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?

[tam]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #211]

Quickly, because you are still not understanding what I wrote,

God gave Adam and Eve a warning of what NOT to do, so that they would not die. I would want that same thing - warning against such things that cause death or harm; commands that lead to life. God did not just give them a command, He explained why He gave that command. (do not eat, or you will die) Now, what a person chooses to do with what God tells them, that is up to them. But God DID tell them so that they had the knowledge of what would happen to them if they ate from that tree.

I am not applying a double standard for myself.


(Nor is the tree of knowing good and bad, the tree of knowledge. There is no tree of knowledge in the account. The tree of knowing good and bad refers only to knowing a specific thing: life - which they already had; and death, which they did not know. Obviously they had knowledge of many other things before eating from that tree.)


Anything else will have to wait... talk with you later.


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

[nobspeople]

[Replying to tam in post #212]

I am not applying a double standard for myself.

You should rely on God to protect you and not seek knowledge of things that can harm you like you seem to think Adam and Even should have done.
Of course you don't think this so because it benefits you (it's always easy to tell others what to or expect them to do, much less easy for us to do it ourselves), but I see it exactly as that.
But I'm neither of us will be loosing any sleep over tonight. I just see your POV as hypocritical in the simplest term.

God did not just give them a command, He explained why He gave that command.

"Don't eat from the tree or you'll zambot."
Might as well have said that as there no logical way to think they understood death, having never experienced it prior, and there's no biblical story showing God explained it to them. So, no, it was not an explanation (at least one that meant anything to them) it was a command.
It's fun to excuse God by saying "Oh no. God explained death to them, they understood it and yet they STILL disobeyed. Oh poor God. He was just in kicking them out and cursing them with death. Ok God, now that I protected your name, you can bless me now!"
Nothing against you - it happens to all believers who are washed enough to accept everything God is said to have done or said as just, righteous and valid - even killing innocent babies and animals for a world he created KNOWING it would end up like it did.
Yeah, poor poor put upon God. Let's all have sympathy for him. He loves us all even though he allowed the world to be in the state it's in now.
Poor poor God.

[William]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #213]

There is nothing in the bullet points [verses] of the story which indicates that death was not present in the garden, even though it seems to be something of a traditionally accepted assumption among the religious, that everything was permanent and nothing died.

The story [overall bullet points] differ. Only those with access to the fruit of the tree of life, did not die... and even so, they depended upon having access to that fruit in order not to die. No life fruit and goodbye eventually!

So Adam would have understood what death was, because he would have seen animals dying....

[brunumb]

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.

Where was God while the serpent was trying to convince his beloved children to disobey his command? For example, would caring parents stand idly by doing nothing knowing that a sexual predator was actively seducing their children? It seems that God is at least guilty of depraved indifference. Did the punishment fit the crime? Not by a long shot. It doesn't pay to bruise God's infinite ego.

[brunumb]

(Nor is the tree of knowing good and bad, the tree of knowledge. There is no tree of knowledge in the account. The tree of knowing good and bad refers only to knowing a specific thing: life - which they already had; and death, which they did not know. Obviously they had knowledge of many other things before eating from that tree.)

Your interpretation does not appear to be warranted. Perhaps this will clarify matters:
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_t ... d_and_evil

Meaning of good and evil

The phrase in Hebrew: טוֹב וָרָע, tov wa-raʿ, literally translates as "good and evil". This may be an example of the type of figure of speech known as merism, a literary device that pairs opposite terms together in order to create a general meaning, so that the phrase "good and evil" would simply imply "everything." This is seen in the Egyptian expression evil-good, which is normally employed to mean "everything." In Greek literature, Homer also uses the device when he lets Telemachus say, "I [wish to] know everything, the good and the evil."; although the words used – ἐσθλός for "good" and χερείων for "evil" – are better termed "superior" and "inferior".

However, if "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is to be understood to mean a tree whose fruit imparts knowledge of everything, this phrase does not necessarily denote a moral concept. This view is held by several scholars.

Given the context of disobedience to God, other interpretations of the implications of this phrase also demand consideration. Robert Alter emphasizes the point that when God forbids the man to eat from that particular tree, he says that if he does so, he is "doomed to die." The Hebrew behind this is in a form regularly used in the Hebrew Bible for issuing death sentences.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Am off the road and in a hotel (youngest sibling getting married tomorrow, so my son who is the best man and I traveled to be able to attend the ceremony). No social gathering permitted other than that though, so... hotel.

[Replying to tam in post #212]

I am not applying a double standard for myself.

You should rely on God to protect you and not seek knowledge of things that can harm you like you seem to think Adam and Even should have done.

I don't know where this is coming from, but you are misunderstanding what I have said.

God gave Adam and Eve the warning, the same warning that I would also want to have.

Of course you don't think this so because it benefits you (it's always easy to tell others what to or expect them to do, much less easy for us to do it ourselves), but I see it exactly as that.

You are seeing something that I never said and do not think.

But I'm neither of us will be loosing any sleep over tonight. I just see your POV as hypocritical in the simplest term.

You have not seen my POV at all. I have said three times now that you are misunderstanding what I said. Can you stop and think for a moment that you have done just that, maybe re-read or ask a question? Because I don't know how to be any more clear than what I have been.

God did not just give them a command, He explained why He gave that command.

"Don't eat from the tree or you'll zambot."
Might as well have said that as there no logical way to think they understood death, having never experienced it prior, and there's no biblical story showing God explained it to them. So, no, it was not an explanation (at least one that meant anything to them) it was a command.

You don't know that. They might not have had firsthand knowledge of death (or maybe they had a sense of it, since before they were alive, they were not alive), but that does not mean they did not know what death was. Either way, they knew it was bad, they knew God had told them not to eat of that one single tree. And they had to have known death was a consequence to be avoided, otherwise, why would it have made a difference that the serpent (falsely) reassured them that they would not die?

It's fun to excuse God by saying "Oh no. God explained death to them, they understood it and yet they STILL disobeyed. Oh poor God. He was just in kicking them out and cursing them with death. Ok God, now that I protected your name, you can bless me now!"

I'm just responding to your thread. I don't see where the sarcasm is called for just because you and I disagree on something. Regardless, God does not need someone to excuse Him; He did nothing wrong. God warned them of the consequence. Eat and you will die. Cause and effect.

Casting them out of the Garden is another story (one that others have gone into detail about on other threads, so I will just touch on it). Adam had just proven that he could not be trusted with eternal life. He had been given everything by God, including life, companionship, the entire world and all that was in it, given to him to govern. But instead of protecting life and everything entrusted into his care, he subjected that life and the world to death. And he was not deceived. Then, instead of repenting and showing remorse, he blamed both God and the woman for his having eaten. (Christ on the other hand asks forgiveness for His bride, even giving His life for her.)

Adam showed by his actions that he was not the kind of person you permit to have eternal life (at least not until/unless he learned some things, even if that learning would be the hard way now). With no consequences whatsoever for his actions, and eternal life to boot, what might such a being do, what harm might such a being cause to others in all eternity?


On top of that, would you permit someone to remain in your house once that person proves that they will not respect your house or your property, that they have already proven to cause harm to what was given to them, that they show no remorse whatsoever for having broken your trust?

Yet some expect God to have done this very thing.

Nothing against you -it happens to all believers who are washed enough to accept everything God is said to have done or said as just, righteous and valid -

I don't know what 'washed enough' means (unless you were trying to write 'brainwashed'), but I accept that everything God has done and said (past present and future) is righteous and valid, because I see His actions as being that. But if one wants to know God, then one must look to His Son. See Christ, see God. Christ - not the bible - is the Image of God.

even killing innocent babies and animals for a world he created KNOWING it would end up like it did.

The above is vague (I am going to suggest incorrect as well), but that is going beyond the thread, and I'd rather deal with the thread issue on this thread.

Though I will add that God knows how everything will end up, not just at various points, but in the end.

Yeah, poor poor put upon God. Let's all have sympathy for him.

What do these sentiments have to do with the thread OP or anything that I have said?

He loves us all even though he allowed the world to be in the state it's in now.

If you continue to warn people what not to do and they continue to ignore you, then who is responsible for the consequences? The person who told you (general you) what you should do (and you did not do it) and who told you what you should not do (and you did it)? Or you, who did not listen?


I suppose that is no different than blaming God for Adam and Eve dying, when Adam and Eve did the very thing that God told them not to do or they would die.



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

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to nobspeople in post #211]

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.

I meant to remind you that we have already discussed this particular issue (the bold) on another thread. So I'm just gonna link to those posts:

viewtopic.php?p=1028604#p1028604

viewtopic.php?p=1028756#p1028756

Peace again!

[nobspeople]

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.

Where was God while the serpent was trying to convince his beloved children to disobey his command? For example, would caring parents stand idly by doing nothing knowing that a sexual predator was actively seducing their children? It seems that God is at least guilty of depraved indifference. Did the punishment fit the crime? Not by a long shot. It doesn't pay to bruise God's infinite ego.

We hear of people in abusive relationships all the time. Many times they remain, despite all things pointing to LEAVE NOW! Yet they stay.
Christians strike me as very similar. They see all these things that don't make sense, seem immoral or unjust and things only saw in science fiction movies. Yet they stay. They make excuses. The create new words and change definitions of current words.
All to stay in their relationship with their God.
I understand that, in a way. Maybe it's a human flaw? But at some point, I think, most all Christians set aside doubt, logic and simple common sense to appease their inner need.
I'm not saying that's a bad this, per se, but, at the very least, it's something that needs further investigation and internal reflection.
Of course they're free to accept or reject whatever they want, no matter how factual or silly it may seem. But I wonder how many of them, truly, believe everything fully, without excuse, discounting common sense and logic and over looking the impossible?
Like them or not; agree with them or not, but they sure are an interesting group to study IMO.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to tam in post #217]

I don't know where this is coming from, but you are misunderstanding what I have said.

Sigh. No. When you said I 'seek knowledge' about what can harm you and your family yadda yadda yadda, you're doing the exact same thing Adam and Eve (A&D going forward) did, fundamentally: seeking knowledge. The only difference is the story said God told them not to eat from the tree and we have no way of knowing what God told you (but I suspect it is something akin to 'believe in Me to protect you').
If you believe in God and his protection you should seek zero knowledge on what can harm you and yours. A&E had faith in God to protect them, but they still sinned and ate the apple. By you seeking knowledge for protection, you're not relying on God. You don't have faith in him to protect you.

You are seeing something that I never said and do not think.

Of course you didn't say that, but that's what you're doing as I see it.

You have not seen my POV at all.

I have, but I think it's a (not so sly way) of getting around your lack of faith.

As this is going in circles, I will say this and be done with it:

As a Christian, you should have complete and absolute faith in God to protect you and yours. But, as you said, you seek knowledge of things that could harm you and your family. That's not having faith in your God to protect you.
A faithful Christian should give everything up to follow Christ. This means 'seeking knowledge of things that could harm me and my family' as God would protect you.
By seeking that knowledge, you're not having faith in God to protect you.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to tam in post #217]

I don't know where this is coming from, but you are misunderstanding what I have said.

Sigh. No. When you said I 'seek knowledge' about what can harm you and your family yadda yadda yadda, you're doing the exact same thing Adam and Eve (A&D going forward) did, fundamentally: seeking knowledge.

I think you are conflating two things based on a superficial similarity (the word knowledge). If you look at my post, the one you are objecting to, you will note that I answered the title question with 'it depends'. Having faith may keep you from seeking to know (have intimate knowledge of, firsthand experience) something that will harm you. Why? Because you are listening- in faith - to what God or His Son have told you (to do or not to do).

The only difference is the story said God told them not to eat from the tree and we have no way of knowing what God told you (but I suspect it is something akin to 'believe in Me to protect you').

God has told men many things - take Noah for instance. God told Noah that He was sending a flood. God told Noah to build an ark. If Noah had not listened, if he had not built the ark, if he had not gotten on the ark, if he had not believed God or exercised faith in God by OBEYING the command of God, then Noah would not have survived. But because he heard and obeyed, he and his family lived.

God told Israel the kind of fasting that He desires (Isaiah 58).

God tells me (and not just me) to listen to His Son - and that Son gives multiple commands, including to remain in Him, to listen to Him, to come to Him. The Son has told us that God desires mercy (not sacrifice), which also the prophet Hosea said at Hosea 6:6.

Believing in God, believing in His Son, means more than just believing that they exist; it means believing what they say and doing what they tell us to do.

"Why do you call me Lord Lord, but do not do what I say?"

If you believe in God and his protection you should seek zero knowledge on what can harm you and yours.

Where are you getting your idea of God from? What do you base this theory upon? Why in the world would God or His Son give us instructions on what we should or should not do, if those instructions and commands were not important? If they did not matter? And how does one learn to do better if they are protected from ever experiencing any and all consequences of their actions, including when they cause others harm?

A&E had faith in God to protect them, but they still sinned and ate the apple.

You know that (the bold) how? Upon what do you base the theory that they believed they could eat the fruit of the tree of knowing good and bad, and that God would protect them from the consequences that He, Himself, told them would occur?

By you seeking knowledge for protection, you're not relying on God. You don't have faith in him to protect you.

I was referring to looking to God and His Son for direction. I was certainly not referring to seeking know (experience) something that God told me would cause me harm.

You are seeing something that I never said and do not think.

Of course you didn't say that, but that's what you're doing as I see it.

Yeah, I don't understand what you are seeing at all.

You have not seen my POV at all.

I have, but I think it's a (not so sly way) of getting around your lack of faith.

Your understanding of faith, perhaps, though I am not sure where you are getting your ideas. How can it be a lack of faith to desire guidance from God and His Son to direct one's steps, to keep oneself from harm?

As this is going in circles, I will say this and be done with it:

What you said seems to be a summary of what you said above, so I will leave the above as it is.


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