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?

[The Tanager]

OK. That says what we should do. It doesn't address the question of what criteria to apply and how to apply them in order to determine which interpretations to trust.

What do you mean by criteria? I could specify what context, historical studies, philosophical considerations more by this still short (probably incomplete) summary: we look at what a word means, how words and phrases were used at the time they were written, we look at the words, phrases, ideas that come before the passage and after them, we look at the historical background of the text, we must apply logic, and probably others.

[brunumb]

OK. That says what we should do. It doesn't address the question of what criteria to apply and how to apply them in order to determine which interpretations to trust.

What do you mean by criteria? I could specify what context, historical studies, philosophical considerations more by this still short (probably incomplete) summary: we look at what a word means, how words and phrases were used at the time they were written, we look at the words, phrases, ideas that come before the passage and after them, we look at the historical background of the text, we must apply logic, and probably others.

And after you have done all that, what criteria do you apply to decide whether an interpretation is to be trusted or not?

cri·te·ri·on
noun (plural noun: criteria)
- a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided.

[The Tanager]

What do you mean by criteria? I could specify what context, historical studies, philosophical considerations more by this still short (probably incomplete) summary: we look at what a word means, how words and phrases were used at the time they were written, we look at the words, phrases, ideas that come before the passage and after them, we look at the historical background of the text, we must apply logic, and probably others.

And after you have done all that, what criteria do you apply to decide whether an interpretation is to be trusted or not?

cri·te·ri·on
noun (plural noun: criteria)
- a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided.

The interpretation that best fits the meaning of the words, the idiomatic usage, that best fits the surrounding context, the historical background, that are the most logical, etc.

[brunumb]

The interpretation that best fits the meaning of the words, the idiomatic usage, that best fits the surrounding context, the historical background, that are the most logical, etc.

You're not answering the question. The application of appropriate criteria is what allows you to determine which interpretation best fits everything. Without those criteria you are just relying on your own personal notion of what is best and that can be influenced by preconceptions and bias.

[Clownboat]

The interpretation that best fits the meaning of the words, the idiomatic usage, that best fits the surrounding context, the historical background, that are the most logical, etc.

You're not answering the question. The application of appropriate criteria is what allows you to determine which interpretation best fits everything. Without those criteria you are just relying on your own personal notion of what is best and that can be influenced by preconceptions and bias.

You just described the mechanism that has created all the tens of thousands of versions of Christianity that we now have on this planet. And yet some still celebrate this, which is hard for me to understand.

[The Tanager]

You're not answering the question. The application of appropriate criteria is what allows you to determine which interpretation best fits everything. Without those criteria you are just relying on your own personal notion of what is best and that can be influenced by preconceptions and bias.

I am answering the question. The "principle or standard by which something is judged" to be the best interpretation is the interpretation that does all those things I just said. Does an interpretation use a word in a way that it was never used in the time of the author? For (a simplified) instance, what many people mean by "faith" since the Enlightenment, such as going against reason, was not the meaning the Biblical writers understood by 'faith' (translated, of course). So, two interpretations that are otherwise equal yet where one uses faith in one of the post-Enlightenment senses and the other uses faith in the Biblical sense, then the latter is the best interpretation. It's the same with the other things I've said (and possibily more since I just gave a first stab). What kind of criteria are you looking for?

[Diagoras]

It's not just Christian sects that (mis)interpret the Bible. To see what the best interpretation is I think we should look at the immediate context, historical studies, philosophical considerations, etc.

OK. That says what we should do. It doesn't address the question of what criteria to apply and how to apply them in order to determine which interpretations to trust.

<bolding in first quote mine>

Sorry for the slight snark, but - opinion noted.

One can do all that with honest and unbiased intentions, of course, but for passages like many in Revelation, for example, the ‘best interpretation’ is still going to be subjective and disputed.

[William]

It's not just Christian sects that (mis)interpret the Bible. To see what the best interpretation is I think we should look at the immediate context, historical studies, philosophical considerations, etc.

OK. That says what we should do. It doesn't address the question of what criteria to apply and how to apply them in order to determine which interpretations to trust.

<bolding in first quote mine>

Sorry for the slight snark, but - opinion noted.

One can do all that with honest and unbiased intentions, of course, but for passages like many in Revelation, for example, the ‘best interpretation’ is still going to be subjective and disputed.

Interjecting my own opinion on this, when one promotes any external object as a type of authority [the bible - authoritative opinion]which overrides all other opinions, then one is unable to think that in parroting said authoritative opinion one is acting in bias.
Essentially it is not your own opinion you are parroting, but [in this case] a gods opinion.

[nobspeople]

It's not just Christian sects that (mis)interpret the Bible. To see what the best interpretation is I think we should look at the immediate context, historical studies, philosophical considerations, etc.

OK. That says what we should do. It doesn't address the question of what criteria to apply and how to apply them in order to determine which interpretations to trust.

<bolding in first quote mine>

Sorry for the slight snark, but - opinion noted.

One can do all that with honest and unbiased intentions, of course, but for passages like many in Revelation, for example, the ‘best interpretation’ is still going to be subjective and disputed.

Interjecting my own opinion on this, when one promotes any external object as a type of authority [the bible - authoritative opinion]which overrides all other opinions, then one is unable to think that in parroting said authoritative opinion one is acting in bias.
Essentially it is not your own opinion you are parroting, but [in this case] a gods opinion.

Thanks for your contribution.
Do you think by doing this [inserting someone else's opinion] is using faith in the other person's opinion and eliminating thinking on the part of the one inserting said opinion? Or does, by them inserting someone else's opinion, a means of thinking on their part?

[William]

It's not just Christian sects that (mis)interpret the Bible. To see what the best interpretation is I think we should look at the immediate context, historical studies, philosophical considerations, etc.

OK. That says what we should do. It doesn't address the question of what criteria to apply and how to apply them in order to determine which interpretations to trust.

<bolding in first quote mine>

Sorry for the slight snark, but - opinion noted.

One can do all that with honest and unbiased intentions, of course, but for passages like many in Revelation, for example, the ‘best interpretation’ is still going to be subjective and disputed.

Interjecting my own opinion on this, when one promotes any external object as a type of authority [the bible - authoritative opinion]which overrides all other opinions, then one is unable to think that in parroting said authoritative opinion one is acting in bias.
Essentially it is not your own opinion you are parroting, but [in this case] a gods opinion.

Thanks for your contribution.
Do you think by doing this [inserting someone else's opinion] is using faith in the other person's opinion and eliminating thinking on the part of the one inserting said opinion? Or does, by them inserting someone else's opinion, a means of thinking on their part?

It depends on the overall intelligence of that 'someone else's opinion' in relation to one's own. It would and does obviously vary from personality to personality...I suppose the bottom line is that if an individual cannot think something out for themselves and are offered something which thinks things out for them [often in the form of interpretation] they accept that as a necessary act of humility.

However, someone who has intelligence enough to know when acts of humility are staged in order that those acting resist using their own intelligence, will avoid such acts themselves and get about the business of using the brain the non-apparent god gave to them.

Essentially performing a genuine act of humility in the process...the question being "does the god want us to question all things?" and if so, "how does the god expect us to proceed with that?"

Does the god want me to question a set of stories claimed by its authors to be inspired by the god?

in my opinion, it would be rude not to...