Is God Against Reason?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YEARNING4TRUTH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

YEARNING4TRUTH

Guest
Hello, I just wanted some clarification on something in regards to Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit.

Why did God forbid Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil?

Is God trying to tell us something against reason and the seeking of knowledge when He forbade Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil?

Is God promoting a kind of “childish” faith when He did so? Is He telling us to be innocent and not know anything about the world? I know that there are those that distinguish between a “child-like” and a “childish” faith so yeah.

Is God promoting a kind of relativism here?

Thanks in advance.
 
You will find a thousand and one interpretations of what happened in the garden. My understanding is this. Mankind was created innocent. We did not have the knowledge of evil that comes with experience. The eating of the fruit was a sin of pride. Man knew God’s law, but decided he knew better and wanted to act independently, to be his own arbiter of right and wrong, to separate himself from God and be like god himself. The fruit is our real, historical disobedience put into mythological terms. An easy symbol of something sweet and tempting.

God created us with reason. It’s not something that was gained when we ate the fruit. In disobedience, we gained that first hand knowledge/experience of evil, and when confronted we did not repent, but tried to shift the blame instead.
 
The tree seems to be evidence of the opposite of your question -

Seemingly placed specifically so reason could be utilized.

With no tree (choice, remember allegorical language in Genesis), it would seem robots would be the desire.

I guess someone could say God didn’t have to make Man with a freedom of thought, but such a case seems like a contradiction of who God is, if He is Love.

An entity that is always seeking to pour itself out to that which it loves (the ‘how’ by creating) doesn’t seems like something that would create for selfish reasons.

Which means the creation will be free to reason and choose to love back (or not).

So I say ‘no’ to the subject.
 
Wesrock said:
You will find a thousand and one interpretations of what happened in the garden. My understanding is this. Mankind was created innocent. We did not have the knowledge of evil that comes with experience. The eating of the fruit was a sin of pride. Man knew God’s law, but decided he knew better and wanted to act independently, to be his own arbiter of right and wrong, to separate himself from God and be like god himself. The fruit is our real, historical disobedience put into mythological terms. An easy symbol of something sweet and tempting.

God created us with reason. It’s not something that was gained when we ate the fruit. In disobedience, we gained that first hand knowledge/experience of evil, and when confronted we did not repent, but tried to shift the blame instead.
Click to expand...
:yup:
 
YEARNING4TRUTH said:
Hello, I just wanted some clarification on something in regards to Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit.

Why did God forbid Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil?

Is God trying to tell us something against reason and the seeking of knowledge when He forbade Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil?

Is God promoting a kind of “childish” faith when He did so? Is He telling us to be innocent and not know anything about the world? I know that there are those that distinguish between a “child-like” and a “childish” faith so yeah.

Is God promoting a kind of relativism here?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
The world, as created by God, is only good; there would be no evil to experience in Eden. However, once the original act of disobedience was committed, evil was, from that point on, a part of their new world. This is because man only maintains absolute moral integrity to the extent that he’s not determining morality for himself-which is what the first sin consisted of in essence. Because when man does so, then he’s playing God-and the real God is longer his God for all practical purposes.

Man was made for communion with God. His justice, order, harmony, peace, and happiness depend on this communion. The more man’s will aligns with God’s will, the stronger this communion or bond, and the greater man’s justice as a result. And there’s nothing positive to be gained by acquiring the knowledge of evil-other than, hopefully, the wisdom to run from it.
 
Kind of a funny question. Is the author of reason against reason? I would think He is against the wrong use and abuse of our God given faculty to reason.
 
Polycarp1 said:
Kind of a funny question. Is the author of reason against reason? I would think He is against the wrong use and abuse of our God given faculty to reason.
Click to expand...
Good answer. All sin, including the original one, is considered to be an act *against *reason in some manner or another.
 
God didn’t forbid them to eat from that tree because he wants us to remain in ignorance and/or not use our brains. He did so because the one thing we are not free to do is to decide for ourselves what is good and what is evil. We discover that, but we don’t decide it.
 
Absolutely agree that there is such a thing as ‘using reason properly’.

It would seem the foundation to proper use of thought, would be truth.

We can ground our thoughts on steady, unchanging, truth.

Which can guide our reasoning properly.

We can consider that if there is a ‘Way’ (Jesus) and He is true, then there is ‘a way’ to think properly.

On the flip side - foundationless thinking can lead to negative consequences.

One could argue that A&E knew God, A&E knew the truth of God, yet chose against their foundation of truth.

The separation of the relationship with God was a consequence that then carried through these first parent’s lineage.

…and thus the need for Baptism.
 
Wesrock said:
You will find a thousand and one interpretations of what happened in the garden. My understanding is this. Mankind was created innocent. We did not have the knowledge of evil that comes with experience. The eating of the fruit was a sin of pride. Man knew God’s law, but decided he knew better and wanted to act independently, to be his own arbiter of right and wrong, to separate himself from God and be like god himself. The fruit is our real, historical disobedience put into mythological terms. An easy symbol of something sweet and tempting.

God created us with reason. It’s not something that was gained when we ate the fruit. In disobedience, we gained that first hand knowledge/experience of evil, and when confronted we did not repent, but tried to shift the blame instead.
Click to expand...
How can man perform the sin of pride if he was innocent and didn’t know what evil is?
 
STT said:
How can man perform the sin of pride if he was innocent and didn’t know what evil is?
Click to expand...
How not? I said he was innocent, not altogether ignorant. He knew the difference between right and wrong. He chose himself and his own desires over God.
 
Wesrock said:
How not? I said he was innocent, not altogether ignorant. He knew the difference between right and wrong. He chose himself and his own desires over God.
Click to expand...
But they were not exposed to evil yet so how they could perform sin?
 
STT said:
But they were not exposed to evil yet so how they could perform sin?
Click to expand...
Because they knew it was wrong, and they chose to create a disunion with God. And on top of that, after experiencing sin first hand, they did not choose to repent, but shifted the blame.
 
Wesrock said:
Because they knew it was wrong, and they chose to create a disunion with God. And on top of that, after experiencing sin first hand, they did not choose to repent, but shifted the blame.
Click to expand...
Wrong is equivalent to evil so they couldn’t possibly know that their choice is wrong because they didn’t know what evil is.
 
STT said:
Wrong is equivalent to evil so they couldn’t possibly know that their choice is wrong because they didn’t know what evil is.
Click to expand...
Seems pretty basic…

Tree is.

God says don’t eat.

A&E understand ‘don’t eat’.

A&E conclude wrong to eat (disobey).

What is the problem here?
 
STT said:
Second statement does not follow from the first.
Click to expand...
Maybe for someone whose never been a child (perhaps more specifically since there are folks in all kinds of situations - a child without parents / guardians who set direction and have communicated ‘no’).

So what does that tell us about God? (or more specifically our relationship with Him?)
 
fhansen said:
man only maintains absolute moral integrity to the extent that he’s not determining morality for himself
Click to expand...
Given conflicting rules of morality that come from outside of himself, how should man resolve the conflict?
 
STT said:
Wrong is equivalent to evil so they couldn’t possibly know that their choice is wrong because they didn’t know what evil is.
Click to expand...
Not having experienced sin does not mean they didn’t know it was wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top