Considering the fact that God is almighty, perfect,most-loving and omniscient,why did God put the fruit of knowledge(good and bad) in Eden?

Considering the fact that God can do all things and wiser than all things,why didn't God just kill Lucifer instead of killing his only son and allowing this long almost unrealistic (if not fully unrealistic) process to mankind salvation?

Considering the fact that the universe is almost infinite,why was Lucifer cast to earth(home of man) when they could have literally shot him anywhere(maybe the sun) in the galaxy away from mankind?

Considering the fact that earth and everything in it is worthless (vanity) and one can't commit sin in heaven,why does human action on earth determines if he/she is worthy of heaven?

here to read comments and learn.

Why ask why?

The accusation Satan leveled against God cannot be settled by the show of force.

If a tyrant student challenged you as a teacher that the method you use in solving a Further math is ineffective (which you know is the only way). He even claimed to have a better way of solving it.

What would you do to this student?...

Sent him out or asked him to prove his method?

The answer is Christian doctrine is nothing but an attempt to reconcile Jewish mythology to the cult built around a 1st century rabbi. Paul and Augustine are responsible for everything you believe based on Judaism and Plato’s philosophy, specifically the “theory of forms”

e.g.
Paul to Augustine Edit

Michelangelo's painting of the sin of Adam and Eve from the Sistine Chapel ceiling
The doctrine of ancestral fault (προγονικὸν ἁμάρτημα progonikon hamartema), i.e. the sins of the forefathers leading to punishment of their descendants, was presented as a tradition of immemorial antiquity in ancient Greek religion by Celsus in his True Doctrine, a polemic attacking Christianity. Celsus is quoted as attributing to "a priest of Apollo or of Zeus" the saying that "the mills of the gods grind slowly, even to children's children, and to those who are born after them".[17] The idea of divine justice taking the form of collective punishment is also ubiquitous in the Hebrew Bible.[18]

St Paul's idea of redemption hinged upon the contrast between the sin of Adam and the death and resurrection of Jesus. "Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned."[Romans 5:12] "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."[1 Cor 15:22] Up till then the transgression in the Garden of Eden had not been given great significance. According to the Jesus scholar Geza Vermes:

Paul believed that Adam's transgression in a mysterious way affected the nature of the human race. The primeval sin, a Pauline creation with no biblical or post-biblical Jewish precedent, was irreparable by ordinary human effort.[19]

Augustine claimed that the doctrine of original sin was first taught by Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyon, in his struggle against Gnosticism.[5] Irenaeus contrasted their doctrine with the view that the Fall was a step in the wrong direction by Adam, with whom, Irenaeus believed, his descendants had some solidarity or identity.[20] However, Irenaeus did not believe that Adam's sin was as severe as later tradition would hold, and he was not wholly clear about its consequences.[21] While the belief that all human beings participate in Adam's sin and share his guilt are not totally foreign concepts for Irenaeus, still his doctrine of Original Sin is rather mild compared with what would later be found in the writings of Augustine. One recurring theme in Irenaeus is his view that Adam, in his transgression, is essentially a child who merely partook of the tree ahead of his time.[22] For Irenaeus, knowing good and evil was an integral aspect of human nature; the "sin" of Adam was snatching at the fruit of the tree rather than waiting for it as a gift from God.[23]

Other Greek Fathers would come to emphasize the cosmic dimension of the Fall, namely that since Adam human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.[5] They thus did not teach that human beings are deprived of free will and involved in total depravity, which is one understanding of original sin among the leaders of the Reformation.[24][25] During this period the doctrines of human depravity and the inherently sinful nature of human flesh were taught by Gnostics, and orthodox Christian writers took great pains to counter them.[26][27] Christian apologists insisted that God's future judgment of humanity implied humanity must have the ability to live righteously.[28][29]

Historian Robin Lane Fox argues that the foundation of the doctrine of original sin as accepted by the Church was ultimately based on a mistranslation of Paul the Apostle's Epistle to the Romans (Romans 5:12–21) by Augustine, in his On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin.[30] However, while it is true that the Latin rendering of Rom. 5:12d 'in quo omnes peccaverunt' is a mistranslation, many contemporary exegetes argue that this does not show that Paul had no notion of Original Sin, especially in light of verses 18 and 19 of the same chapter. Rom. 5:12–21, it is argued, must be taken as a whole; the case for Original Sin in Paul must not rest on a single clause in v. 12.[31]

Apocryphal books Edit
The original sin doctrine can be found in the fourth Book of Esdras, which refers to Adam being responsible for the fall of man whose offspring inherited the disease and evil.

O Adam, what have you done? For though it was you who sinned, the fall was not yours alone, but ours also who are your descendants.[2 Esdras 7:118]
For the first Adam, burdened with an evil heart, transgressed and was overcome, as were also all who were descended from him. Thus the disease became permanent; the law was in the hearts of the people along with the evil root; but what was good departed, and the evil remained.[2 Esdras 3:21–22]
For a grain of evil seed was sown in Adam’s heart from the beginning, and how much ungodliness it has produced until now and will produce until the time of threshing comes![2 Esdras 4:30]
Augustine Edit

Augustine of Hippo wrote that original sin is transmitted by concupiscence and enfeebles freedom of the will without destroying it.[5]
Augustine of Hippo (354–430) taught that Adam's sin[32] is transmitted by concupiscence, or "hurtful desire",[33][34] resulting in humanity becoming a massa damnata (mass of perdition, condemned crowd), with much enfeebled, though not destroyed, freedom of will.[5] When Adam sinned, human nature was thenceforth transformed. Adam and Eve, via sexual reproduction, recreated human nature. Their descendants now live in sin, in the form of concupiscence, a term Augustine used in a metaphysical, not a psychological sense.[35] Augustine insisted that concupiscence was not a being but a bad quality, the privation of good or a wound.[36] He admitted that sexual concupiscence (libido) might have been present in the perfect human nature in paradise, and that only later it became disobedient to human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin.[37] In Augustine's view (termed "Realism", all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit. Justo Gonzalez interprets Augustine's teaching: humans are utterly depraved in nature and grace is irresistible, results in conversion, and leads to perseverance.[38] Although earlier Christian authors taught the elements of physical death, moral weakness, and a sin propensity within original sin, Augustine was the first to add the concept of inherited guilt (reatus) from Adam whereby an infant was eternally damned at birth. Augustine held the traditional view that free will was weakened but not destroyed by original sin until he converted in 412 CE to the Stoic view that humanity had no free will except to sin as a result of his anti-Pelagian view of infant baptism.[39]



Augustine articulated his explanation in reaction to his understanding of Pelagianism that would insist that humans have of themselves, without the necessary help of God's grace, the ability to lead a morally good life, thus denying both the importance of baptism and the teaching that God is the giver of all that is good. According to this understanding, the influence of Adam on other humans was merely that of bad example. Augustine held that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants not by example but by the very fact of generation from that ancestor. A wounded nature comes to the soul and body of the new person from his/her parents, who experience libido (or concupiscence). Augustine's view was that human procreation was the way the transmission was being effected. He did not blame, however, the sexual passion itself, but the spiritual concupiscence present in human nature, soul and body, even after baptismal regeneration.[40] Christian parents transmit their wounded nature to children, because they give them birth, not the "re-birth".[41] Augustine used Ciceronian Stoic concept of passions, to interpret St. Paul's doctrine of universal sin and redemption. In that view, also sexual desire itself as well as other bodily passions were consequence of the original sin, in which pure affections were wounded by vice and became disobedient to human reason and will. As long as they carry a threat to the dominion of reason over the soul they constitute moral evil, but since they do not presuppose consent, one cannot call them sins. Humanity will be liberated from passions, and pure affections will be restored only when all sin has been washed away and ended, that is in the resurrection of the dead.[42][43]

Augustine believed that unbaptized infants go to hell as a consequence of original sin.[44][45] The Latin Church Fathers who followed Augustine adopted his position, which became a point of reference for Latin theologians in the Middle Ages.[46] In the later medieval period, some theologians continued to hold Augustine's view. Others held that unbaptized infants suffered no pain at all: unaware of being deprived of the beatific vision, they enjoyed a state of natural, not supernatural happiness. Starting around 1300, unbaptized infants were often said to inhabit the "limbo of infants".[47] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261 declares: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say, 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them',[48] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." But the theory of Limbo, while it "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium ... remains ... a possible theological hypothesis".[49]

55]

Church reaction Edit
Opposition to Augustine's ideas about original sin, which he had developed in reaction to Pelagianism, arose rapidly.[56] After a long and bitter struggle several councils, especially the Second Council of Orange in 529, confirmed the general principles of Augustine's teaching within Western Christianity.[5] However, while the western Church condemned Pelagius, it did not endorse Augustine entirely[citation needed] and, while Augustine's authority was accepted, he was interpreted in the light of writers such as Cassian.[57] Some of the followers of Augustine identified original sin with concupiscence[58] in the psychological sense, but Saint Anselm of Canterbury challenged this identification in the 11th-century, defining original sin as "privation of the righteousness that every man ought to possess", thus separating it from concupiscence. In the 12th century the identification of original sin with concupiscence was supported by Peter Lombard and others,[5] but was rejected by the leading theologians in the next century, most notably by Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas distinguished the supernatural gifts of Adam before the fall from what was merely natural, and said that it was the former that were lost, privileges that enabled man to keep his inferior powers in submission to reason and directed to his supernatural end. Even after the fall, man thus kept his natural abilities of reason, will and passions. Rigorous Augustine-inspired views persisted among the Franciscans, though the most prominent Franciscan theologians, such as Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, eliminated the element of concupiscence and identified original sin with the loss of sanctifying grace.

Eastern Orthodox theology has questioned Western Christianity's ideas on original sin from the outset and does not promote the idea of inherited guilt.[59]

Ketamine9000mg:
Considering the fact that God is almighty, perfect,most-loving and omniscient,why did God put the fruit of knowledge(good and bad) in Eden?

Because when a Builder builds a House, He Builds the House to His Pleasure putting all manners of things that please Him.

His House, His Pleasure, His Dictate, His Rule.

Any who does not like it should go make his own house.

Ketamine9000mgpost=94697948:

Considering the fact that God can do all things and wiser than all things,why didn't God just kill Lucifer instead of killing his only son and allowing this long almost unrealistic (if not fully unrealistic) process to mankind salvation

He Won't Be Most Wise and Certainly More wiser than You, if you can figure out His Plan, which I would not say.

I am sure you have not heard that it is Written "It is the Glory of God to Hide a thing".

Ketamine9000mgpost=94697948:

Considering the fact that the universe is almost infinite,why was Lucifer cast to earth(home of man) when they could have literally shot him anywhere(maybe the sun) in the galaxy away from mankind?

Because God was putting Satan to shame by telling him that "See, how you bring shame on yourself? Everywhere you go, you loose!"

But Adameve, Spoilt His Winning Streak (hence the Mighty Judgement AdamEve got) and surrendered his city (earth) to Satan.

Ketamine9000mgpost=94697948:

Considering the fact that earth and everything in it is worthless (vanity) and one can't commit sin in heaven,why does human action on earth determines if he/she is worthy of heaven

Heaven and Earth are Conjoined twins, who could not do without each other and WERE PERFECT, until...

If I spit into your drinking water would you drink it? Certainly not!

Why? Because my Spit has corrupted ALL THE WATER.

So was it also with earth. As soon as earth was allowed to be corrupted by Satan by AdamEve, WHILE YOU CAN NOT STOP MY SPIT FROM CORRUPTING ALL YOUR DRINKING WATER, GOD CAN.

And God therefore Confined and Contained (Quarantined) the Corruption to the Earth Alone.

And since man is both heaven and earth, God made a Way That man Should Abandon the Earth and live in heaven, so that He can Take out The Corrupt Container, Just as we Remove Our Corrupted Hard Disk's from our Devices After Containment of All Viruses!

Martian:
The answer...

Blablabla, See Catholic Textbook, yet you went nothing near the questions.

Why are you begging the question na (not the textbooks fallacy concept of their own rubbish "begging the question", which should actually beg the question or be seen to be begging the question, but it does not)

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to the YHVH our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.

Just accept what has been revealed.

Repent, turn away from evil and turn to the Word of life, Yahushua the Messiah, the begotten Son and Word of Yahveh Almighty, the Father in heaven. Obey his Commandments, his Ten Commandments, which constitute his Word.

Even Though I Don't Comments On Topics Like Dis. I Just Want To Do So But I Know Why. It's A Long Story But I Will Try To Make It Short. U See, Satan & His Cohorts Were D 1st People To Sin Against God. And What Was Dis Sin. REBELLION. Isaiah14 Read Down. Dey Wanted To Overthrow God. U Know What It Means When Ur Subjects Wants To Overthrow U. So God Has To Stop Dat. According To Revelation, There Was War In Heaven & Satan & His Cohorts Where Defeated & Thrown Down. So Satan & His Cohorts Lost Their Place In Heaven, Of Which Dey Were Not Happy Abt Cuz, Dey Knew What Dey Av Missed. And God Had Already Prepare Judgment Or Punishment 4 Dem, Dat Was B4 God Created Adam & Eve. After God Created Adam & Eve. Dey Sorted Away To Make Adam & Eve Partake In D Punishment God Prepared 4 Dem By Making Dem To Sin So Dat Dey Too Would Partake In D Judgment God Prepared Against Dem. Dat's Why D Bible Called Satan D Accuser Of D Brethen. After Dey Succeed To Make Man Fall. God Sort A Way Of Redemption. Why? If Satan & His Cohorts Would Be Punished 4 Sin, Den Adam & Even Would Be Punished Too. Dat Was How D Death & Ressurection Of Christ Came Abt 4 D Redemption Of Man So Dat Man Won't Partake In D Judgment Or Punishment Awaiting Dem.

Dtruthspeaker:


Blablabla, See Catholic Textbook, yet you went nothing near the questions.

Why are you begging the question na (not the textbooks fallacy concept of their own rubbish "begging the question", which should actually beg the question or be seen to be begging the question, but it does not)

The answer is whatever you want it to be. The “catholic textbook” shows you how people come up with doctrine. So any answer you want will suffice.
It’s all mythology anyway, so the answer to the question of why Yahweh didn’t kill Lucifer could be due to the rules of the tripartite rivalry between Marduk, Zeus, and Yahweh, where each god is forbidden from killing the others’ agents. Since Lucifer is really an agent of Marduk and therefore untouchable, Yahweh had to sacrifice is own son to rectify the damage caused by the two naked simpletons who ate the fruit.

I got my answer from the Book of Bel and the Dragon. Chapter 3:16

Martian:


The answer is whatever you want it to be. The “catholic textbook” shows you how people come up with doctrine. So any answer you want will suffice.
It’s all mythology anyway, so the answer to the question of why Yahweh didn’t kill Lucifer could be due to the rules of the tripartite rivalry between Marduk, Zeus, and Yahweh, where each god is forbidden from killing the others’ agents. Since Lucifer is really an agent of Marduk and therefore untouchable, Yahweh had to sacrifice is own son to rectify the damage caused by the two naked simpletons who ate the fruit.

I got my answer from the Book of Bel and the Dragon. Chapter 3:16

Yeah I know. At a buffet, Different types of food shall be presented.