Quantcast

Why did God put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden?

Daring Blasphemer BN-0 2013/03/07 12:46:42
Adam and Eve had NO knowledge of evil, no idea what it was to do evil. That means they could not have understood the reasoning of NOT eating from the Tree. God had to know the outcome beforehand, but still put a tree in the Garden that would ruin everything.

Why would he allow the snake to talk to Eve? He is omnipresent, which means he heard the first words out of the snake's mouth and could easily have simply squashed it of flicked it away like a Junebug. He knew before the snake uttered a word that he was going to do so. He allowed this to occur as part of the plan, but laid it on as a guilt trip when it did happened. Why would a God of Love do this?

Please approach it as though it were actual history. There is not need to explain to me that this story is not real.
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Wally-Molon Labe! 2013/03/09 19:49:09
    Wally-Molon Labe!
    +3
    It was a lab experiment. A test to see how long two newly manufactured humans could go before their warranty was needed. Planned obsolescence.

    I wonder what would have happened if Adam was deathly allergic to Apples?

    Or maybe God was auditioning for the Ed Sullivan show. You know that was big time.
  • gracious43 2013/03/08 04:34:07
    gracious43
    +1
    They didn't have to understand the morality of the choice. It wasn't a matter of morality. They were warned that if they ate it, they would die.

    Genesis 3
    "He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

    2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
  • Daring ... gracious43 2013/03/08 12:52:19
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +4
    I know what the warning was. There is no way they understood the implications of their actions without the knowledge of good and evil. If you have no idea what being good or bad is, you cannot know the implications of your actions.

    Why would God put the tree there in the first place?
    Why did God allow a talking snake into the garden?
    Why did he allow the snake to speak to Eve?
    Why did he allow her to convince Adam?

    Another point to be made here is that God lied by omission. Why?
    The serpent [Satin (according to most modern Christians)] told the truth. Why?
  • gracious43 Daring ... 2013/03/08 15:18:43
    gracious43
    Why wouldn't they understand "If you eat this, you will die." We don't have to understand the principles of morality to understand:"If you eat this, you will die." anymore than a toddler who understands "If you touch this, you will get burnt" Does a child have to understand the moral principles of a candle? For that matter, is there even a moral principle to be learned, of a burning candle?

    If they touched the fruit they would die.

    1)Why would God put the tree there in the first place?
    That was his business. I don't have to know, any more than my sons had to know why I put candles on my endtables, or electrical outlets where I put them. My sons didn't need to know why I put poisonous plants out, or potpourri that looked and smelled like candy. None of that was their business. If they handled it, they would get hurt. That's all they needed to know. (I was an authoritarian parent.)

    2) Why did God allow a talking snake into the garden?
    Free Will.

    3) Why did he allow the snake to speak to Eve?
    Free Will

    4) Why did he allow her to convince Adam?
    Free Will

    5) Another point to be made here is that God lied by omission. Why?
    The serpent [Satin (according to most modern Christians)] told the truth. Why?

    According to Christianity, God told the truth, and Satan lied. Physically, man began to die fr...






    Why wouldn't they understand "If you eat this, you will die." We don't have to understand the principles of morality to understand:"If you eat this, you will die." anymore than a toddler who understands "If you touch this, you will get burnt" Does a child have to understand the moral principles of a candle? For that matter, is there even a moral principle to be learned, of a burning candle?

    If they touched the fruit they would die.

    1)Why would God put the tree there in the first place?
    That was his business. I don't have to know, any more than my sons had to know why I put candles on my endtables, or electrical outlets where I put them. My sons didn't need to know why I put poisonous plants out, or potpourri that looked and smelled like candy. None of that was their business. If they handled it, they would get hurt. That's all they needed to know. (I was an authoritarian parent.)

    2) Why did God allow a talking snake into the garden?
    Free Will.

    3) Why did he allow the snake to speak to Eve?
    Free Will

    4) Why did he allow her to convince Adam?
    Free Will

    5) Another point to be made here is that God lied by omission. Why?
    The serpent [Satin (according to most modern Christians)] told the truth. Why?

    According to Christianity, God told the truth, and Satan lied. Physically, man began to die from that day forward. Adam and Eve aren't on earth any more, because eventually they died. But that is half of the story. Man also has a spirit, which is separate from the body. And from that moment, Adam and Eve underwent spiritual death--according to the Christian doctrine. That is, the promise made to Adam and Eve in Genesis is entirely in harmony with the Christian doctrines of sin and grace.

    Revelation 3:1
    “To the angel of the church in Sardis write:These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead.


    Ephesians 2:1-3
    2 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2 in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.
    (more)
  • Daring ... gracious43 2013/03/08 23:55:01
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +2
    The reason you do not know why the tree was out there is because it makes no logical sense.
    He lied by omission in that he claimed they would die. The implication is simple and obvious. NOT pointing out that he meant they would eventually die was a lie by omission. Satan (or whatever that snake was) told no bigger lie than did God.
  • gracious43 Daring ... 2013/03/09 06:12:36
    gracious43
    Why do you think God lied? Adam is dead, isn't he?
  • Daring ... gracious43 2013/03/09 12:54:23
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +2
    I have explained my position twice. You are a smart lady. Read it again.
  • gracious43 Daring ... 2013/03/09 17:40:15
    gracious43
    I've read it more than two times. And I replied to it. The day that Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they died spiritually, and they began the process of dying. In fact, God specifically removed them from the tree of life, to make sure they died. How did He lie? How on earth do you have it figured that Satan told them the truth?
  • Daring ... gracious43 2013/03/09 18:46:33
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +2
    Satan told them no bigger lie than did God.
    God said eat and you will surely die. This implies that the tree is poisonous or that eating of the tree would kill you, not cause you to age and then eventually, after raising a family, suffering the death of a child and the rigors of age. If you had not knowledge of good or evil, you would have no reference for a half truth such as this.

    Satan (or whoever the serpent was) gave no less truth by saying they would NOT die. He could just as easily claim that he too was speaking of the short term.

    They did not die when they ate of the tree. They died much much later of old age.

    I will give you another example. If I tell my child not to touch the stove because he will be burned, I do not mean he will suffer burns in sixty or eighty years. If I said to him, "Do not smoke cigarettes or you will surely die." THAT is a half truth. Yes, he will die and cigarettes may be the cause of his demise if he takes up the habit, but he will die anyway, with or without cigarettes.
  • gracious43 Daring ... 2013/03/09 19:05:51
    gracious43
    Adam and Eve weren't destined to die at all! There had been no death at all in their future. It wasn't as though their life was simply shortened. They had been created to live forever. That was why God specifically removed them from the tree of life.


    Genesis 3:22-23
    22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
  • Daring ... gracious43 2013/03/09 19:36:13
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +2
    Right. That is why they could have no IDEA about the implications of their actions. God knew full well what would happen when he put that tree in the garden, but A&E could have no idea.

    God set them up for a failure he knew would come then told them only part of the truth.
  • gracious43 Daring ... 2013/03/10 06:06:39
    gracious43
    What part of the truth didn't he tell them exactly?
  • Daring ... gracious43 2013/03/10 14:24:03
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    EXACTLY: You will not die NOW. You will die LATER, MUCH later in fact. You will have children and suffer the death of one. You will grow old and frail. THEN, and only THEN will you eventually DIE.

    This is really not that hard...
  • gracious43 Daring ... 2013/03/10 16:24:13
    gracious43
    They weren't made to die. They weren't made to grow frail, and they weren't made to grow old, and they weren't made to die--not at all.

    When do you think you are going to be "ready to die" anyway? When you're 70? 85? 200?

    And they already had children in the garden.
  • Daring ... gracious43 2013/03/10 19:23:58
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    You are now dodging the point you have finally gotten.
  • gracious43 Daring ... 2013/03/11 05:06:16
    gracious43
    How am I dodging the point? Adam and Eve were told if they ate the fruit, they would die. And that is what happened.
  • Daring ... gracious43 2013/03/12 00:43:49
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    Their entire life together, their children and their old age (VERY old if the Bible were to be believed) was OMITTED from that declaration. And not having knowledge of GOOD OR EVIL, A&E could not have made that decision rationally, especially since God omitted that they would live a long life before they died—of which they could also have no real concept since no people had ever died before.

    The entire thing was a rigged game. God knew they would eat of the tree. Why out it there? God knew they would live LONG lives before they died. Why not tell them that? God knew the serpent would tell them what he did. Why allow the serpent into the garden?
  • gracious43 Daring ... 2013/03/12 00:59:38
    gracious43
    What do you mean they couldn't have made a rational decision? That makes no sense at all. My sons were capable of understanding consequences by the time they were two. They certainly didn't understand the concepts of good and evil.

    Adam and Eve had a right to free-will, just like you do.
  • Daring ... gracious43 2013/03/12 02:51:11 (edited)
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    YOUR children were TAUGHT from the time they could understand, good from evil. A&E; had NO such teaching. They were created as adults without any understanding of anything. You are not addressing the question.

    Why did God lie by omitting the truth?
  • gracious43 Daring ... 2013/03/12 03:04:56
    gracious43
    What are you suggesting I taught my children when they were puling infants? Kierkegaard's theories on religious ethics?

    Thanks for the compliment, but neither myself or my sons are that brilliant. We read "The Cat and The Hat" and "Green Eggs and Ham."
  • Daring ... gracious43 2013/03/12 03:08:14
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    LOL! Dodging does not make you correct. It only points to your ignorance being willful.
  • gracious43 Daring ... 2013/03/12 03:19:42
    gracious43
    Why do you think they didn't understand anything? That makes no sense. Please demonstrate to me the conversation recorded in scripture that hint that they didn't understand anything. They had been created long enough to have reared children, and they understood that if they ate the fruit of knowledge of good and evil they would die. What do you think they didn't understand?
  • Daring ... gracious43 2013/03/12 04:26:07
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    When you explained death to your young children, did they get it right away? Mine did not. How would you explain it to someone who had NEVER experience human death at all?
  • gracious43 Daring ... 2013/03/12 04:28:20
    gracious43
    Do you want to know how I explained it? It may sound cruel, but I got the suggestion from the preacher's wife. I showed them a dead bird we found outside.
  • Daring ... gracious43 2013/03/12 12:49:18
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    .....
  • dublin9 gracious43 2013/03/08 16:19:22 (edited)
    dublin9
    +3
    Pardon me for breaking in. I'm Jewish and a Levite, which means that I'm a descendant of Aaron, Brother of Moses. Here's my interpretation of the Garden of Edan:

    It's a parable about the development of Man. In the Garden of Edan, Man was allowed to live with the limited responsibilities of a child, so long as they obeyed the Parental (G-d's) rules. When they ate from the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they became responsible for their own acts. As such, G-d said, "Okay. You now accept being responsible for your own conduct. You want to make your own decisions and will be held responsible for what you do. Now get out, get a job and earn your own keep. I will judge you based on this new criteria with no excuses."

    This is very much like the philosophy of our Founding Fathers which calls for liberty with personal responsibility for your actions. Unfortunately, this concept appears to have been lost to most Americans. They seem to want liberty WITHOUT accountability for their actions.
  • gracious43 dublin9 2013/03/08 16:32:06
    gracious43
    +1
    With the greatest of respect, dear friend, there is no indication whatsoever, that God ever left man alone to earn his own keep. After the death of Abel, Eve had another baby boy, which she named Seth, meaning "Compensation" And she credited her Savior and her God with that baby.

    Genesis 4:25
    25 Adam made love to his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth,[a] saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.”

    In fact, From Eve to Ruth and Bathsheba, I should say that there is not one single woman in the books of the Jews who hasn't shown me the lessons of grace and life.
  • dublin9 gracious43 2013/03/08 18:12:45
    dublin9
    +2
    Please don't misunderstand me. I never meant to presume that G-d left man alone. He merely said "If you want to make your own decisions, go get a job and act like a responsible adult." I didn't mean to infer that G-d turned his back on us.
  • gracious43 dublin9 2013/03/08 18:46:13 (edited)
    gracious43
    +1
    Adam was given a job in the garden, however.

    Genesis 2
    18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

    19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

    But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

    Why would Adam have required a helper, had he not had work to perform? And the word helper,"ezer" is actually used for God as well. Its a pretty intensive word for helper:




    I understand that you and I don't agree on the spiritual meanings of Genesis. After all, were we to agree, you would be a Christian, not a Jew, or otherwise, I would abandon hope of Jesus as my "Ezer" and continue waiting for a different Messiah.

    Nevertheless, the eviction from the garden indicates some separation from God that ma...
    Adam was given a job in the garden, however.

    Genesis 2
    18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

    19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

    But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

    Why would Adam have required a helper, had he not had work to perform? And the word helper,"ezer" is actually used for God as well. Its a pretty intensive word for helper:

    Ezer


    I understand that you and I don't agree on the spiritual meanings of Genesis. After all, were we to agree, you would be a Christian, not a Jew, or otherwise, I would abandon hope of Jesus as my "Ezer" and continue waiting for a different Messiah.

    Nevertheless, the eviction from the garden indicates some separation from God that man endured outside of a family merely sending their children out into the wider world to spread their wings. This was a definite estrangement from God, which caused no small amount of grief.
    (more)
  • dublin9 gracious43 2013/03/08 19:35:34
    dublin9
    +1
    Hello my friend. You and I are not in fundamental difference. Christians and Jews are brother and sister faiths. But you are correct when you say that as a Jewish person of faith, I do not believe in Original Sin. We feel that babies are born without sin.

    Being an imperfect and flawed species and no matter how much we may try, we will transgress against the will of G-d, hopefully on a minor level. All we can do is try our very best to be decent human beings, which is perhaps the greatest way to make G-d proud of us.
  • gracious43 dublin9 2013/03/09 06:33:00
    gracious43
    +2
    Oh absolutely, you are right. The concept of "Original Sin" is a false heresy of John Calvin. (1500) It is part of the five principles of Calvinism (T.U.L.I.P) And the "Original Sin" part is the T part--Total Depravity. The teaching is, that because of what Adam did, God smeared filth on every single baby born. There is so much filth smeared on the baby, that the baby can't possibly do anything righteous or loving or good. I think that Catholics have some form of it too, which is why they have to baptize their infants, but I'm not as familiar with Catholicism.

    In any case, that wasn't enough for Calvin to slander God with that accusation. He also stated that since no one, no one on earth could possibly love God on their own, because of their total depravity, then God chose which people he would allow to believe in him. That's the U part in TULIP--"Unconditional election". In other words, through no action of their own, before they are even born, God had decided beforehand who He is going to save, and who He isn't going to save.

    It doesn't matter how awful a person is, if God has chosen him, he is in like flin. No matter how good a person is, if God hasn't chosen him, he is going to H-E-double toothpick.

    The entire heresy of TULIP violates every single word in the bible. Everyth...

    Oh absolutely, you are right. The concept of "Original Sin" is a false heresy of John Calvin. (1500) It is part of the five principles of Calvinism (T.U.L.I.P) And the "Original Sin" part is the T part--Total Depravity. The teaching is, that because of what Adam did, God smeared filth on every single baby born. There is so much filth smeared on the baby, that the baby can't possibly do anything righteous or loving or good. I think that Catholics have some form of it too, which is why they have to baptize their infants, but I'm not as familiar with Catholicism.

    In any case, that wasn't enough for Calvin to slander God with that accusation. He also stated that since no one, no one on earth could possibly love God on their own, because of their total depravity, then God chose which people he would allow to believe in him. That's the U part in TULIP--"Unconditional election". In other words, through no action of their own, before they are even born, God had decided beforehand who He is going to save, and who He isn't going to save.

    It doesn't matter how awful a person is, if God has chosen him, he is in like flin. No matter how good a person is, if God hasn't chosen him, he is going to H-E-double toothpick.

    The entire heresy of TULIP violates every single word in the bible. Everything about free-will, everything about how God made man to be perfect and upright, every thing about personal responsibilty, and man's longing to love and altruism. Calvin just set the bible on fire, and created some demonic religion of his own. That's all I can think.

    I heard in a sermon--That one of John Calvin's arguments for Total Depravity was that babies in his church cried during his sermons, and interrupted his speeches. I haven't confirmed that. That is just what I heard in a sermon once.
    (more)
  • Daring ... dublin9 2013/03/09 00:03:19
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +4
    I never mind interjections on my polls, especially if they lead to interesting conversations. I do not agree with your point of view but I am interested in learning it.
  • dublin9 Daring ... 2013/03/09 15:12:14 (edited)
    dublin9
    +3
    I agree, my friend. I went to your Sodahead profile and noticed that you consider yourself an atheist. I live in NYC and know many who feel the same way. I've always judged someone based on conduct rather than whether they are a believer or not.

    In point of fact, belief in G-d or non belief is something you can neither prove nor disprove. We choose what makes us more comfortable with ourselves and our surroundings.

    As an aside, I've been a devotee of Paleontology or the study of extinct life forms for decades. I have a massive collection of fossils from the small to quite large. This has been transformed into a recognized Not For Profit Organization called Finger Lakes Fossil Farm, Ltd. with a web presence of http://FingerLakesFossilFarm.org that is among the most popular on the web.

    Our original graphics are used as teaching tools in high schools and colleges around the world and we offer them free for use. You might find it interesting.

    I also see on your profile that you are a devotee of Noam Chomsky which means that our political views differ markedly. Then again, that's another story. http://FingerLakesFossilFarm.org is entirely non-political. It's an exploration of natural history and our environment through the fossil record.
  • Daring ... dublin9 2013/03/09 16:02:39
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +2
    I an not a devotee to Chomsky, I love reading him and I have seen him speak once, though remotely. I do not set anyone up too high as I learned years ago trying to pick a favorite President. I started with Jefferson, WOW what a flawed choice. As I read about each I discovered nothing was as it seemed. I try never to pigeon hole myself in that way.

    Whatever our disagreements, I seek friendship with thinkers so that I may learn.
  • dublin9 Daring ... 2013/03/09 16:23:37
    dublin9
    +2
    Interestingly, perhaps the best speaker I ever heard was the Socialist Norman Thomas, shortly before his death. I was a very young man and sat only a few feet away when he gave a speech at New York University. A very cool guy when it came to making a presentation.

    I was even a Socialist for a short time in my late teens while working my way though college and seeing the rich kids in the Chevy Corvettes while I lived in a 1 room slum with toilet facilities shared by the whole floor. We all view things from the perspective of the eyeglasses in our life.
  • Daring ... dublin9 2013/03/09 16:32:27
    Daring Blasphemer BN-0
    +2
    Chomsky is not a S(s)ocialist, he rails against all forms of government as he is an anarchist. Granted, it is capitalist fascism that garners most of his scorn—he is an American. Norman Thomas is in my heroes list. He is very interesting, as well.
  • dublin9 Daring ... 2013/03/09 16:40:19
    dublin9
    +1
    I agree. Thomas was not a demagogue. Barack Obama, Sol Alinsky and the new progressive crowd would probably dislike him. He didn't despise America and was a man of considerable intellect tinged with a foot in reality.

    And boy, could he give a speech. He didn't scream and use histrionics to rev up the mob. He was very thoughtful. I consider him to have been a patriot, although at this point in time and for decades past, we would have disagreed on many points.
  • reaper 2013/03/07 21:59:34
    reaper
    +3
    needed to make something up to explain our behavior.
  • Kookieless The Sexy Nihilis... 2013/03/07 20:56:57
  • Kitty 2013/03/07 20:35:03
    Kitty
    Because life is about choices.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Fun

2014/10/31 17:58:08

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals