my opinion that we exist in something good or evil. All I am reflecting back to you [your argument] is that IF there is fault to be found in the creation [you think so, yes?] THEN it is a faulty creation created that way by a faulty creator [not a true god].

From this, it has me asking "Would a true god have created this environment and placed self conscious life forms into it?"

If you are only talking about "fault" in the sense of being 'responsible,' then you can remain neutral in that sense. We are in agreement that the God of Christian "Mythology" is responsible.

Oaky Dokey

But if you are talking about this showing God to have a "fault" in the sense of being a 'flaw' (as the question "Would a true god have created this environment..." MAY be doing) then you aren't remaining neutral in relation to what is good and evil. Please clear up whether you mean that question in that way or not.

In relation to our ongoing discussion here I will leave that there...

I will remind you here, that I am not approaching the subject through the lens of judgmentalism. I am not seeing things through the lens of 'the knowledge of good and evil' - I am forced to reflect back at you what it is you are arguing [through said lenses] if I am to engage with you at all.

What can we each do to sort that, in order that we continue to engage?

I myself have come from a position of viewing things through those lens. While I thus can empathize, I see no point in returning to that position.
Whereas, IF you have never viewed things other than through said lens THEN how can you possible empathize with my position?

So what - realistically - can we do to sort that?

However, by removing [or at least suppressing] the good/evil thinking processes [lens] from the equation, and observing nature through an understanding of non-judgmentalism, I find that the question becomes redundant - unnecessary. How can a human being understand any difference between a 'true god' and a 'false god'?

The answer is that we cannot, so we ought not...yet Christians think [generally give the impression] that they can and that they have figured that out...

You tell me that is the answer but I am unconvinced.

How can you be convinced by anything if you have not tried it?