Why did God create the tree of knowledge?

[pgwenthold]

How can an omniscient, omnipotent being have an "arch-enemy"? How could any lesser being be a threat to mankind and an affront to God's sovereignty unless God allows it?

See my post near the beginning of this thread on how apologetics often provide explanations that require god to not be omniscient/omnipotent.

As you correctly observe, Radrook has fallen right into it.

 

[Piscivore]

Your interpretation goes completely contrary to the Biblical context. Satan is God's archenemy. From the very beginning he was viewed as a threat to mankind and an affront to God's sovereignty. Right there in Eden an anti Satanic judicial pronouncement was uttered.

I'm not "interpreting" anything- you asked where that idea came from, and it's usually Job.

But when I read Job, I don't get "Angry, rebellious son" vs. "Angry, vindictive Dad"- I get two guys making a barroom bet (not literally, of course.)

 

[Iacchus]

How can an omniscient, omnipotent being have an "arch-enemy"? How could any lesser being be a threat to mankind and an affront to God's sovereignty unless God allows it?

Lucifer is the opportunist. Satan is the liar. And the Devil is outright evil. And together what do you get? LSD!!!

These three representations by the way, represent the three degrees of rebellion of man towards God. In fact when Jesus states, "There is none good but God," it seems to imply that man is nothing but evil. In fact there are two degrees of hells associated with this, the first or "upper hell," which is called Satan, and is associated falsity, and the second or "lower hell," which is called the Devil, and is associated with evil. While here, there is no formal entity associated with either Satan or the Devil, just the two degrees of hell from which influx flows into the spiritual world. As for Lucifer, I believe? he represents the opportunist who dwells in the world of spirits, which is a state comparable to the natural world (our world) that exists between heaven and hell. And here, I believe there's an association between Lucifer and the construction of the Tower of Babel.

So, ever wonder why Jesus blesses Peter on the one hand, and then turns around and calls Him Satan? Because it was the lie (in Peter) that was addressing Jesus at this time. Which is exactly what happened when Peter denies Christ three times (before the cock crows) and outright lied about their relationship. Which, is what happened to begin with, when Peter says he would never deny Christ.

Anyway, if you look at the Bible in this way, it might have more significance. For more information here, I would refer you to Emanuel Swedenborg's book, Heaven and Hell.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Radrook,
The problem I see is that you just keep pushing the question back.

Q: Why did Gods make the serpent that tempted Eve?
A: He didn’t. “it was a spirit son of God called Lucifer who decided to use the serpent as a puppet.”

Q: Then why did God make Lucifer who possessed the snake who tempted Eve?
A: “Licifer was a righteius angel. It was his misuse of freedom of choice that turned him into Satan and Devil liar and slanderer.”

Q: Then why did God create a nature for Lucifer that was prone to “misuse” freedom of choice, allowing him to become evil, and possess the snake to tempt Eve?
A: ??

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect the answer is simply something like “God didn’t create Lucifer’s nature, it was free will”. The answer is pushed back to yet another level. But, as far as I can tell, that’s not an answer at all. One may as well say “it’s magic”, and leave it at that.

After all, God must of consciously decided each aspect of every angel’s personality and what would please his creations, right? No one, for example, decides to find pleasure in a tall glass of water when they feel the terrible pain of thirst; they just do; they just want the water. They come pre-programmed from nurture, nature, or God.

Worshiping God pleased some angels and seemed like a good choice to them, but not others. Why wouldn’t God program them all to find pleasure only in worshiping God?

God must also consciously decide how these pleasures will be ranked in importance in His creation’s mind. We may not want to be stuck by a needle, but we really don’t want to get tetanus. In making our choices, we know that some pains are simply felt more intensely than others. We do not choose this ordering.

God must consciously decide the process by which we make decisions. Our ability to accurately project the consequences of our actions into the future, our capacity to keep info in memory, how we process our memory and senses, and so on…. We do not choose any of that, and a tweak in the process could easily stop an angel from thinking rebellion is a good choice for him to make.

(I suppose, God could have chosen an angel’s personality randomly, but that is still no help.)

In the end I’m still wondering what a Christian thinks lead to Lucifer to bellyache "So farewell hope, and with hope farewell fear, Farewell remorse: all good to me is lost; Evil, be thou my good.” Such a drama queen…

 

[Dancing David]

By saying everything is relative, you're saying relativity is absolute. In which case it must be more than just that, because we can also hold that other axioms are true. So maybe in that sense there's a whole world of axioms which entail perfection itself, of which the physical world is the relative manifestation of?

I don't get it Iachuss,

If I say that a thing can only be determined through it's relationship to other things then that is a statement or an observation.

How do you get from a statement, which is a symbolic exchange of ideas, to the neo platonic absolutes?

I would argue that just because a relationship exists, it is not absolute. The relationships we can talk about are the observable ones, there is nothing else to relate them to.

 

[Iacchus]

I don't get it Iachuss,

If I say that a thing can only be determined through it's relationship to other things then that is a statement or an observation.

How do you get from a statement, which is a symbolic exchange of ideas, to the neo platonic absolutes?

I would argue that just because a relationship exists, it is not absolute. The relationships we can talk about are the observable ones, there is nothing else to relate them to.

Hey, I don't claim to know everything. However, what I do claim and, do my utmost to do, is speak from the standpoint of what I do know. So in that respect I don't claim to know much about Plato either. But just for the record, let me ask you this. How do you think Plato came up with these absolutes? If, in fact it has anything to do with his belief in God (which somebody told me it did), then yes, I would have to concur with Plato. Because this is the standpoint from which I speak.

If fact when people wonder where I come up with all these ideals, it's my attempt -- at reverse engineering so to speak -- to approach Science with the notion of God. In other words this is what underlines my approach.

 

[scribble]

However, what I do claim and, do my utmost to do, is speak from the standpoint of what I do know.

ah - that explains a lot.

 

[LostAngeles]

Why be cryptic when giving advice?
What are you referring to?
The visible HTML tags?

Your triple post with slight differences.

 

[Iacchus]

ah - that explains a lot.

Well, that could mean just about anything depending upon to whom you speak. So, do you claim to know any more than what you know? Or, do you actually know what you're speaking about when you speak? Knowledge is not wisdom my friend!

By the way, don't you think this would be more akin to the scientific approach, except on a more personal level?

 

[scribble]

Well, that could mean just about anything depending upon to whom you speak.

I intended it to mean that the reason your words are nonsense is because you speak from a position of not knowing anything.

It was humor; I'm not very good at it.

 

[Iacchus]

I intended it to mean that the reason your words are nonsense is because you speak from a position of not knowing anything.

It was humor; I'm not very good at it.

Must be for the same reason that nobody else knows anything either, right? Well, at least some of us know that much.

 

[Piscivore]

But just for the record, let me ask you this. How do you think Plato came up with these absolutes? If, in fact it has anything to do with his belief in God (which somebody told me it did), then yes, I would have to concur with Plato.

Gods. Plato was a classical Greek.

From his writings, I think he was what we now call a Deist, though- his "Form of the Good" seem very similar to the Deist concept of "god"- a remote and non-active participant in human affairs.

You should really follow that link, Iacchus, there is something there that will just absolutely delight you...

 

[Iacchus]

Gods. Plato was a classical Greek.

From his writings, I think he was what we now call a Deist, though- his "Form of the Good" seem very similar to the Deist concept of "god"- a remote and non-active participant in human affairs.

Which really doesn't sound altogether different from the notion of the Christian God, in my opinion. Of course I do consider myself to be more of a Deist. But, to say that God does not participate in the affairs of men (on a subtle level at least) is not true.

You should really follow that link, Iacchus, there is something there that will just absolutely delight you...

Why should I? If it was Aphrodite it might delight me. Oh, alright!

 

[Piscivore]

Which really doesn't sound altogether different from the notion of the Christian God, in my opinion.

I think Radrook would disagree with you.

Of course I do consider myself to be more of a Deist. But, to say that God does not participate in the affairs of men (on a subtle level at least) is not true.

These two statements are contradictory.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Of course I do consider myself to be more of a Deist. But, to say that God does not participate in the affairs of men (on a subtle level at least) is not true.

Oh so very subtley, at that..

 

[Iacchus]

You should really follow that link, Iacchus, there is something there that will just absolutely delight you...

He poetically compares the Form of the Good to the sun. Just as the sun eminates light, so the form of the good eminates truth. And just as we are able to see the world with our eyes using the light of the sun, so we can make sense of the world with our rational minds only through the assistance of truth, derived from the Form of the Good.

Hey you're right, I like that! I would also suggest that the good of the sun (itself) is its sustaining warmth.

These two statements are contradictory.

Notice my use of the word "subtle?" In fact I would almost say to the point of being imperceptible. While I do agree that God for the most part remains distant.

 

[Iacchus]

Oh so very subtley, at that..

However, that isn't to say you can't find it if, in fact you know what you're looking for.

 

[Dancing David]

How do you think Plato came up with these absolutes?

Because he didn't like the relativism of some of the greek philosophers?

To say that all things are discussed in ralation to other things is not an absolute. Mathematics and logic are a good example of closed symbolic systems which are self referencing, they may be applied to things outside of thier sets but they are kind of closed and self descriptive.

Plato and Aristitle were in the search for absolutes and so they found them, but I do not feel that beauty is transcendent and therefore absolute.

I am a discrete pluralist, in that I believe everything is reducible to certain components which are discrete if interelated, and that there is an illusiory nature to the words that people use which grants a semblance of permanency to human values and concepts.
Beauty is inherently personal and influenced by culture, so it is relative, not transcendent.
There are things like happiness which are personal emotional states that we learnt to decribe through reeference to other people. So again a relative value.
Then there are things like 'mind' and 'self' which are referents which are just rugs under which we sweep a lot of different things.

While there appear to be constants in the universe, absolutes are harder to find.

 

[Iacchus]

There's only one Universe isn't there? So in that sense isn't everything related to the absoluteness of the whole? Of which absolute meaning is derived therefrom?

 

[scribble]

You're the only absolute one here.

I mean that in the <a href=http://www.marionette.com/html/hamlet%20text.html>Shakespearian</a> sense.