[quote]pat wrote:
Pasting a bunch of scripture and using glorious flowery language will not change that fact.
If predestination is true, religion is a complete waste of time. I don’t think I can be more plain than that.
[/quote]
Doesn’t every faith, even every “doctrine”, use scripture to support themselves? Is not scripture used to deny Jesus’ divinity and support racism alike? Every faith “uses” scripture to their own ends.
Maybe religion itself is a complete waste of time.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Because Javier Bardem is awesome? would be my guess ;)[/quote]
I must admit to not knowing who the heck that is.[/quote]
This guy.[/quote]
great movie[/quote]
Yes, it is. Very strange though.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
There was only one commandment at that time and place, don’t eat from the tree in the middle of the garden or even touch it.[/quote]For now we’ll forget the potential controversy over whether God actually told them not to even touch it for now and whether there were commands implicit in Adams placement in the garden “to work it and keep it” and say I essentially agree again. There was only one prohibition. Do not eat from that tree (and maybe do not even touch it).
Eating the literal fruit of that literal tree brought immediate spiritual death and the onset of eventual physical death and damnation (if left as they were) not only to themselves, but EVERY last human being born from them by normal reproduction. Agree or no?[/quote]
What does normal reproduction mean?
[quote]If yes then what’s so serious about eating a piece of fruit? If no please explain. This is what I was getting at. Your original sin answer is not wrong, but wasn’t the point I was looking for. Also I’ll try to be more patient. I should know better. You are not a coward.
[/quote]
What’s so serious about the fruit? I won’t go deep; however, it’s difficult to not go deep on such subjects.
The problem with the fruit is that the fruit is good, but not for them. They had more than enough to live from the one commandment of G-d. They choose the world over the commandment of G-d.
[quote]byukid wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I agree. What actual and specific commandment did they disobey[/quote]
There was only one commandment at that time and place, don’t eat from the tree in the middle of the garden or even touch it.
[/quote]
Genesis 1:28
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Would you consider this a commandment? Just curious.[/quote]
Yes. I maybe wrong here, but the commandment to be fruitful and multiply is the same commandment as don’t eat of the fruit. Life and death. I will look deeper, but this brings up a question for you. How come G-d would command Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiple if they did not have the ability to be fruitful and multiple?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< What does normal reproduction mean? >>><<< What’s so serious about the fruit? I won’t go deep; however, it’s difficult to not go deep on such subjects.
The problem with the fruit is that the fruit is good, but not for them. They had more than enough to live from the one commandment of G-d. They choose the world over the commandment of G-d.[/quote]Normal reproduction means anyone fathered by a descendant of the first man Adam. In other words anyone but Christ (please just leave Mary outta this for now, please? She’s not relevant to this line of dialog I promise. It has nothing to do with her). The point being that Adam’s disobedience brought ruination on all mankind who are henceforth conceived and born in sin in such a way that all would have eternally perished were it not for the incarnation, sacrifice and resurrection of God the Son? Yes or no to precisely that and only that question please? [quote]They choose the world over the commandment of G-d.[/quote]I agree again except I suspect you may be packing some hidden extras in this statement (maybe not). Actually it was that they chose ANYTHING over God? Agreed? They simply disobeyed? God said no, they did it their way? Nothing poisonous or wrong with that fruit in any way, correct? God coulda commanded them not to pick their noses and a finger in the nostril woulda brought the same disastrous result? Agreed? Speaking of which, could you please describe for me the result in your words. Seriously. No need for a doctoral thesis on Hamartiology. Just tell me how you see the result for mankind please?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Normal reproduction means anyone fathered by a descendant of the first man Adam. In other words anyone but Christ (please just leave Mary outta this for now, please? She’s not relevant to this line of dialog I promise. It has nothing to do with her).
[/quote]
I wasn’t thinking about the Virgin Mary, I was thinking about INVITRO (test tube babies, &c.). Lol. Mostly because I had some idiot tell me today that test tube babies don’t have souls.
[quote]The point being that Adam’s disobedience brought ruination on all mankind who are henceforth conceived and born in sin in such a way that all would have eternally perished were it not for the incarnation, sacrifice and resurrection of God the Son? Yes or no to precisely that and only that question please?
[/quote]
Yes. Even Mary, even though she’s sinless. 
I suppose so, but the significance of the fruit giving knowledge of good and evil could have some influence on the answer depending if the result of the fruit was knowledge applied or guilt of conscience.
Result of mankind…um created good (still is good, we’re wretches), but are in a fallen nature.
I’m sure you know I didn’t forget about ya Chris.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]byukid wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I agree. What actual and specific commandment did they disobey[/quote]
There was only one commandment at that time and place, don’t eat from the tree in the middle of the garden or even touch it.
[/quote]
Genesis 1:28
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Would you consider this a commandment? Just curious.[/quote]
Yes. I maybe wrong here, but the commandment to be fruitful and multiply is the same commandment as don’t eat of the fruit. Life and death. I will look deeper, but this brings up a question for you. How come G-d would command Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiple if they did not have the ability to be fruitful and multiple?[/quote]
To be honest, it’s a complex answer, and one that requires some knowledge of Mormon temple ordinances. It also requires a belief in continuing revelation, so it may be hard for others to grasp. PM me and I will elucidate if you’re curious.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
If he hadn’t, none of us would be here.[/quote]
That doesn’t make sense. Can you explain?[/quote]
Some believe that in the Garden, Adam and Eve were immortals and neither death nor birth was possible in that state.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Mormons believe Adam and Eve couldn’t have children until they were cast out of the garden and became mortal. Also, they believe Adam and Eve committed a trasngression, which is different from a sin because they had no knowledge of good and evil until after they ate from the tree. Out of curiosity, do any other Christians believe that?[/quote]
Har, har, har…no. I do not. Transgression against G-d’s law (even if there is only one) is sin. St. Paul writes so in Romans 2:23 & 5:12-20.
[/quote]
Do you recognize greater accountability where greater knowledge exists? Would a child be held to the same level of responsibility as an adult? Is manslaughter identical to premeditated murder, and should the punishment be the same?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Because Javier Bardem is awesome? would be my guess ;)[/quote]
I must admit to not knowing who the heck that is.[/quote]
This guy.[/quote]
Very creepy in that role…good movie.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Because Javier Bardem is awesome? would be my guess ;)[/quote]
I must admit to not knowing who the heck that is.[/quote]
This guy.[/quote]
Very creepy in that role…good movie.[/quote]
I’ve been possibly the biggest fan alive of Cormac McCarthy (the writer of the original novel) for 15 years now, and a damned big fan of the Coen brothers. What they did with that movie is unprecedented. It is probably the only movie I have ever seen that is basically 100% true to the novel. Usually, I’m sure everyone agrees, the book is better than the movie. In this case, the movie WAS the book. It was like watching a video projection of the book itself on the screen. Absolutely incredible.
For comparison, see The Road, which, while well done and pretty well true to the book, was not nearly so “the same” as was No Country. Ironically, The Road is written in a style that sets it up to be pretty well perfectly adapted to movie form. It is nearly like reading a script.
True Grit, especially Hailee Steinfeld, is just wonderful as well. Okay, enough with my hijacking.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Because Javier Bardem is awesome? would be my guess ;)[/quote]
I must admit to not knowing who the heck that is.[/quote]
This guy.[/quote]
Very creepy in that role…good movie.[/quote]
I’ve been possibly the biggest fan alive of Cormac McCarthy (the writer of the original novel) for 15 years now, and a damned big fan of the Coen brothers. What they did with that movie is unprecedented. It is probably the only movie I have ever seen that is basically 100% true to the novel. Usually, I’m sure everyone agrees, the book is better than the movie. In this case, the movie WAS the book. It was like watching a video projection of the book itself on the screen. Absolutely incredible.
For comparison, see The Road, which, while well done and pretty well true to the book, was not nearly so “the same” as was No Country. Ironically, The Road is written in a style that sets it up to be pretty well perfectly adapted to movie form. It is nearly like reading a script. [/quote]
Haven’t read the book, but that’s interesting to know how true the screen adaptation was. And I agree, the Coen brothers rock.
You know what’s funny? I always thought the actor’s name was Anthon Chigurh. Turns out that was the character.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Mormons believe Adam and Eve couldn’t have children until they were cast out of the garden and became mortal. Also, they believe Adam and Eve committed a trasngression, which is different from a sin because they had no knowledge of good and evil until after they ate from the tree. Out of curiosity, do any other Christians believe that?[/quote]
Har, har, har…no. I do not. Transgression against G-d’s law (even if there is only one) is sin. St. Paul writes so in Romans 2:23 & 5:12-20.
[/quote]
Do you recognize greater accountability where greater knowledge exists? Would a child be held to the same level of responsibility as an adult? Is manslaughter identical to premeditated murder, and should the punishment be the same?[/quote]
Yes, I do. However, sin is sin (there is different kinds of sin, but it is still sin). I guess my understanding is different because of my understanding of venial and mortal sin.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
True Grit, especially Hailee Steinfeld, is just wonderful as well. Okay, enough with my hijacking. [/quote]
I still need to see that. I have been meaning to since it came out and I need to buy Gran Torino, so much to do…so much T-Nation.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, I do. However, sin is sin (there is different kinds of sin, but it is still sin). I guess my understanding is different because of my understanding of venial and mortal sin.[/quote]Was Adam’s sin mortal or venial?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:I always just kinda wish they’d eaten of the tree of life first.[/quote]It still would’ve been disobedience though.
[/quote]I don’t remember a prohibition from the tree of life.[/quote]Neither do I Chris. I mean whether before of after eating of the tree of life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was still forbidden. Also, I have no good reason to drink and a dozen good ones not too.
[/quote]
Genisis
22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
Iâ??m not talking about theology here. Iâ??m just noting that in genisis, immortality was available to adam in eve, but they didnâ??t take it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:I always just kinda wish they’d eaten of the tree of life first.[/quote]It still would’ve been disobedience though.
[/quote]I don’t remember a prohibition from the tree of life.[/quote]Neither do I Chris. I mean whether before of after eating of the tree of life, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was still forbidden. Also, I have no good reason to drink and a dozen good ones not too.
[/quote]
Genisis
22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
Iâ??m not talking about theology here. Iâ??m just noting that in genisis, immortality was available to adam in eve, but they didnâ??t take it.[/quote]
Or as some see it, they partook freely of the tree of life while in the garden and thus were immortal, until they were cast out and forbidden from further eating its fruit, thus becoming mortal.