Why Did God Put the Tree of Knowledge in Eden ?

[Youwerecreated]

I’m going to preface this post by stating I’m a Christian. I’m not challenging the judgment of the Almighty, but simply inquiring as to why he has done what he has done.

That being said I’ve always wondered why God put the tree of knowledge of good an evil in the Garden of Eden. It seems to me had the tree not been present things would have gone a bit differently.

Knowing that God hates sin it seems an odd choice for him to install a tree that breeds sin among his creations. I also think that God knows the past, present, and future meaning that he had to have known the result of putting the tree in the garden. Seems to me that much suffering could have been averted had God not put the tree in Eden.

It's a mythical allegory of Man beginning to invent devices to help Him get by in the world, but in doing so, leaving simplicity behind.

Uh oh another reject from hannity.

 

[mudwhistle]

I’m going to preface this post by stating I’m a Christian. I’m not challenging the judgment of the Almighty, but simply inquiring as to why he has done what he has done.

That being said I’ve always wondered why God put the tree of knowledge of good an evil in the Garden of Eden. It seems to me had the tree not been present things would have gone a bit differently.

Knowing that God hates sin it seems an odd choice for him to install a tree that breeds sin among his creations. I also think that God knows the past, present, and future meaning that he had to have known the result of putting the tree in the garden. Seems to me that much suffering could have been averted had God not put the tree in Eden.

It's a parable. The tree of knowledge of good and evil wasn't a tree, and for that matter the tree of knowledge could only be where humans were. The tree of knowledge was temptation.

Some say it was an actual tree, but some also say the world is only 6000 years old.

 

[emilynghiem]

I’m going to preface this post by stating I’m a Christian. I’m not challenging the judgment of the Almighty, but simply inquiring as to why he has done what he has done.

That being said I’ve always wondered why God put the tree of knowledge of good an evil in the Garden of Eden. It seems to me had the tree not been present things would have gone a bit differently.

Knowing that God hates sin it seems an odd choice for him to install a tree that breeds sin among his creations. I also think that God knows the past, present, and future meaning that he had to have known the result of putting the tree in the garden. Seems to me that much suffering could have been averted had God not put the tree in Eden.

Hi P
An idea I got from discussing with another Christian
what Adam and Eve represent
was that if the disobedience had not occurred,
perhaps God's ideal plan was to have humanity
develop greater awareness and access to knowledge
GRADUALLY as we matured spiritually/socially
instead of abusing knowledge and power
by competing for greed or control, etc.

I still believe that gaining the knowledge was not the sin in itself,
but the corruption by Satan to lace and bias this knowledge with
FEAR where it becomes a manipulating factor by selfish desire.

Humanity was not mature enough to handle awareness and
knowledge of things in life at that point in history.

Only after we receive maturity or perfection in spirit as through
Christ Jesus, then we establish clear truth without these selfish biases
interfering with the process.

But because of the fall of man, to corruption by fear and greed for
selfish material gain instead of acting in the best interests for the greater good of all,
then we had to go through this whole other process
of learning by trial and error, of great suffering in the meantime,
that led to the sacrifice of Christ to break this cycle and set the record straight
the way God may have intended in the beginning.

Where I did not agree with the other person is the focus on
disobedience as the cause of sin.

I felt it was unforgiveness, first on the part of Satan where jealousy
led to this manipulation of knowledge that divided man against man,
and then by unforgiveness of sin which replicates in a vicious cycle of retribution.

To me the issue is forgiveness, so that even if we make mistakes out
of innocence, we can still recover before anything worse goes wrong.

I think it makes no sense to punish man for not having understanding
of consequences, and to go along with the wrong choice, even out of
disobedience because on some level someone does not know better or else they
would not do that. We learn by experience.

But my friend was arguing we did not have that ability to learn by experience
until after biting into the apple, so that is where we disagreed on what this means.

Whether we can ever agree or prove the cause of flaws in humanity or society, it seems common solutions are built on forgiveness and correction, regardless of the origin.

So as long as we stick to that common purpose, in pursuing truth and peaceful justice,
this helps resolve any conflicts that can be, while any differences that can't be resolved can still be forgiven and accommodated instead of dividing and obstructing the process.

 

[Paradoxical]

Because of the purpose of creation.

God desires to be loved. Love cannot be had without free will. Free Will requires a choice between the two. Disobedience is a clear demarkation of choice. To obey, or not to obey. And now, with our separation from God through sin, we get into REAL free will: believe or disbelieve. You cannot force someone to love you, and God is not a spiritual rapist. You can always choose to disbelieve in Him.

This also goes to the very heart as to why you cannot "prove" God except in the matter of whether or not you choose to believe or not.

It's pretty simple really when you boil it down and understand the base concept is God wants a personal, loving relationship with every individual on this planet who will love Him back.

Like the game of Go, you can learn the basic rules in a few minutes and spend the rest of your life trying to master and understand it's complexities.

I find your post insightful.

Although, I disagree with you on the nature of love. Love can be had without free will. When I think of my loved ones I cannot find a single instance where I chose to love any them, I just do. Love is a feeling and therefore not something you can consciously choose. Perhaps this is a bad example, but my dogs love me, and I would not argue they have free will.

I would suggest that the actual choice of believing in and obeying god via free will is the entire point. Free will adds weight to acts of obedience and faith. Those who obey and believe in God are those who love him. Just as those who choose to believe will come to love and obey him.

 

[Paradoxical]

Hi P
An idea I got from discussing with another Christian
what Adam and Eve represent
was that if the disobedience had not occurred,
perhaps God's ideal plan was to have humanity
develop greater awareness and access to knowledge
GRADUALLY as we matured spiritually/socially
instead of abusing knowledge and power
by competing for greed or control, etc.

I still believe that gaining the knowledge was not the sin in itself,
but the corruption by Satan to lace and bias this knowledge with

FEAR where it becomes a manipulating factor by selfish desire.

Humanity was not mature enough to handle awareness and
knowledge of things in life at that point in history.

Only after we receive maturity or perfection in spirit as through
Christ Jesus, then we establish clear truth without these selfish biases
interfering with the process.

But because of the fall of man, to corruption by fear and greed for
selfish material gain instead of acting in the best interests for the greater good of all,
then we had to go through this whole other process
of learning by trial and error, of great suffering in the meantime,
that led to the sacrifice of Christ to break this cycle and set the record straight
the way God may have intended in the beginning.

Where I did not agree with the other person is the focus on
disobedience as the cause of sin.

I felt it was unforgiveness, first on the part of Satan where jealousy
led to this manipulation of knowledge that divided man against man,
and then by unforgiveness of sin which replicates in a vicious cycle of retribution.

To me the issue is forgiveness, so that even if we make mistakes out
of innocence, we can still recover before anything worse goes wrong.

I think it makes no sense to punish man for not having understanding
of consequences, and to go along with the wrong choice, even out of
disobedience because on some level someone does not know better or else they
would not do that. We learn by experience.

But my friend was arguing we did not have that ability to learn by experience
until after biting into the apple, so that is where we disagreed on what this means.

Whether we can ever agree or prove the cause of flaws in humanity or society, it seems common solutions are built on forgiveness and correction, regardless of the origin.

So as long as we stick to that common purpose, in pursuing truth and peaceful justice,
this helps resolve any conflicts that can be, while any differences that can't be resolved can still be forgiven and accommodated instead of dividing and obstructing the process.

There are two ways you can look at the first sin. Either the act of disobedience (eating the apple) was the source of sin, or the corruption of the knowledge of good and evil. I think that eating the apple was a sin, but it was the “knowledge” of good an evil that accompanied this sin that corrupted man. Once was one has a grasp of morality and the mental capacity to understand it they can no longer claim moral ignorance. Adam and Eve were just like animals and very small children who know something was wrong (eating from the tree), but lacked the capacity to understand morality (why it was wrong). For instance, after eating the fruit Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness, thus coming to the realization they should put some clothes on.

It was really a twofer by committing the first sin knowledge of good an evil made man completely accountable for all the sins to follow.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[emilynghiem]

There are two ways you can look at the first sin. Either the act of disobedience (eating the apple) was the source of sin, or the corruption of the knowledge of good and evil. I think that eating the apple was a sin, but it was the “knowledge” of good an evil that accompanied this sin that corrupted man. Once was one has a grasp of morality and the mental capacity to understand it they can no longer claim moral ignorance. Adam and Eve were just like animals and very small children who know something was wrong (eating from the tree), but lacked the capacity to understand morality (why it was wrong). For instance, after eating the fruit Adam and Eve became aware of their nakedness, thus coming to the realization they should put some clothes on.

It was really a twofer by committing the first sin knowledge of good an evil made man completely accountable for all the sins to follow.

I hope that makes sense.

2. Shorter point: I think there was something in the "shame" that Adam had that caused it to be a problem. When Eve first partook of the knowledge, she saw that it was good. I see this same phenomena when people make mistakes; if you see learning in the school of life as positive, then you can work with the process, even when you make mistakes. If you are so ashamed of making mistakes that you hide, deny, project or play other games, this obstructs the process of learning by trial and error, and benefiting from experience without all that shame and blame attached. Again, the difference seems to be "forgiveness" -- when things are done in that spirit, it is innocent.

1. Longer comments:

I understand what you are saying, where you seem to acknowledge both the point that I was making and the point my friend made which I disagreed with.

I am somewhat more forgiving of the "sin" of disobedience at that stage, because of the state of "not knowing everything in full." I do not think it is realistic to hold people accountable when they do not fully understanding the consequences. I believe that by nature, when people DO understand the full causes and consequences, they would naturally be compelled to do the right thing since there is no reason not to. In all cases where I see people compromise, something makes them think that the other choice is better, whether true or false or emotionally guided. There is something they either don't fully understand (until after they learn from experience), or there is some emotional issue that needs to be resolved that is causing them to make a compromised decision. Either of those situations can and should be corrected; instead of seeing God as punishing people, I see negative repercussions or backlash more like a natural consequence in order to steer the learning curve toward better decisions next time.

An example of a situation where I do not feel punishment or judgment is appropriate but some people see it differently:
In the case, for example, of an atheist rejecting Christian teachings because it appears to be imposing false mythological religion that invites cult mentality or other abuse:
a. I believe if such atheists see scientific proof of spiritual energy and the process of healing by prayer such as deliverance/exorcism, then they would understand how this works, not reject based on lack of verifiable proof or natural explanation they understand.
b. many people automatically judge atheists as rebelling or disobeying or having something wrong with their attitude "by choice" they deem should be punished.

I do not think it is someone's choice to believe or disbelieve based on what they have seen and understood; whatever causes conflict should be resolved instead of judging people.

I find that people committed to truth naturally accept things explained or shown to them to be true and consistent; so it is a process of forgiving past misunderstanding and receiving consistent information, and people are naturally compelled toward truth, there is no need to disobey which is usually caused by not trusting or understanding the source.

I would understand if the fallout/"punishment" for the original sin was taught as "natural consequences" of biting into more knowledge than you can handle responsibility.
That makes sense to me in terms of natural causality.

but it makes no sense to me to teach it as "punishing" people for disobedience if
a. they didn't have enough knowledge to know what kind of suffering would result until after they committed that and ended up going through all the experiences to see it
b. Satan was more responsible for having knowledge and abusing it, as Satan was conscious of this deliberate act of jealousy to cause harm. I would understand punishing Satan, but not humanity; suffering the consequences is just natural cause and effect
and is not meant to be a judgment for doing something that was manipulated and not understood. I really don't see how anyone could be held to obedience at that point.

Also, since taking this approach, of judging and punishing humanity, did not stop humans from making further errors or messes; that is not the answer anyway, and God has to know that, being omniscient as the creator of human free will and conscience. So to me, this whole process seems to point toward reaching spiritual maturity where it is possible to hold people to account AFTER we have a fully developed conscience and understanding.

It really makes no sense to me to judge people before that point, except for the purpose of teaching and correction which isn't the same as punishing people for trial and error.

I also see Judgment Day as a correction process more that punishment, for this same reason. Whatever we did not understand is why we would fail; so the point of judgment would be to compare our words and actions to eliminate conflict and inconsistency.
The purpose would be to make sure we all get the answers right in the end, not necessarily to judge people for mistakes in the process for which we suffer enough!

I just see it differently, because of how people change from BEFORE they understand to AFTER they understand, at which point I do believe it is fair to hold them accountable.
As long as they are making errors in judgment, that tells me there is some lack of understanding causing it, or else that fault could have been prevented or corrected.

When I do practice this approach, of not blaming or judging people, but just identifying and correcting the source of conflict, it tends to be effective; moreso than threatening people with punishment for disobeying and rejecting God without adequate explanation!

 

[editec]

The TREE OF KNOWLEDGE story is (metaphorically speaking) about the loss of childhood innocence.

What was the FIRST thing that Adam and Eve did after they ate that Apple from the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE?

They covered their genitalia, didn't they? Now ask yourself WHY WAS THAT FIRST THING THEY DID?

See my point? Still don't entirely get it?

Okay, try this

And what is the CURSE of EVE?

Childbirth.

And what the curse of Adam?

Having to work to survive.

Now, doesn't that look (metaphorically speaking) like what happens to children when they come to KNOW adulthood?

They don't know sex, and they don't have to work...until they lose their childlike innocence and KNOW what it means to really be human.

 

[sparky]

pretty much sums of the one act play of Genisis Editec

but may i point out that, it was Eve who talked to the snake

it was Eve that fed the apple to Adam

seems to me Adam was like the getaway driver that had no idea of the magnitude of the crime

~S~

 

[editec]

Eve got a bad rap, dude.

That glib serpent was the Garden of Eden's first libertarian.

After all...what philosophical message was he selling them?

The cult of the INDIVIDUAL over the authority of GOD.

Eat of this tree and YOU TOO will be like unto a GOD.

They took paradise and put up a parking lot.

 

[Paradoxical]

eve got a bad rap, dude.

That glib serpent was the garden of eden's first libertarian.

After all...what philosophical message was he selling them?

the cult of the individual over the authority of god.

eat of this tree and you too will be like unto a god.

they took paradise and put up a parking lot.

That does not make any sense.

 

[Mr Natural]

Whatever became of those nifty talking snakes?

Silly, there was only one and it was not the snake that was acutually speaking but someone very deceitful speaking through the snake.

That does nothing to add to the credibility of the fable.

 

[bodecea]

I’m going to preface this post by stating I’m a Christian. I’m not challenging the judgment of the Almighty, but simply inquiring as to why he has done what he has done.

That being said I’ve always wondered why God put the tree of knowledge of good an evil in the Garden of Eden. It seems to me had the tree not been present things would have gone a bit differently.

Knowing that God hates sin it seems an odd choice for him to install a tree that breeds sin among his creations. I also think that God knows the past, present, and future meaning that he had to have known the result of putting the tree in the garden. Seems to me that much suffering could have been averted had God not put the tree in Eden.

It's a mythical allegory of Man beginning to invent devices to help Him get by in the world, but in doing so, leaving simplicity behind.

So you're suggesting that maybe the Bible isn't to be taken literally?

I'm not suggesting...I'm saying quite clearly.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The TREE OF KNOWLEDGE story is (metaphorically speaking) about the loss of childhood innocence.

What was the FIRST thing that Adam and Eve did after they ate that Apple from the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE?

They covered their genitalia, didn't they? Now ask yourself WHY WAS THAT FIRST THING THEY DID?

See my point? Still don't entirely get it?

Okay, try this

And what is the CURSE of EVE?

Childbirth.

And what the curse of Adam?

Having to work to survive.

Now, doesn't that look (metaphorically speaking) like what happens to children when they come to KNOW adulthood?

They don't know sex, and they don't have to work...until they lose their childlike innocence and KNOW what it means to really be human.

No it don't look like a metaphor because that was reality not to mention why would God put an angel there to guard the tree of life ?

 

[LumpyPostage]

If you only have 2 guests in your garden where else are you going to put your best tree? It's simple hospitality.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Whatever became of those nifty talking snakes?

Silly, there was only one and it was not the snake that was acutually speaking but someone very deceitful speaking through the snake.

That does nothing to add to the credibility of the fable.

You did say talking snakes didn't you ?

Just clearing it up.

The fallen angels can speak through possessed people.

Luk 8:28 And seeing Jesus, he cried out and fell down before Him and said with a loud voice, What is to me and to You, Jesus, Son of God the Most High? I beseech You, Do not torment me!
Luk 8:29 (For He had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. For oftentimes it had seized him. And he had been kept bound in chains and in fetters, and he broke the bands and was driven into the deserted places by the demons.)
Luk 8:30 And Jesus asked him, saying, What is your name? And he said, Legion; because many demons had entered into him.
Luk 8:31 And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss.


Satan is called the origional serpent.

2Co 11:3 But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, so your thoughts should be corrupted from the simplicity due to Christ.

Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, the old serpent called Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world. He was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Rev 12:14 And two wings of a great eagle were given to the woman, so that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the serpent's face

Rev 12:15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water like a flood after the woman, so that he might cause her to be carried away by the river.

Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The TREE OF KNOWLEDGE story is (metaphorically speaking) about the loss of childhood innocence.

What was the FIRST thing that Adam and Eve did after they ate that Apple from the TREE OF KNOWLEDGE?

They covered their genitalia, didn't they? Now ask yourself WHY WAS THAT FIRST THING THEY DID?

See my point? Still don't entirely get it?

Okay, try this

And what is the CURSE of EVE?

Childbirth.

And what the curse of Adam?

Having to work to survive.

Now, doesn't that look (metaphorically speaking) like what happens to children when they come to KNOW adulthood?

They don't know sex, and they don't have to work...until they lose their childlike innocence and KNOW what it means to really be human.

I think i have to disagree a little with you.

I don't think it is evil to be naked in front of God or he would not have created them naked and let them remain being naked.

Their eye's were opened to what was good and evil. They knew it was good to be obedient to God and they knew it was evil to be disobedient to God. That is why they hid themselves and felt shame about being naked.