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]

...
How does one ID those words written by people w/o God's help and those that's been written with God's help?

I think it depends on situation. but generally I would say, if person claims something contradictory to what God has said before in the Bible, he is probably not speaking with God. Bible God is a person who doesn’t change, so, if someone changes God’s previous message, he is not probably speaking of God.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #74]

YOU will have to decide for yourself if you are lying to yourself about your interaction with [] BUT that in itself would not prove that I am lying to myself about my interaction with [].

Purely and simply individual. As can be evidenced in the design...

Which is a problem in of itself IMO. Even if there's no God in the equation.

If you think there is a problem regarding lying to oneself, indeed it can be but does not have to be. Only you - the individual will know if there is a problem in that regard. I agree that IF there is a problem in that regard THEN interaction with [] will be problematic.

People lie to themselves all the time, regardless of religious affiliation. It's my opinion that everyone has done that at some point in their lives, rather they realize it or not.

Indeed. I did not argue otherwise...

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #74]

YOU will have to decide for yourself if you are lying to yourself about your interaction with [] BUT that in itself would not prove that I am lying to myself about my interaction with [].

Purely and simply individual. As can be evidenced in the design...

Which is a problem in of itself IMO. Even if there's no God in the equation.

If you think there is a problem regarding lying to oneself, indeed it can be but does not have to be. Only you - the individual will know if there is a problem in that regard. I agree that IF there is a problem in that regard THEN interaction with [] will be problematic.

People lie to themselves all the time, regardless of religious affiliation. It's my opinion that everyone has done that at some point in their lives, rather they realize it or not.

Indeed. I did not argue otherwise...

Never said you did - simply replied in kind. Just for clarification

[Clownboat]

...why does the evidence show a much more aged event timeline?

Marine fossils could be on the top of mountains due to the plates shifting and the floors becoming ceilings ... why would fish die in floodwater anyway? Was Noah instructed to gather two of every fish-kind from the oceans?

The problem with the dating is that it is calibrated to support very old age. It is super biased and set to support the atheistic world view.

Marine animals die all the time, they would have done that also during the flood time. And if the water covered the mountain areas, they could have died also in those areas, similarly as they can be found nowadays in ocean shores. It really is not any miracle.

And according to the Bible, it was only land animals to the Ark.

To discuss a global flood would be to give it credit it doesn't yet deserve.
You might as well be arguing for a flat earth.

[Tcg]

The problem with the dating is that it is calibrated to support very old age. It is super biased and set to support the atheistic world view.

As is so often the case with claims like this it overlooks the fact that many theists, Christians included, recognize the reality of "very old age." There is no atheist conspiracy to misrepresent dating. There are of course some theists who make baseless claims about this but no evidence to support this false claim is ever presented. Nothing but accusations.


Tcg

[nobspeople]

...why does the evidence show a much more aged event timeline?

Marine fossils could be on the top of mountains due to the plates shifting and the floors becoming ceilings ... why would fish die in floodwater anyway? Was Noah instructed to gather two of every fish-kind from the oceans?

The problem with the dating is that it is calibrated to support very old age. It is super biased and set to support the atheistic world view.

Marine animals die all the time, they would have done that also during the flood time. And if the water covered the mountain areas, they could have died also in those areas, similarly as they can be found nowadays in ocean shores. It really is not any miracle.

And according to the Bible, it was only land animals to the Ark.

To discuss a global flood would be to give it credit it doesn't yet deserve.
You might as well be arguing for a flat earth.

I was interested in learning about Flat Eathers. I was told to watch BEHIND THE CURVE on Netflix. I tried last night. Couldn't get past 10 or so minutes.

[1213]

...many theists, Christians included, recognize the reality of "very old age." ...

Yes, even Christians can believe what the “scientists” claim. It doesn’t make those claims true, nor it means they can’t be biased.

[nobspeople]

...many theists, Christians included, recognize the reality of "very old age." ...

Yes, even Christians can believe what the “scientists” claim. It doesn’t make those claims true, nor it means they can’t be biased.

Curious: Why do you say "scientists" and not simply scientists, here?

[brunumb]

...many theists, Christians included, recognize the reality of "very old age." ...

Yes, even Christians can believe what the “scientists” claim. It doesn’t make those claims true, nor it means they can’t be biased.

I assume you are referring to people employed by organisations like Discovery Institute whose mission it is to muddy the waters and lead people away from reality and truth in favour of fiction such as that found in the Bible. Science is based on evidence, not merely claims. Creationist "scientists" invent scenarios which are designed to convince the scientifically illiterate that the stories in the bible are true. It clearly works with those whose biases and subsequent cognitive dissonance prevent them from challenging their beliefs by making a genuine effort to scrutinise them closely.

[Clownboat]

...many theists, Christians included, recognize the reality of "very old age." ...

Yes, even Christians can believe what the “scientists” claim. It doesn’t make those claims true, nor it means they can’t be biased.

Which claims are more believable?
Claims made by scientists that can be verified and are falsifiable, or claims made by followers of the many god concepts available that make claims on behalf of their said god concepts that cannot be verified nor are they typically falsifiable?

What person in their right mind would forgo what scientist show us in favor of what a Muslim (for example) might claim their god wants?
This type of thinking might cause you (generic) to fly a plane into a building or to kill your children to prevent them from a claimed religious punishment of some sort. Sceintific thinking is far superior it would seem, but you are free of course to listen to the teachings of cows if you so desired.

If you wanted to understand the properties that cause water to freeze, would you look to science or a Muslim Imam? Seriously.