Why was it so impossible for God to create a perfect world without evil...

...

Thanks no of the most moral person you know. It could be your mother, a friend, a saint, the virgin Mary. There are people who, even if they commit minor sins, are not as rotten as the rest of us, and yet they have as much free will as the rest of us. Why couldn't God make everyone hat way?

Garden of Eden was*

>Evil
Trying to understand the choice ,if you can call it like that, of an omnipotent being that cant be even described by any humane means,is just impossible. Things like good and evil are purely mundane terms.

Why did a perfect garden have the forbidden fruit?

How can perfect beings make imperfect choices? Talking about SHAITAN as well as Adam here.

They choose to be that way. No human has to be rotten. Humans have no one else to blame but themselves.

Like it says, all things God creates are good, including the fruit of knowledge. Therefore since it's good God intended for Adam and Eve to partake and become capable of distinguishing between good and evil when they were mature enough. Satan in his hatred of mankind tricked Eve into eating the fruit claiming that it would lead to becoming like God when it instead led to them being cast out and sin introduced.

Good can't really without evil to contrast against it, just as light can't really exist without darkness to contrast. Evil exists in order for good to exist in a meaningful way.

It is a methaphor to explain why humans act concupiscibly. The old testament is mostly mythos and oral tradition.

>they learned about good and evil too early
>damn them for all eternity and make them suffer
>couldn't even foresee this and BTFO the snake before it could do anything

Hey, sounds like an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful being right there.

Lucifer wasn't perfect but he was the greatest of the angels, second only to the persons of the trinity. He had free will of course, with that he grew envious of God and rebelled. But that doesn't mean that anything including emotions such as hate and pride are inherently evil things since they come from God.

>imperfect choices
You are wring here. You are trying to explain something that cannot even be described with our language. All the confusion that comes in the discussion of God,is just linguistical or limited by our own minds. It is impossible to even describe how a neing like God could operate

agnostic please go

Nah.
You could still blame god for that.
He left two idiots with no concept of right or wrong and zero experience, as well as infinite time, a tempter and zero supervision (Since he isn't omniscient or omnipresent in this story).
They only had his word to go on as well and he was either plainly lying or lying by omission since neither of them died and he didn't mention that it would be a spiritual death (Ignoring that dualism is retarded since we're already talking about the garden of eden).

The story of genesis is retarded.

>because god is evil
>because god is crazy
>because god is dead
>because there are many gods
>because there is no god
why not pick one OP?

proof?

youtube.com/watch?v=ApL4ESiEix0

Mysterious ways and shit.

Adam and Eve aren't in hell, they went to Hades until the resurrection when Christ descended and brought them out. Satan aka. The snakes treachery didn't change God's plan, regardless of whether they waited until they were mature it was still necessary for The Son to come incarnate in the flesh to redeem the flesh. Since in our fallen state our goal isn't to return to their innocent state but to go beyond to become one with God. Think of it like a shortcut, you can take the longer road until you're ready to partake or take a shortcut is more painful and arduous but they both lead to Christ's incarnation.

I am theist. But it is just impossible to understand God. The only way to understand it would be through revelation.

>[citation needed]: the post
I mean your rationalizations are nice and all, but they're nowhere to be found in the Bible.

t. someone who read it without cognitive dissonance

But they did die as a result of eating the fruit, not immediately but death along with disease, hunger etc. were introduced as a result of sin being introduced into the world. You're also assuming Adam and Eve weren't becoming what God wanted them to be, if a child asks to drive a car you don't allow them to until theythey're mature because you know they will most surely die, as the bible puts it, and II'd say humanity has assuredly not been mature in the knowledge they were given.

They died as a result of God damning them, not the fruit.

>i'm going to the shop kids, if you touch the stove you will surely die
>kids touch the stove
>come back home and murder them

STRAIGHTFORWARD.

That's why I don't let my 5 year old nephew drive the car. If I hung up my keys near his toy chest and he took it for a joy ride, crashing it into a pole. It's probably my fault more than his.

These aren't my rationalizations, it's Eastern Orthodox theology as well as teachings of early church fathers, you're free not to believe it but if you go sola scriptura all you're gonna end up with is the snake being a Promethean type figure.

They're someone else's rationalizations, but rationalizations nonetheless. I don't care about shit that must be assumed in order to make the Bible work, that don't come from it.

Surely you can admit that it is not as easy for everyone to be good. Some people, through genetics and circumstance, are tempted worse than others. Why couldn't God just make us less genetically prone to temptation?

Without them having the capacity to partake of the fruit they have no possible way of defying God's command and thus no free will.

They died as a result of sin, according to tradition for the rest of their lives they committed no other sins which is why they lived such long lives in the beginning of the bible and subsequent generations lifespans slowly decline as they become more sinful and further away from God. They were forced to leave the perfect garden because they were now imperfect.

>They died as a result of sin
I love how you keep trying to absolve God of responsibility, but it is he that punishes and rewards. So fuck off.

Why did God put the fruit there in the first place?

>the only way to have free will is to be able to fuck up in this specific way
How retarded are your arguments going to get?

God is responsible for driving them out of the garden, but the introduction of death into thecworld rests squarely on Satan and those two.

That doesn't make sense. Didn't people in Noah's time live hundreds of years ? And yet God killed almost all of them for being sinners.

In their innocent state in the garden of Eden partaking of the fruit was the only possible decision they could make of their own free will that would go against God's commandments, without that option their free will would be meaningless

>God is responsible for driving them out of the garden, but the introduction of death into thecworld rests squarely on Satan and those two.
This post is the definition of cognitive dissonance. I'm outta this thread.

But your prior explanation was that they weren't ready to eat the fruit yet. If they were too underdeveloped to wisely make that decision then it shouldn't have been possible for them to make it at all. This is what we do with children. We don't let them get the keys to the car, or their hands on the knife, or their finger in the socket, etc.

>choosing whether to go here or there isn't free will
>it's only free will if the outcome is being BTFO'd by God for no reason
What's even your definition of free will?

They did not have the capacity to exercise their free will that went against what God commanded

The "capacity to exercise" free will is irrelevant. I have a will to fucking destroy god.

>y-y-you can't do that
Then I don't have free will. Fuck off with this nonsense.

If they can't eat of the fruit prior to them reaching maturity then in what sense would they have any agency, they'd simply be waiting until God deemed them worthy to partake and be given it instead of having to resist temptation until the appointed time.

>Christfags treating their fairytales like a legit topic.

I'll tip my fedora, I don't even care. Tired of this cancer on Veeky Forums of all places, ffs.

Have you ever written a story?
If there's no suffering the argument is a bore.

Now, if you are a god and you want to make a good story you need conflict, strife and suffering.

Look at history, got all those ingredients and it's entertaining as fuck.

A perfect world is a boring world.

So if they were simply sitting in the Gadren of Eden in a state of innocence prior to the introduction of sin waiting until God decides to give them the fruit what difference would their decisions make? You may have the capacity to will God's death but they didn't.

Sure, then what said is the answer.

The problem is christcucks are too infantile to accept this.

Veeky Forums isn't your safe space, sorry bud

>You may have the capacity to will God's death but they didn't.
Nice unsubstantiated claim. God existed, so they probably did have that capacity.

> what difference would their decisions make?
What difference do you think your decisions make right now? It is of exactly zero relevance.

Having free will, but no real knowledge, sounds as if they were children. Meaning they need to be protected from certain catastrophic choices that they don't understand.

Choosing to follow God's commandments or not to is pretty relevant when it comes to the bible. I suppose they could've decided to fool around with the animal names if they wanted.

Your probably is meaningless, desiring the destruction of God is a result of sin, something they didn't have. It's obvious you hate God and want him to be a tyrannical bully in order to justify that.

Why did God put the Tree/Fruit in the Garden to begin with? Why did he allow Satan to tempt them? Why did he punish them for an action they didn't fully understand?

They had all the knowledge they needed, that they weren't supposed to eat the fruit and if they did it would lead to their death.

>Choosing to follow God's commandments or not to is pretty relevant when it comes to the bible. I suppose they could've decided to fool around with the animal names if they wanted.
But that isn't free will as you've defined it.

>Your probably is meaningless
About as meaningless as yours, mate. Unless you want to tell me what "meaning" decision between a chicken sandwich and a bacon sandwich contains.

>It's obvious you hate God and want him to be a tyrannical bully in order to justify that.
I don't hate something that doesn't exist, just for the record.

The fruit is good as are all things, they weren't mature enough for it. According to Genesis God was away which Satan took as an opportunity to tempt Eve. The only punishment God gave was driving them from the garden, everything else that is evil which came about is from sin being introduced.

What would "maturity" have granted them then, if all they had to do is wander around the garden like some ants?

God didn't want to create a perfect world. It already exists in heaven. He wanted to create a free and independent natural world. And he destroyed evil at the flood and then made a covenant with Noah never to do so again.

You are free to try and destroy God though.

You're pretty adamant this somethint this something that doesn't exist conform to your image of it.

Without more info the choice between those two sandwiches is meaningless morally. Choosing between loving or hating God and decidingg whether you're going to follow his commandments has meaning because one is sinful and the other is virtuous.

Then the tree of the knowledge of good and evil could've been put outside of the limits of A&E's reach.

>you're free to try to eat from this tree, good luck tho hehe
There you go, I just solved your issue of sin.

>Without more info the choice between those two sandwiches is meaningless morally.
If choosing between sandwiches is not free will, I reject your retarded idea of free will.

When they had reached a "mature" stage they would be free to partake of the fruit of knowledge and use the ability to distinguish between good and evil in a wise manner, thus not introducing sin while still becoming like God (Theosis) which is what Satan initially promised.

>>inb4 free will meme
You don't get to write off arguments by calling them memes. The free will defense is correct, anyway.

Lovely tautology, but you're not explaining what would be different about the scenario.

Choosing between the sandwiches is a choice made of free will, but without more info it isn't a choice that has any bearing on morality. Same as hypothetically Adam could have named cats as dogs and dogs as cats, but it would make no difference.

Oh sorry I misunderstood, following this Christ would've eventually come in the flesh and redeemed the flesh, which would allow them to ascend into heaven.

If choosing the sandwiches is free will, then the "difference" you're talking about is completely irrelevant. Get it through your thick skull.

What does Christ have to do with their "maturity" exactly?

Well the Son is a member of the trinity so presumably he would've helped them reach this mature state. Other than that I don't understood your question.

I'm asking you what you're calling "mature", you inane dipshit.

Guess I'm too thick for your enlightened intelligence but the difference is that the choice between sandwiches is irrelevant to morality while disobeying God's commandments is relevant to morality, I think you just enjoy being angry.

Where does morality enter into free will, cretin?

Ask politely and maybe I'll answer simple questions brother

Fuck off, moran.

I'll pray for your soul user ;)

The point is that man must learn how to pave his own way to heaven.

if you hadn't realized it by now, heaven and the teachings of christ are metaphorical, not literal. But even if you believe that they are literal, what I said still applies.

>There you go, my children, an entire world just for you!
>Just be sure to not do that and that and (...), otherwise I will get really mad and you will suffer in hell for all eternity, okay? Now go enjoy your free will, my beloved ones!

Well, this hypothesis is only true if there is actually a God, but the probability of that hypothesis being right is the same as every other that does not include an Omnipotent god.
But, if he IS omnipotent and did not make the world "good", being good OUR standard of goodness then he simply didn't make the world for us, and we're an accident, just as (almost) every other theory implies.

Children also "know" not to do dangerous things, yet if you left them alone long enough with a guy saying "hey, stick a fork in the power plug, it's actually really cool!" long enough then you know what's going to happen eventually.

Especially if you're a fucking all powerful, omniscient god you insufferable cunt.

I wanted to post this.
But it's already posted
so this.

God defines good and evil, so his free will isn't a problem in this regard.

The answer is that God is evil or neutral, insane or non-existing. Basically all of Christianity is wishful thinking and atheists or gnostics are right about a nature of omnipotent God. There also a possibility of a weak God who just couldn't do work perfectly.

Then you don't believe that God is completely merciful and benevolent? You think that he's in part malevolent?

Malevolent only describes God's relationship toward us, it says nothing about good or evil. It's entirely possible that malevolence toward humanity is the morally right course of action, but we find it convenient to believe faithfully that it isn't.

>It's entirely possible that malevolence toward humanity is the morally right course of action
That's exactly why morals shouldn't be based on religious thinking, just look at this absurd remark.
Also, why would you worship a being that wants harm to befall upon you?

Morally right in relation to what? Tell me then, what is there besides God and humanity? Where's the morality in a God that just decides for himself what's moral and what's immoral, like some sort of dictator?
If "malevolence toward humanity is the morally right course of action" that's because he himself made it so, and that's evil and immoral.

You probably wouldn't want to worship a harmful God, which is probably why most people don't. They take it on faith that we have the nice God, and if we don't what is there to do anyway but submit?

> what is there besides God and humanity
Aliens, they are infinities more moral than us and we are threat to their harmonic society.

>and that's evil and immoral
You just decided that was "evil and immoral" arbitrarily

No, society as a whole has decided what's evil and immoral, and that's what you live for. That's why you don't go to the bible trying to claim that keeping slaves is okay.
Also, God can arbitrarily decide what's "evil and immoral", can't he? Do you have a problem with that too? Or you are afraid of questioning it and going to hell?

Wellll....

Or society is just plain wrong about god's motivation. His motivations, opinions, morality, are almost ceartainly totally alien to ours exactly because of his omnipotence.
Stop thinking abou morality or good and right so anthropocentrically