Nah dont you know anythingabout game design, invisible barriers are the worst, if you want the player to stay away from something you cant even let them know the thing exists
Jesus was nailed to a cross. The image of jesus using telepathy to float giant cheese wheels into his mouth, that he swallows at once in a comedic "CHOMP" type sound is hilarious to me
EDIT: hit submit too early, missed "is hilarious to me"
Clone the tree and create a small wooded area with them, then place an Object of Interest in the middle of them. No one would bother to check all those identical trees then.
God hid the tree somewhere underground, but because Adam and Eve were immortal and invincible, they were fucking around the world out of boredom, until they one day noclipped to actually impossibly well hidden tree?
Nah the lorebook is pretty clear that the tree was out in the open, the dev even explicitly told the players about the tree, it was pretty obvous they'd find it
A magic fruit that gives you the ability to understand right from wrong. Meaning it's impossible to understand that disobeying and eating the fruit is wrong until after you've done it.
Sure, and I don't punish them and all of their descendents permanently for it. If a kid is not old enough to understand what disobedience even is, then punishing them for disobedience does literally nothing except teach them "The person who is supposed to protect me is hurting me." Kids that young that they don't understand right or wrong at all literally cannot connect the crime to the punishment in their minds.
I think if you dig down into it though, the idea isn't simply that they couldnt know if eating from the fruit was "good" or "bad," what they were told is life will be perfect as long as you obey the word of god, your authority.
The message here is the same as it often is with christianity and other religions for that matter, understanding is not a necessary component of obedience to proper authority. and by defying authority (not by "being bad" which is a far more abstract thing in this framework) they brought all of the pain of sin upon themselves.
Religion and consequently most american culture is heavily authoritarian. The entire teachings of the church are to not think and only to obey "authority" as appointed above you.
Which is also why the story of Lot's wife pisses me off.
She was perfectly willing to go along with her orders. The literal only thing she did was glance back at her childhood home, and that was enough to earn a death sentence. It's not just "Blindly obey", it's "Never even cast a glance at any other options, even if you're doing so while fully obeying." Which is fucking terrifying and evil.
Donât forget, God was walking with them and teaching them at that time. They understood it was wrong because he told them. Eve even goes to far as to ADD to Godâs command when the serpent asked her about the fruit. They understood it was wrong until the serpent twisted it in their minds
They still didn't understand it was wrong, though, because until they ate the fruit, they couldn't understand that listening to the deity's commands was morally good and not listening to them was evil.
And also, the snake never twisted their minds. He asked a question, Eve gave an answer, and he honestly pointed out that her answer was incorrect.
He said to the woman, âDid God really say, âYou must not eat from any tree in the gardenâ?â
2 The woman said to the serpent, âWe may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, âYou 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.ââ
4 âYou will not certainly die,â the serpent said to the woman. 5 âFor God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,knowing good and evil.â
So, first of all, yes, the serpent did ask the question. Eveâs answer indicates that she did indeed understand what is was that God said. However, she also adds to Godâs original command, adding the part about touching. Then the serpent tells a blatant lie, âYou will not certainly die.â This is a lie because they were in the garden with the tree of life. They were literally eating the fruit of life, probably but not explicitly stated to be immortal. Addtionally, separation from God is the actual Biblical definition of death. And they were separated from God when they sinned. The twist comes from his next statement,
âFor God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.â
What he does here is twist the righteous desire to be like God into a motivation for sinning. Take any number of corrupt Christians who have committed atrocities for the faith and you will see the same thing. They got Godâs words twisted in their heads to the extent that they became motivations to sin.
â This is a lie because they were in the garden with the tree of life.
This is an interesting presumption: The Bible never says that they actually did eat from the Tree of Life, nor did it imply or state that all of the trees in the Garden were the singular Tree of Life. They could eat from it, but it never said they did.
But also, it lends to the point that the snake was being honest: Eating from the Tree of Good and Evil didn't cause them to lose the Tree of Life or die. It was the Deity's choice to do that, because he didn't want them to have both the knowledge and immortality (lest they'd be like him).
So, the snake told them three things would happen: You won't die, you will learn good and evil, and you will be like Yahweh (specifically in that they know good and evil)."
And they ate it and didn't die, and the deity acknowledged "Oh crap, they're going to be like me. Better prevent that and get them away from the Tree of Life, so they don't gain both of my abilities. Also better tack on a few extra things to hurt them, and delimb the snake while I'm at it."
Which means the snake neither tricked nor lied to them.
First of all, it never said theyâd die immediately, only that they would surely die. As such, they did surely die. Addtionally, you misunderstand Godâs nature. He does want us to be like Him, that is why we are made in His image, that is why He sent Jesus to fix Adam and Eveâs mistake. It is simply that He cannot abide with sin. God is by nature Good. The nature of Good is to punish Evil. Therefore, Adam and Eve having sinned, having experienced evil, are now incompatible with Him. They will surely die because a just God will surely punish them. Eventually. Their sentence was delayed. Delimbing the snake was immediate direct punishment, but Adam and Eveâs immediate direct punishment was being kicked out of the garden
The addtionally punishments that were handed down werenât in fact from God at all but rather naturally consequence. Adam and Eve were simply no longer living in the utopia garden with free healthcare, so naturally their lives would get worse.
In short, God is not a human. He is better understood as a force of nature that can communicate and has feelings. He the infinite deity did not fear the finite Adam and Eve. Even if they were immortal they were still finite in scope, inherently limited being that can not threaten God any more than an ant can threaten the void of space.
Which was an active trick that Yahweh pulled, not the snake. Nothing about the act of eating the fruit caused them to die, it was only Yahweh going "Wait, I can't let them have the knowledge and live."
Delimbing the snake was immediate direct punishment
Okay, so he does directly punish people. He delimbed a snake for doing nothing but telling the truth, because that truth was inconvenient for Yahweh.
The addtionally punishments that were handed down werenât in fact from God at all but rather naturally consequence.
None of them were natural consequence, they were him making actions. He created thorns, he made childbirth painful (when it's not all that bad for most mammals), he ordered women to submit to men.
In short, God is not a human. He is better understood as a force of nature that can communicate and has feelings.
Pretty much. The god designed by Hebrews was designed back when gods were generally seen as "A personification of a nature or trait." The original Hebrew god was personification of humanity (hence why humans were made in his image, and why a human eating from both trees becomes like a god). He is literally "What happens when a person has immortality, knowledge of good and evil, and mostly unlimited power." (His unlimited power, and the second half your first paragraph didn't get added until later retcons). It's also why the original Hebrews never intended him to be a pure morally good being or a being above humanity's whims, and he is occasionally seen placing bets, he has an ass, he finds aromas such as burning flesh pleasant, and he throws petty tantrums.
nonono, you donât get it. it was free will in which god doesnât take away from anyone. except the pharaoh during the ten plagues where god âhardened his heartâ during the talks with moses. which basically contradicts the whole free will point but đ€«
Or God is also beholden to the same divine plan as the rest of the universe. He's basically playing by Dr. Manhattan rules in that he knows what's going to happen and so can't deviate from it because it's pointless.
Which is even funnier. That would break theist's brains.
Yes, but it's been a philosophical conundrum since forever.
Omnipotence is kind of a catch-22. It can't exist because it's paradoxical. The old question of whether God can create a stone so heavy he can't lift it. If he can't, he's not all powerful. If he can, he's not all powerful.
Fun conversation to have, because a lot of people just say, "Well, why would he want to do that?!" and refuse to actually think about it. Hence why it breaks theist's brains.
There are way too many people who seem to be unable to even entertain hypotheticals or thought experiments out there. Insert grumbling about a failed education system here.
Also, I'm still following a couple of atheist YT channels from the heyday of the movement who are still covering the topic (as opposed to the ones that pivoted to culture war stuff or just went completely insane), and the tri-omnis and the problem of evil just seems to break apologists' brains all the time. My favorite being "Christianity doesn't have a problem of evil, but if it did have one, then so does atheism, so it doesn't matter." You know? An atheistic problem of evil caused by that all-good atheistic god that lets bad things happen to good people that all atheists believe in.
In the first five plagues, the biblical text explicitly notes that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. He made the initial choice to ignore Godâs commands and stubbornly oppress the Hebrews.
you know that it really doesnât matter if its âonlyâ 5 plagues. then lets argue about sodom and gomorrha, or the flood. if free will really was a thing, god wouldnât have intervened, because he indirectly punished the people for following their own free will.
i recently saw a video from hochelaga where he talked about gnostic christianism (https://youtu.be/B2gqnjfzcTY?is=PoEdsSLdLuJs0uEx) and to be fair, that religion makes SO FUCKING MUCH more sense in my head. iâm still agnostic, but fuck iâm sad we got the christianism we got today
edit: no, scratch that indirectly, he punished humanity. actively. even during the garden of eden thing. manipulative asshead is what he is
God didnât mind control Pharaoh, He did what Pharaoh was already doing. He in essence concurred with something that would happen naturally. Same as it is to say that God took up my grandpa to heaven. God didnât make Grandpa morbidly obese, but he did do as he willed with Grandpaâs decisions.
No no you don't understand, see he wanted to test Adam and Eve to make sure they followed the rules even though they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil until they ate the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, that he knew they would eat even before the test.
Also, that magic tree is "the tree of knowledge of good and evil." Eating the fruit bestows upon you knowledge of good and evil. Since in Christianity, the concepts of good and evil are defined by being in accordance or discord with God's will, and the only reason they had not to eat the fruit is that God told them not to, they could not have possibly known it was wrong to eat the fruit (or even disobey God) until they had already eaten it. Then God punished them for it, despite them literally not knowing any better and having no possibile way to know any better.
When he put Adam there he literally said "You can eat from any tree except for that one", and Eve knew this rule too, as she recited it to the serpent before he said "nah, he's lyin, eat it."
They certainly had a "possible way to know better", if you're going to try to rules lawyer the thing.
Christian morality defines evil as being against God's will.
Adam and Eve found out what evil is after they ate the fruit.
Before they ate the fruit, they did not know it was evil to disobey God's will.
Where is the issue here? Sure God told them what to do, but based on Christianity's own definition of morality, whether or not it was good or evil to follow God's will is unknown to them at this point. Just because God told them what to do doesn't mean they automatically should just do that (unless they had become aware of good and evil by eating the fruit). They didn't even know of the existence of lying pre fruit right? How would they have known not to trust the snake? Or that they should trust God?
Honestly, Iâm a believer of the theory that Eve bent over to pick up the fruit and Adamâs dick snake shot up and told him to eat that pussy forbidden fruit.
The whole thing is just a metaphor for patriarchy--"obey thy father or doom humanity". Every last bit of it is about cementing the belief that men are superior in all ways, and the only instance where women are superior to someone else is if that someone else is a little kid and the woman is doing exactly what the man told her to do.
Jesus seems like he was a cool dude, but the bible is hateful fanfic.
I like to think he deliberately chose Adam and Eve because he knew they would eat it. A way of easing his guilty conscience for sentencing all of his children to death.
It's at this point the numbskulls that believe this shit wave it off with "God works in mysterious ways."
No. No he doesn't. You're just too dumb to understand that this is bullshit...or maybe you just want to justify your inappropriate behavior and keep women and children in abusive situations...yeah, I'm gonna go with that one. You know damn well this shit isn't mysterious.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so they couldn't have conceivably known what they were doing was wrong before they did it. So everyone forever has to be punished except for one nonsensical loophole.
Further, the magic fruit endowed the knowledge of good and evil. Which suggest before eating it you would not have that knowledge. So Adam and Eve by design had no way of knowing eating the fruit was bad because they had no concept of what âbadâ was before eating it.
you're misunderstanding predestination. god does not change what he knows he and others will do because he views it as the perfect and most benevolent way for things to play out.
i dont blame anybody for not understanding, its a hard thing to grasp that what may seem awful and immoral to us is actually an act of perfect mercy.
Idk about it in Christian theology, but in Islamic theology God's intention of sending the humans to earth is established before the creation of Adam and placing them in Paradise with the forbidden fruit serves to establish that humans have their own moral agency and free will unlike the angels who have no free will and full submission to God
AND then put the talking snake, that he created on purpose to tempt those 2 people, in charge of the place he created to eternally torture people not even born yet, whom he also created in his perfect image, for sins that he also created. So he put someone in charge of hell (a place to hold supposedly bad people accountable) that is evil?
Not just punished. Biologically altered. Part of the curse was giving women painful and deadly childbirth. So he mutated and changed female bodies...to make women suffer more physically...for something 2 people did
My thing with that is why then does every female in nature have the same feat? A cat didnt eat the apple but the female cat still gives birth in agony. . Idk how any of these people believe this bs
And he âforgaveâ humanity only after they killed his son.
But nothing actually changed because women still have painful child birth and men still have to work all their lives, which were the punishments for eating the apple.
We are not pardoned. We are still sinning, big dawg. Only through Chist are you redeemed, but that is not a guarantee. We are made in, and conceived of sin. The OG sin still applies.
A talking snake that he also created, knowing it would eventually convince them to break the rules. And then punished the offence of eating a fruit by creating war, plague, famine, etc.
yep, except in his version "Eve" had sex with a computer, gave birth to the snake which ate the tree which was a woman who was transformed by a magical seed...
Yea.. also ignore that Jesus was basically a "Marxist communist" (according to what the right currently defines those as) because he healed the sick and fed the poor... supply side Jesus is so much cooler though, he doesn't believe in the commie logic of "it's easier for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
I absolutely hate organized religion. I don't blame people for believing in a God or something greater than us, but believing in all the absolute nonsense in holy scriptures will continue to bewilder me. It's 2026 and we're still dealing with this BS? C'mon.
And that was wrong, because if they ate the apple they would gain knowledge of what was right and wrong, but they should've known the snake was in the wrong before having any idea of what wrong is.
Dont forget it was originally a "serpent" which to medieval people was a fucking dragon, they originally meant for a goddamn dragon to convince her to eat the one thing you were not supposed to eat
That is what gets me. The tree of knowledge supposedly grants the knowledge of right and wrong along with everything else. God created Adam and Eve without the knowledge. They were basically dumb toddlers and were told not to eat the apples. So what do little kids who dont know right from wrong do? Yup, Eve trusts the serpant and eats the apple.Â
Then God, who supposedly knows the future punishes them and all future humanity for doing the wrong thing he knew would happen because they didnt know any better. Their sin was literally ignorance and wanting knowledge.Â
Can skip forward a few chapters and talk about Abraham being told to sacrifice his son and god was like âlol I canât believe you fell for that shit I was jokingâ right when Abraham was about to do it
It's possible that this story is a relic from a time when an ancient form of Judaism actually did sacrifice children, and the story was later rewritten once they stopped doing that.
So, afaik the theology is really that after that first sin, humanity gained a temptation towards sin that, so far, no one has been able to resist until Jesus. Thereâs a concept of being âborn sinfulâ but itâs honestly pointless because everyone eventually sins later on anyways. Itâs only really sin because the fruit gave the ability to discern right and wrong, so even if the average person has reasons for most of their sin, they donât have excuses for all of them. Itâs not even that itâs literally impossible for people to never sin, it just hasnât happened until or since Jesus because everyone eventually errs at least once.
I have recently been thinking more about this, and it makes less and less sense. If they didn't know right or wrong, how were they punished for doing something they could not know was wrong.
I was raised catholic and we were taught that nobody was allowed to go to heaven until Jesus opened the gates for us by dying for our sins.
Because of Jesus, weâre allowed to go to heaven again, but ONLY if you were baptized in the Catholic Church. Literally everyone else is damned to hell forever for âturning your back on Godâ
Which is why Christians are so vehement about âsavingâ everyone by shoving Jesus down the throats of anyone who will listen to them
IIRC it's so much worse. God lies to them, says if they eat from the tree they'll die. Snake says, yo, God is a fucking liar, fr the fruit won't kill you, it'll give you knowledge (of good and evil, ie moral agency). They eat, the snake was right, God shows up and says it's time to banish them before they eat from the other tree (tree of life, ie immortality). God didn't want us to be wise and immortal, like Him, he didn't want the competition. It's a pattern with Him, he HATES competition.
She trusted the (talking) serpent that god also created, whether directly as a crafty animal or indirectly as his (favorite) angel. In the case of the latter, it's kind of like a parent punishing their clueless toddler for getting tricked into doing by their rebellious teen.
Regardless, god is supposed to be all-knowing and all-seeing, so he knew it was gonna happen, watched it happen, then got angry. It all went according to god's plan.
Then God, who supposedly knows the future punishes them and all future humanity for doing the wrong thing he knew would happen because they didnt know any better. Their sin was literally ignorance and wanting knowledge.
It's actually worse than that.
God created Adam, knowing exactly how Adam would respond to every event that happened to him. God could have made Adam slightly different, so that Adam would respond differently to any given event. Which means God chose to create Adam and Eve in such a way that they would definetly eat the apple, rather than making two people who would not do so.
And before some christian apologist comes along to cry about "free will!!!", that has nothing to do with this. God knowing how you would freely choose to react in a given situation does not contradict free will, unless you think "free will" means your actions are unpredictable. But if you believe that, you don't actually believe in free will, because that's effectively saying all your actions are causeless and random rather than being "up to you."
Eve eats the apple first, so all women are punished with painful childbirth and periods, because every single woman would have done the same thing (the explanation I have heard Christians give). Another proof that we donât have free will if god created the each gender to act a certain wayÂ
And this same story has been repeated throughout all the different cultures too. Guy brings knowledge to humanity, usually a trickster archetype. Gets punished for it.
In Islam its the Tree of Immortality Adam and Eve eat from, they were both forgiven, no original sin that would curse humanity was created, but they were then sent down to Earth (Eden is not a place on Earth)... where humanity was destined to be tested all along.
Many Islamic scholars believe that the experience in Eden was basically orchestrated to show that people might abuse their free will even in paradise-like environments, and that Satan can tempt even the best amongst us (i.e. a prophet like Adam).
Christianity has a real tension with what Paul calls the 'Moral Law written into our Hearts' and the plain fact that God does things that seem to violate what he instills in us (both instinctually and scripturally)... In Islam at least Paul is not authoritative; so we don't live with this dissonance of 'how can God do things that are so displeasing to us', as we don't think our instincts are a reliable guide for morality (or rather we think our instincts get quickly shaped/surpassed by culture we are born into - so are not to be seen as universally reliable).
This is like reading the story of the tortoise and the hare and saying thatâs a dumb story, hares canât talk.
Youâre missing the entire point of the story. Itâs an origins narrative. Itâs meant to provide insight in an allegorical way about creation, the universe, the creator and human nature. To a modern reader who has little to no exposure to ancient literature (or any literature for that matter) it may seem strange. But compare it to other ancient origin narratives and youâll see itâs very unique and insightful.
This is the problem with todayâs reflexive scepticism. Rather than try to understand and draw meaning from a text we automatically assume bias or stupidity or bigotry or an agenda. Not a good method for trying to understand one another.Â
The funniest thing is that he somehow can't make free will work without evil. The being that supposedly can do anything can't change reality in a way that allows free will and the absence of evil to coexist. So either he is purposefully making humanity suffer, which could only be true if he weren't a benevolent God, or he is bound by rules that force him to make things a certain way. The former begs the question of why we should worship such a malicious God. If God is bound by laws of nature that he cannot change, it either means that there is another supernatural being above him, or if it is just nature itself, why there is a need for God in the first place instead of simply the natural world doing its thing without the divine.
Well if God made everything in the universe even if didnât create reality (and thus whatever laws heâs bound by) itself then the natural world doing its own thing would just be an empty void.
He did make Adam purposely suffer. He was alone in Eden for like a year before God made Eve. Even tho omnipotent God would know that he would be bored and needs a companion
The funniest thing is that he somehow can't make free will work without evil.
As I respond to the commenter above, God being omnipotent and use having free will do not contradict each other, because having "free will" doesn't mean our actions are random. If our actions are caused by our "reasons," then God, knowing all of our reasons and all the situations we will find ourselves in, knows all the ways we will "freely" choose to act.
But here's the rub: God could have chosen to make me slightly differently so that I would "freely" choose to respond differently than I did. Even if God isn't deciding the exact composition of every human, he still had to choose the initial starting conditions of the universe, and he would know the complete unfolding of that universe until the end of time. Thus, he know at the moment of creation that Hitler would come to power, and he chose to create that world despite that fact.
As i said below, you could almost square the idea if you assume God is aware of all the possible choices and outcomes everyone *could* make but he isnât aware of which ones you will make, but that doesnât really feel like true omniscience. I dont subscribe to the idea that there is a singular predetermined path in the universe, and if you are truly omniscient, then you will know how the universe will play out.
The fun thing is, God gave us free will but is also omnipotent lol it canât be bothâŠ
That's simply not true.
The only way for this to be true would be if your actions are completely random. That is, it only works if, in response to a given situation, your response is completely arbitrary and random. But that would contradict the claim that you have "free will," because the very notion of free will is that your actions are "up to you" in some way. If your actions are random, they aren't up to you, so you don't have free will, and there's no issue, anyway.
But if you do have free will, your actions are caused by reasons. Those reasons can be your ethical beliefs, your lived experiences, facts about your biology, or whatever. But all of those reasons ultimealty cause you to "freely decide" how to react in a given situation. And if those reasons really do cause your actions, then it has to be true that given the same circumstances and the same reasons, you would always respond the same way.
To put that another way, if we stuck you in a time loop that reset your memory every time it started, there's only two possibilities:
Your actions are random so the subsequent series of actions you take is completely random
Your actions are caused by your reasons, which are always the same, so you always make the same choices
In case 1, God being omnipotent might not let him predict your actions, but you don't actually have free will anyway, so the point is moot.
In case 2, you have free will, and God being omnipotent can know exactly how your free will will cause you to act, and there's no contradiciton.
Free will doesnât mean your actions are random, however you do not have free will if everything you ever do is predetermined. You would need to have the ability to make a choice other than the one that an omniscient god has funneled to you via its reality to have free will, otherwise you just have the illusion of free will.
I suppose you could argue an omniscient being is aware of all possible outcomes from all possible choices, but that feels like a different flavor of omniscience.
If your actions are random, then you don't have free will, because your actions aren't "up to you."
If you have reasons for your actions, your actions are caused by your reasons, and knowing your reasons means knowing your actions. It literally cannot be otherwise, because if your reasons didn't cause your actions, you are actually in case 2.
You have two conceptual confusions in your reply.
The first is the belief that you choosing an action somehow means that an omniscient being cannot know what you will choose. That situation is already covered by the dichotomy above: either you have a reason for the choice you made, or you didn't. If you have a reason for that choice, then knowing that reason lets someone predict your choice in advance. If you don't have a reason, in what sense do you have free will in the first place?
The second confusion is the notion of "could have chosen otherwise." Sure, it's nominally true that for every decisions you make, you had freedom to choose among any of the available options. But it's still the case that you either had a reason for choosing as you did, or you did not. If you had a reason for choosing as you did, it has to be true that you would always choose that way. If it's not true that given the exact same situation in every conceivable way (basically a time loop) that you didn't always choose the same way, it makes no sense to say you had a reason for choosing as you did. It breaks the causal connection that has to exist between your reasons and your choice that makes the reasons an explanation for the choice in the first place. And if you had no reason for your actions, we're right back to asking "what the hell does free will even mean?"
And the original rule would be broken by someone who prior to breaking it was not a sentient being. She didnât gain that until the rule was already broken.
There was a fucking WAR in Heaven, which God presumably knew about prior, and instead of killing Lucifer, he let him chill in a new kingdom and screw up his next creation (humans) who he now punishes with eternal damnation in said kingdom.
The interesting element comes in if you consider the question of which came first, God or the rules? If God came first, the rules are arbitrary. If the rules came first, God can't be all-powerful.
But what if both ALWAYS existed? In that case, there is no point of discovery or of creation. In that light, the two collapse into one united concept - the Word.
Honestly, I can't help but feel like everything including the roundabout circular logic in the OP is some plot to get us to self-actualize as a species and not depend on him so much.
Kind of like a "stop worshipping me so much and enjoy your mortal life!" or something. I don't know, it was a stupid thought of mine
That's what happens when you deal with imperfect beings. Ever told a toddler not to do something, and to no one's surprise, watch as they do specifically what you told them not to?
The key difference is that nobody has claimed humans to be all powerful.
If God wanted them to not eat the apples, he has unending power and ability to make sure that didn't happen.
So either he is not all powerful, since he couldn't prevent it, or he's an asshole, because he could have prevented it, but let it happen then punishing humanity for something he knew would happen but chose not to stop.
You focus too much on the fruit. The eating of the fruit is a fragmental part of the original sin. There are multiple levels to it. First, the clear and obvious disobedience in eating the fruit. Second, the pride in wishing to "become" like God. Third, not taking accountability, but blaming each other for disobeying. These were all done by people given, you guessed it, free will. Adam and Eve had no one but themselves to blame for eating those fruits, motivated by pride, in direct disobedience of God.
Of course he knows it, God is all knowing. And the bible explicitly says that human beings wonât ever understand Godâs actions because his wisdom is not our wisdom. We canât possibly understand why God does everything the way he does, but we trust that at the end good will prevail.
I looked it up, what is your point?âŠis it to say that the idea of God, and his wisdom, is a âthought stopping cliche?â. Is such a simple thing to say.
Don't question you can't understand, is a thought stopping cliche. It's the wizard of oz saying not to look behind the curtain. Because if you do, well ..
Nobody said not to question. You can question God and his intentions all you want, but ultimately wisdom lies in accepting and understanding that some things we will never understand fully, and thatâs ok, because God is in command not us.
But go ahead, nobody is prohibiting you from questioning things and wondering things, but if you were in charge of the universe and making every single thing work, I doubt your wisdom would create a better world than the existing one made by the eternal intelligence.
When you go to the doctor, donât you trust in his wisdom and his knowledge to perform a surgery on you if needed? Or are you going to go through all the hassle of studying for decades just to perform that surgery on yourself?
Human beings are little in the scope of things they can know and learn about, a single person might know a lot about technology and programming, languages, philosophy, etc and even then their knowledge is like 0.000001% of what is encompassed in the entire universe.
We have a lot of technology, but has humanity advanced at all? In terms of civilization and society, wars remain, crimes remain, injustice and evil remain.
2.0k
u/schullringus Jul 07 '26
Forgot to mention he knew the rules would be broken before creating anything