But the Bible says that God's ways are mysterious so there is no reliable way to determine his intent. — Abdul

You answered your own question, we cannot know why god does things.

I guess I did. But I wanted to know if there was an alternate explanation that anyone could propose

Let's ignore the fact that the Bible — Abdul

Why not just ignore the Bible? What do you have, that you would lose if you ignored the Bible?

How do we know the reason God planted the Tree in the garden: was it to serve as a temptation or to give man a choice? — Abdul

I'm more intrigued by the type of tree he had - the tree of knowledge - and his command not to eat from it (presumably meaning to gain insight into good, bad and other things).

It's both right and wrong to forbid someone knowledge of good and bad.

It's wrong because without knowing the difference between good and bad one would be committing a lot of bad deeds.

It's right because without moral knowledge we're innocent, like children and therefore, much much better than adults who're in the know about good and evil.

Did God want to save our innocence or did he want us as dumb pets in his Eden?

Is Heaven a fool's paradise?

The two most reasonable explanations seem to be:
1 - We don't know why God planted the tree, He works in mysterious ways
2 - The story isn't literal, but instead is a metaphor or parable meant to teach us something

Personally I believe 2 is the most likely. Whether or not you believe in God, you can believe that the story of Eden is metaphorical. And what the story of the tree seems to be conveying is similar to something said in the Tao Te Ching:

When the world knows beauty as beauty, ugliness arises
When it knows good as good, evil arises
Thus being and nonbeing produce each other

The moral of the story of the tree in Eden is that good and evil, beauty and ugliness, they cannot exist without each other. They depend on each other. So there cannot be good in the world without evil. There is no escaping this. Maybe we can speculate even further and say that God was trying to tell us that He wants us to be at peace, he wants us to be as Adam and Even in the garden, but he gave us free will, which means He cannot make us be exactly as He wishes, but instead we must struggle on our own between good and evil. We are responsible for ourselves. And this makes life more difficult, but also more significant.

A lot of speculation, I know, and personally I don't even believe the Bible was divinely inspired, but that's just my two cents on what the story might mean.

I'm more intrigued by the type of tree he had — TheMadFool

I'm pretty sure it was an apple tree, on account of it later producing an apple.

I'm pretty sure it was an apple tree, on account of it later producing an apple. — Pseudonym

Not in the Book of Genesis.

I'm more intrigued by the type of tree he had - the tree of knowledge - and his command not to eat from it (presumably meaning to gain insight into good, bad and other things). — TheMadFool

I am interested in what the other trees are other than that; what is it that we can eat? What is the tree of life? There is no inherent meaning in good and evil except for what we create. A belief is imagined; we believe in a nation despite nationalism being imagined and this belief enables us to mobilise and strengthen a network or community because 'knowledge' or our identity is formed by way of mirroring what we desire and othering what we don't. We create evil and then contrast this very creation with good. What would we have if we never created it in the first place?

I think we create evil, but that we are not inherently evil. Love is not borne out of knowledge, neither is it instinctual desire, but it ceases to have any type of characterisation when one no longer measures it to a standard. We assign definitions to intent, label it with moral content that we have created but love is a phenomenon that cannot actually be explained.

That which is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil.

In BoR and the Proverbs, this life is referred to as a woman who produces righteous fruit; she is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her; those who hold her fast are called happy. — TimeLine

What other support do you have other than Proverb 3:18 that the tree is a woman? In reading that proverb, the pronoun "she" references wisdom and then refers to wisdom as a tree. Wisdom (חָכְמָה) referred to in 3:13 (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2803.htm) is a feminine noun, which might explain the feminine pronoun, due simply to the lack of the neuter in Hebrew. Where does it explicitely say the tree is a woman? At most, it says it's female.

EDIT: It's also significant that the author credited with writing Proverbs was Solomon, so it's not clear that Proverbs can be used for determining the meaning of Genesis, a much older text, and one that is attributed by some to have been written by God herself.

There is no inherent meaning in good and evil except for what we create, but is there righteousness — TimeLine

This is no longer textual interpretation, but instead your relativistic view. Good, evil, and righteousness have specific meanings in the biblical context.

That which is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil. — TimeLine

I thought we were trying to determine why God planted the tree, which would require a textual analysis, as opposed to asserting the views of a philosopher not terribly receptive to the divine command theory of the bible.

Not in the Book of Genesis. — TimeLine

No? My mistake, it's just what I was told at Sunday School. I must admit I've never read it, I preferred The Lord of the Rings.

That which is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil. — TimeLine

That's so insightful. Love, beyond good and evil.

The really boring way to understand your statement is All is fair in love and war. I mean moral considerations are demoted to a lesser concern where love is involved.

A better way to understand it is that love is the foundation of all morality and to know it, perhaps feel it, is actually sufficient to make a person good, even without knowledge of good and bad.

God knew that they would fail. Why he should test them? I don't think that the story is a metaphor either. What is the message which in this story cannot be conveyed in literal way?

That's so insightful. Love, beyond good and evil.

The really boring way to understand your statement is All is fair in love and war. I mean moral considerations are demoted to a lesser concern where love is involved. — TheMadFool

Although TL is insightful as well, that statement belongs to Nietzsche.

A better way to understand it is that love is the foundation of all morality and to know it, perhaps feel it, is actually sufficient to make a person good, even without knowledge of good and bad. — TheMadFool

So you’re saying that under Love there is such thing as a universal law of morality ?

How do we know the reason God planted the Tree in the garden: was it to serve as a temptation or to give man a choice? — Abdul

By serving as a temptation, it gave man a choice. Is one obedient to God, or to one's own desires? Does one trust what God says, or further "define" what he meant?

Let's ignore the fact that the Bible states that God is all good, all loving, and all-powerful. Because what does it matter that you describe someone if they cannot live up to your description? — Abdul

The Bible states that God is good, loving, and omnipotent because one is expected to hold God to those standards.

do we know the reason God planted the Tree in the garden — Abdul

In his short book, On Not Leaving It to the Snake, Harvey Cox takes the view that Adam and Eve were meant to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. They were meant to take responsibility for the choice to eat it, however. Instead, they allowed a snake to seduce them into eating the fruit.

The story is about claiming important knowledge, and making that claim honestly and taking personal responsibility for it.

Had Adam and Eve had been more responsible, "had more guts", they would have leapt over the fence, eaten the fruit and would have then gone looking for God to tell him about it, rather than hiding in the bushes.

Very amazing points you have there

So you’re saying that under Love there is such thing as a universal law of morality ? — Abdul

I'm saying LOVE is the foundation of morality. So, if you know/feel love, it's as good as being moral.

Although TL is insightful as well, that statement belongs to Nietzsche. — Hanover

I suspected as much but I still have to thank TimeLine

How do we know the reason God planted the Tree in the garden: was it to serve as a temptation or to give man a choice? — Abdul

Neither.

This

I thought we were trying to determine why God planted the tree, which would require a textual analysis, as opposed to asserting the views of a philosopher not terribly receptive to the divine command theory of the bible. — Hanover

As you correctly pointed out to others, I was referring to Nietzsche who denied any universal morality due to the limitations of our capacity, unless we are able to transcend those in power who drive beliefs. It is the strong who are the drivers of change, including any understanding of morality or of good and evil. This is looking at the psychology of religious belief and so textual interpretation itself is problematic. I also did not mean why God planted the tree, but what the other trees in the Garden of Eden were (other than life and knowledge of good and evil) and why we could eat freely from them.

I grant that you are correct in pointing out my sloppy writing, but perhaps you can enlighten me as to why divine command theory requires any merit in the first place, especially considering the difficulties of interpretation. Kant would likely agree.

What other support do you have other than Proverb 3:18 that the tree is a woman? In reading that proverb, the pronoun "she" references wisdom and then refers to wisdom as a tree. Wisdom (חָכְמָה) referred to in 3:13 (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2803.htm) is a feminine noun, which might explain the feminine pronoun, due simply to the lack of the neuter in Hebrew. Where does it explicitely say the tree is a woman? At most, it says it's female. — Hanover

I realised that it was going to be an issue, hence the reason why I decided to edit it (clearly not fast enough) and I agree that there is no real specificity other than in proverbs (and I more accurately agree with you overall) but I do believe that there are symbolic references that need to be afforded some flexibility in any hermeneutic interpretation. When one is fruitful and multiplies it is symbolic of sexual reproduction, for instance. In the Book of Revelations, the 'New Jerusalem' is symbolic of a woman who is a newly married bride, but she is based on a location (Ezekiel describes this) and it is there that the Tree of Life is referred to as a her. "In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." Rev 22, and when you read it, the "twelve" is the same woman with twelve stars as a crown on her head, the twelve precious stones that is also referred in Isaiah 54 (where the New Jerusalem is weeping but eventually grows strong) and in 2Esdras 9:38 (crying woman who turns into the city of New Jerusalem). The feminine qualities are a language of peace, of producing fruits of righteousness and healing from the hunger of oppression. I think that is quite clear in Proverbs 3:18.

But the Bible says that God's ways are mysterious so there is no reliable way to determine his intent.
— Abdul

You answered your own question, we cannot know why god does things. — Sir2u

And yet... The Bible is a book almost exclusively designed to elucidate God's intent and to exhort his followers to act accordingly.

And yet... The Bible is a book almost exclusively designed to elucidate God's intent and to exhort his followers to act accordingly. — charleton

Yes, it's odd that isn't it? For a book that's supposed (according to numerous other threads) to lead directly to sound moral guidance, it incredible that 2000 years later we're still discussing what the hell any of it actually means.

Some of us remain content to point out its many failings, contradictions, and immoral suggestions in the hope that others now enslaved by the myths it promulgates might be emancipated from its mental slavery..
We live in hope.

And yet... The Bible is a book almost exclusively designed to elucidate God's intent and to exhort his followers to act accordingly. — charleton

I think the key word there is designed. The whole original books of writing have been combined, changed, edited and altered to suit the people that want to use it to control others.
How does a book full of stories, some true, some still unproven and some that are obviously fiction, need the guidance of a god to write?
Many books that have been written contain basically the same content, family histories, mystery, romance, sci-fi. And many of them contain advice and guidance on how to live a good life and give examples of what happens when you do not follow the rules.

Lord of the Rings has more truth when it comes to matters of friendship, loyalty, and duty, than the Bible.

I'd never use the bible for moral guidance, as there are so many more relevant books available. Even though there might be some good advice in the Bible I could never condone any book that supports genocide and the stoning of adulteresses.

As you correctly pointed out to others, I was referring to Nietzsche who denied any universal morality due to the limitations of our capacity, unless we are able to transcend those in power who drive beliefs. It is the strong who are the drivers of change, including any understanding of morality or of good and evil — TimeLine

I would think democracy, to the extent it's truly practiced would ameliorate the oppressiveness and injustice of a master morality. I also don't think that Nietzsche really laid out an ethical theory as much as he simply described what he considered to be the state of things, and I'd like to think it best described how things were more than how they are. The concept of no person being above the law, where even the most powerful are subject to the same rules and as the common man is the ideal. I'm not naïve in thinking that happens, but I do believe that is system we strive for.

But, back on topic. The tree story is central to Christianity. It describes the fall of man and original sin, and posits the depravity of man, leaving a single path to salvation to cleanse one of this sin through Jesus Christ. Original sin is antithetical to Judaism, on the other hand, as it posits that the ethical life is achieved through one freely choosing to live one's life by the biblical commandments, creating no need for salvation and no suggestion of the inherent sinfulness of man and placing the burden on the person's free will. It's for this reason, and many others, that I objected to Agustino's (and others) suggestion that religions were all reducible to the some central common essence. I find them very different in worldview.

I also did not mean why God planted the tree, but what the other trees in the Garden of Eden were (other than life and knowledge of good and evil) and why we could eat freely from them. — TimeLine

I'd assume that the writers of the bible simply recognized that humans alone seemed to live by ethical standards that the lower animals didn't (or primitive peoples didn't appreciate animal social structures), and to have this divine knowledge of what truly was good and evil was something that must have been received by man through some special means. I'm just guessing. What I am pretty sure of though is that Genesis was not written with the thought of the tree representing original sin that could only be cleansed by the son of God thousands of years later.

I grant that you are correct in pointing out my sloppy writing, but perhaps you can enlighten me as to why divine command theory requires any merit in the first place, especially considering the difficulties of interpretation. Kant would likely agree. — TimeLine

Divine command theory deserves consideration because it historically has been and continues to be a primary justification people give for their behaviors. What it likely represents is a recitation of what our ancestors considered to be right and wrong and then it was attributed to the gods to make it holy. As far as this discussion goes, divine command theory is central because it informs us of what constitutes the "good and evil" that is found in the flesh of the fruit of the tree we keep talking about. I don't really think deciphering the commandments laid out in the Bible is all that difficult. It's easier to follow than Kant actually. I think the problem people have with the biblical commandments isn't that they are hard to decipher, but its that they represent an outdated morality that is sometimes hard to make applicable in a modern world.

In the Book of Revelations, the 'New Jerusalem' is symbolic of a woman who is a newly married bride, but she is based on a location (Ezekiel describes this) and it is there that the Tree of Life is referred to as a her. "In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." Rev 22, and when you read it, the "twelve" is the same woman with twelve stars as a crown on her head, the twelve precious stones that is also referred in Isaiah 54 (where the New Jerusalem is weeping but eventually grows strong) and in 2Esdras 9:38 (crying woman who turns into the city of New Jerusalem). The feminine qualities are a language of peace, of producing fruits of righteousness and healing from the hunger of oppression. I think that is quite clear in Proverbs 3:18. — TimeLine

So, they didn't teach the New Testament in the school I attended, and so I never took that rag seriously. It is likely the Greek pronouns work the same way with Greek being a masculine/feminine language like Hebrew, but I don't know. I agree with the basic notion that womanly qualities relate to maternalistic nurturing and manly qualities can relate to paternalistic disciplining and control. But that's not to say that the bible has only positive qualities to say about women: "It is better to live in a desert land than with a contentious and vexing woman." Proverbs 21:19. . וַיֹּאמְרוּ כָל-הַקָּהָל אָמֵן
And the congregation says Amen.

I'd never use the bible for moral guidance, as there are so many more relevant books available. Even though there might be some good advice in the Bible I could never condone any book that supports genocide and the stoning of adulteresses. — charleton

That makes at least two of us. (Y)

So, they didn't teach the New Testament in the school I attended, and so I never took that rag seriously. It is likely the Greek pronouns work the same way with Greek being a masculine/feminine language like Hebrew, but I don't know. I agree with the basic notion that womanly qualities relate to maternalistic nurturing and manly qualities can relate to paternalistic disciplining and control. But that's not to say that the bible has only positive qualities to say about women: "It is better to live in a desert land than with a contentious and vexing woman." Proverbs 21:19. . וַיֹּאמְרוּ כָל-הַקָּהָל אָמֵן — Hanover

I was never taught anything religion and growing up alone, my enthusiasm for biblical exegesis is completely independent, but I usually avoid discussions of such a kind because lacking such bias, it is difficult for those who did grow up with a religion to understand how I interpret the parables and symbols within them; their interpretations are usually legitimised by either dogmatic values or the lack thereof and thus it is more about the institutional practice and less about the subjective quality in the meaning. This would enable more violent aspects to the scriptures to be considered justifiable to practice. I am also not naive to view the bible literally, but I see most of what is in there as stories that attempt to illustrate and reveal moral or political values.

Kant is much easier to understand and why I have my concessions of Divine Command Theory because for most, it is not the scriptures that guide people' behaviour but the cultural and religious institutions that do and it is them that interpret what the scriptures mean, not the individual. If, on the other hand, we are discussing God from a Kantian angle, ultimately our will or our subjective intent matters and that requires autonomy, particularly from such dogmatic influence. While we may have the duty to adhere to moral laws in similar vein, it is ultimately us that need to do this and not a system. I agree, however, that reaching this transcendence is not a simple endeavour and as such these institutions are a necessary evil, and I say evil because it is static and does not provide the manoeuvrability that will allow people to find their own way and instead enforce the contrary. It brings me to mind of the island escape in Brave New World.

As for the latter part of your idea, there is a schism of this feminine in both Proverbs and the Book of Revelations, which I think serves as a warning for the desire that compels one to become wayward from moral virtue. Proverbs is about avoiding this immorality: "My son, give attention to my wisdom, incline your ear to my understanding; that you may observe discretion and your lips may reserve knowledge. For the lips of an adulteress drip honey, and smoother than oil is her speech; but in the end she is bitter as wormwood" and "Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies." The whore of Babylon, for instance, is such a woman (drinking the blood of prophets which is figurative of rejecting the wisdom that the prophets died for) and controls the 'beast' just like how Jezebel controls the King; this Jezebel type woman is one such woman that causes the 'lamb' (symbolic of a good man) to go astray and become a beast. The success of her destruction and the lamb' marriage to the Bride is symbolic of the triumph of virtue: "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints," to say she is a righteous woman, i.e. Jerusalem is a righteous city.

Lord of the Rings has more truth when it comes to matters of friendship, loyalty, and duty, than the Bible. — charleton

(Y)

Luke Skywalker > Jesus Christ.

Where do you think they got their ideas from?