Possessed said:

Warbler said:

I thinking you are confusing remaining sinless with remaining ignorant.

I believe it was called "The Tree of KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil", not "The Tree of Good and Evil". He wanted us to not even know the difference between what is right and wrong. So we would only be considered sinless because we didn't know any better=ignorant.

I'm no theologian, but I think not wanting us to not know evil is not the kind of ignorance we find a problem with in our now sin-filled world. Per the Bible, we were sinless beings in the beginning. To the extent that something was a sin, God was there to tell people (eg don't eat from that tree). Without the capacity to know sin, the thinking was that we wouldn't commit sin. The fault is in thinking God should not have created such limited beings as us, but rather we should all have been created as angels, aware of Good and Evil from the start. Maybe God wanted to try something different (perhaps seeing how angels could be problematic).

Also, some would say the Garden of Eden can be allegorical. That we were fully capable of knowing evil, but in so knowing, it only leads to more sin.

I've wondered whether someone who has known little sin, having a good stable family, no psychological issues can compare to someone predisposed to alcoholism, with abusive parents, poverty, etc. Is the man exposed to, or more tempted by, sin better or worse for a lack of knowledge concerning sin? Is the man living a charmed life less worthy of saving simply because he hasn't been challenged? After contemplation, I think this is just the wrong way of looking at it. It has been said that all sins are equal. Thus the man who lives a charmed life will sin in at least small ways and must atone no less than the man who commits robbery to fuel an addiction. I don't think ignorance of sin is a problem...else we should all seek out sin in order to fight its temptation. And at times, that is awfully tempting.