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?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #201]

It seems selfish to me to be ok with the idea that billions are suffering for eternity just so you can have a shot at an afterlife.

Agreed. But not surprising. Christians like to spout they're selfless but the opposite is true.
They are Christians so that THEY can get to heaven, not anyone else.
Them being Christian ultimately helps no one but them. Sure they can donate money to causes (as can anyone) and they can witness in an effort to 'save souls' (which is a pile IMO - they witness so they can show off and, in many cases, feel superior to others).
Even their God says he's jealous and demands worship to stroke his ego! How can they NOT be selfish?

The reply you referenced shows this to be true and accurate: Christianity is a selfish religion and, as followers, Christians are, by choice, selfish IMO.

[1213]

...
If this includes claims of global floods, talking donkeys, snakes and/or a man living in the belly of a whale for days, then you will need to define what you mean when you use the words 'supported by reasonable logic'.

Global flood had consequences that can still be seen in nature. Therefore, it is easy for me to believe. The donkey or the whale doesn’t exist anymore, which is why it is difficult to know much about them. But, I don’t think those who wrote about them had any reason to make up the story. And that is why I believe it as written in the Bible.

[Clownboat]

...
If this includes claims of global floods, talking donkeys, snakes and/or a man living in the belly of a whale for days, then you will need to define what you mean when you use the words 'supported by reasonable logic'.

Global flood had consequences that can still be seen in nature. Therefore, it is easy for me to believe. The donkey or the whale doesn’t exist anymore, which is why it is difficult to know much about them. But, I don’t think those who wrote about them had any reason to make up the story. And that is why I believe it as written in the Bible.

You didn't define what you meant... Moving on...

The only reason I know of why anyone on this planet would think that there was a global flood is due to religious stories/indoctrination. No flood story, and no reason to assume a global flood. The evidence for this is that evidence did not lead to global flood beliefs, religious tales did.

You support talking animals and living in the belly of a fish. Your 'supporting reasonable logic' that you offered is: the donkey and fish don't exist anymore.
Donkeys and fish do both still exist of course... and they lack the ability to converse (and live within) like in the stories we are referring to. This is actually supported by reasonable logic.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #194]

Adding to my previous post, so that I can respond to the OP title question,

Does having faith mean not seeking knowledge?


It depends upon what the knowledge is of.

In the case of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve, as per the OP, that was about knowing something specific: good and bad (life and death). Exercising faith in God would have kept Adam and Eve from knowing good and bad (life and death). If they had exercised faith instead of seeking something that God told them would cause them to die, they would not have died.

So faith (exercising faith in/obeying God and His Son) can keep us from things that would cause us (or others) to die, or even to be unnecessarily harmed. Faith (exercising faith in/obeying God and His Son) will also lead us to life, to what is good for us, and for our children.


I would want to be given knowledge of what I should avoid though, so as to keep from death (or unnecessary harm), for me and for my loved ones. I would also want to know what (or whom) I should seek, so as to recieve life (for me and for my loved ones). I mean, we (mankind) do that for our own children, do we not? Warn them to stay away from things that can harm them (especially things that can kill them), and point them toward things that are good for them. God does the same for His children.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[nobspeople]

[Replying to tam in post #205]

So you're having your cake and eating it, too.

If they (Adam and Eve) had exercised faith instead of seeking something that God told them would cause them to die, they would not have died.

Apparently, but only because God set up the scenario that way. Meaning, the outcome from not having faith in him was death, when he could have just as easily (some would say more lovingly) not killed them for not having faith in him and seeking knowledge he didn't want them to have (for some reason). It wasn't enough to kick them out, he had to condemn them.

I would want to be given knowledge of what I should avoid though, so as to keep from death...

You could, just as easily as you think Adam and Eve should have, have faith in God to protect you and yours.
But you don't, as you said "I would also want to know... (etc)".

So, you say we should have faith (and indeed, it seems like you're saying Adam and Eve should have had faith and suffered the seemingly justified consequences for not having faith) when you, yourself, don't have faith in God to protect you and your family because you, like Adam and Eve, want to know?!?!

It seems very, very hypocritical: "Have faith, until it's important enough where I want to know X, Y or Z."

[2ndpillar2]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #194]

Adding to my previous post, so that I can respond to the OP title question,

Does having faith mean not seeking knowledge?


It depends upon what the knowledge is of.

In the case of the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve, as per the OP, that was about knowing something specific: good and bad (life and death). Exercising faith in God would have kept Adam and Eve from knowing good and bad (life and death). If they had exercised faith instead of seeking something that God told them would cause them to die, they would not have died.

So faith (exercising faith in/obeying God and His Son) can keep us from things that would cause us (or others) to die, or even to be unnecessarily harmed. Faith (exercising faith in/obeying God and His Son) will also lead us to life, to what is good for us, and for our children.


I would want to be given knowledge of what I should avoid though, so as to keep from death (or unnecessary harm), for me and for my loved ones. I would also want to know what (or whom) I should seek, so as to recieve life (for me and for my loved ones). I mean, we (mankind) do that for our own children, do we not? Warn them to stay away from things that can harm them (especially things that can kill them), and point them toward things that are good for them. God does the same for His children.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

God is good. The manifestation of the Spirit of God is the Word (Law and prophets) made flesh. The manifestation of evil is the devil, the father of lies, and his lawlessness (Matthew 7:13-23), manifested per the false prophets. If you followed the devil/serpent, you would supposedly eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and "surely you shall not die" (Genesis 3), but in effect you will die. Evil is lawlessness, which is to follow man's conception of what is good, which is shown in the example of 60,000,000 innocent babies being killed/aborted since 1973. Keep in mind our new president, a claimed Catholic, church of tares, supports murder of the innocent unborn. The pal of Satan, Paul, sowed the seeds of lawlessness, via his false gospel of grace/cross, in which the Law is nailed to the cross, and you are no longer under the law. Keep in mind that Paul was all things to all men, so his seed contains different messages according to his audience. Paul was just as cunning as his father, the serpent, and leads the "many" to "destruction", with the help of his tare disciples. Paul's false gospel was "we surely shall not sleep/die", a rewording of the serpent's original message. Both lead to "destruction". This is all explained in Yeshua's parables, of which the "wicked" are not able to understand. You may have knowledge of these parables, but without understanding (Matthew 13:13), knowledge is not helpful.

[1213]

..The only reason I know of why anyone on this planet would think that there was a global flood is due to religious stories/indoctrination...

Marine fossils on high mountains, vast oil, gas and coal fields, orogenic mountains, the edges of continents all points to the great flood. I think it is possible that someone could see it without the Bible.

But, if you say that no human would think so, without religious stories, where do you think the story originally came from, if people would not think that on their own?

...You support talking animals and living in the belly of a fish. Your 'supporting reasonable logic' that you offered is: the donkey and fish don't exist anymore.
Donkeys and fish do both still exist of course... and they lack the ability to converse (and live within) like in the stories we are referring to. This is actually supported by reasonable logic.

In the case of the donkey, if I remember correctly, God made it to speak, so Bible is not saying that it is common ability for all donkeys. It was special case and I believe it happened as Bible tells it.

The fish or whale, we don’t know what it was, but I have no reason to doubt it could not have happened.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to 1213 in post #208]

Marine fossils on high mountains, vast oil, gas and coal fields, orogenic mountains, the edges of continents all points to the great flood.

No, it points to plate tectonics, plate shifting, continental drift and an evolving and moving planet.

I think it is possible that someone could see it without the Bible.

Drugs make people see all sorts of things so yes, it is possible. But that doesn't make it true.

without religious stories, where do you think the story originally came from, if people would not think that on their own?

Not speaking for CB, but I see a lot of stories people have created throughout time. The human mind is creative. It's created art, comedies, dramas, musical....even gods and religions.

God made it to speak, so Bible is not saying that it is common ability for all donkeys.

Again, not speaking for CB, but I suspect they mean that ANY animal speaking human language is out of the norm. Not only animals, but plants as well.
Talk about humanity being creative!

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #205]

So you're having your cake and eating it, too.

I don't understand what you mean (I understand the saying, I do not know why you are applying it to me).

If they (Adam and Eve) had exercised faith instead of seeking something that God told them would cause them to die, they would not have died.

Apparently, but only because God set up the scenario that way. Meaning, the outcome from not having faith in him was death,

The outcome of eating from the tree of knowing good (meaning life) and knowing bad (meaning death), was them dying. Just as God warned them would happen.

Please note that the warning was 'eat and you will die." Not... 'eat and I will kill you."

I thought I addressed that a couple of posts back, but perhaps I forgot. I'm going to be on the road for most of the day, so I will check back when I am able.

I would want to be given knowledge of what I should avoid though, so as to keep from death...

You could, just as easily as you think Adam and Eve should have, have faith in God to protect you and yours.
But you don't, as you said "I would also want to know... (etc)".

I think you might be misunderstanding my post. Because God DID warn them of what they should NOT do, so that they would NOT die.

So, you say we should have faith (and indeed, it seems like you're saying Adam and Eve should have had faith and suffered the seemingly justified consequences for not having faith) when you, yourself, don't have faith in God to protect you and your family because you, like Adam and Eve, want to know?!?!

See above. Because I am not saying anything like that. God did warn Adam and Eve of the consequences to eating from that tree (which would cause them to die).

It seems very, very hypocritical: "Have faith, until it's important enough where I want to know X, Y or Z."

That might be hypocritical, but that is not what I am saying.



I will check back tonight if I am able, hopefully the misunderstanding is cleared up.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[nobspeople]

[Replying to tam in post #210]

I don't understand what you mean (I understand the saying, I do not know why you are applying it to me).

It was explained later in the post. But I'll clarify later.

Please note that the warning was 'eat and you will die." Not... 'eat and I will kill you."

Of course, but there was no death until God got mad and decided there would be. Therefore, he killed them. Some would say directly, some would say indirectly. Either way: god happy = no death. God mad = death.

I think you might be misunderstanding my post. Because God DID warn them of what they should NOT do, so that they would NOT die.

You're the one misunderstanding my point. I'm saying you seem to think Adam and Even should have complete faith ('Do what God tells you to do, Adam and Eve'), while you don't by saying 'I would want to be given knowledge of what I should avoid though'.
You want KNOWLEDGE while you chide Adam and Eve for wanting KWOWLEDGE and seeking KNOWLEDGE out.
Adam and Eve weren't given knowledge, they were given a command - an enormous difference no matter how you want to slice it up in favor of God.
Yet, you want knowledge for you own benefit? You're eating a very similar apple than Adam and Eve did. Yet, because it's you, you're OK with it.
That's hypocrisy at it's best.

No legitimate parent is all powerful and all knowing and no legitimate parent would actively watch their children burn for eternity simply for not doing as they say.
So the comparison of God to humanity as a parent is to a child isn't apt in any way, shape or form unless we admit God is worse than a legitimate parent.